Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GrilledSpamSteaks t1_j8l1zph wrote

The entire country is in housing crisis. Until companies (who spent billions overpaying for properties in 2019-2020) start off loading these properties at a loss for a tax dodge, the value of homes will stay high. Thanks to the Trump tax cuts, corporations aren’t looking for extensive tax dodges as simple stuff already puts them in a advantageous position.

An internet company offered every home owner around us almost 60% above market value for our homes. 3 people accepted and moved. Their acceptance raised the value of our homes even though there were not major improvements to justify those costs. Until those houses sell at a loss, or are abandoned, or legislation changes current laws, we have to wait for an 80% devaluation of market value to be reassessed.

In short, capitalism boned us and doesn’t look to be reaching around anytime soon.

87

[deleted] t1_j8me2yg wrote

And a lot if those same people who move here will use Act 250 any any other permitting roadblocks at their disposal to keep anyone else from building a new home around them as well. I cannot tell you how many times I have witnessed a wealthy person buy up a portion of a farm to build their McMansion and then turn around and sue the same farmer for trying build another smaller house nearby for a family member working that same farm.

14

KingKababa t1_j8nhfr6 wrote

How do they throw act 250 at them? I thought the property would already have to be subject to act 250 for it to take effect?

3

[deleted] t1_j8nneab wrote

Just because one lot in an area gets approved, does not mean a nearby property meets the same requirements: One property vs. another in the same area may be closer to wetland buffers, river corridors; it might be at a different elevation and lay partially within a floodplain or near a protected watershed or animal habitat... I have even seen development stopped because the new development would block the view of the landscape beyond from existing homes. I have even seen lawsuits where the purchaser of land from a farm sued the farmer afterwards because of the smell of the manure was too unpleasant for them. (As if they didn't know that would be a consideration before they built there!)

2

KingKababa t1_j8s4ija wrote

Damn, that's real shitty (hah). Thanks for the explanation!

3

SabbathBoiseSabbath t1_j8rpxhn wrote

You're just throwing shit at a wall at this point. People can file lawsuits over anything they want, and unless you somehow completely revamp the judicial system in this country, there's nothing you can do to stop them. You hope that if their case is BS it gets thrown out early by a motion to dismiss or eventually on summary judgment, and that the court awards sanctions or fees, but that still requires a defendant to litigate

1

Kiernanstrat t1_j8riepk wrote

I know you said you cannot but could you tell me how many times that actually happened?

2

idreamofchickpea t1_j8l4l3x wrote

What is the internet company doing with the homes? +60% is insane.

7

GrilledSpamSteaks t1_j8l5cgq wrote

https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/1/22758176/zillow-offers-ibuyer-housing-market-inventory-investors-real-estate

No idea what they plan to do. The 3 they bought in my neighborhood are still empty. We’re expecting the CLA to drop next year since it will finally drop beyond the range of that company’s weird offers, so maybe regional property values will start dropping then.

17

idreamofchickpea t1_j8lahkx wrote

Weird that they’re not even renting them out, that would have been my guess. Also weird that no one seems quite sure who is buying up all these houses and why. Who is making all-cash offers all of a sudden if not institutional investors? Thanks for the links.

4

suzi-r t1_j8lo0y4 wrote

Some say hedge funds. Some in my area are empty, too. We need our communities back!

12

idreamofchickpea t1_j8lp39n wrote

Hedge funds, private equity, investment banks - why all the mystery? Rhetorical, I just wish government gave a single shit about anything other than their endless fundraising.

14

suzi-r t1_j8lq3h8 wrote

Yeah, it’s all about the almighty dollar. Can’t wait till the pendulum swings back to better values and strong community for all.

1

Pctechguy2003 t1_j8ooyxv wrote

So wait.. as in the house is used simply as a line on an asset page - without generating income? Its one thing to own a $250K house rented at $1500 a month and say “thats a 250K asset producing $1500 a month…” its another thing to buy that same house and say “its a $300K asset” - and let it set empty. Sounds great on paper. But at some point these houses need to get off loaded to produce cash somehow. If nothing else when the boomers die off there will be a housing surplus - one that ‘buying a shit ton of empty houses to inflate prices’ will not be able to fix. If you only have a population of 275 million, but 500 million homes in the country…. Something doesn’t add up.

Sounds like we found ourselves the next Ponzi scheme if thats the case.

0

ArkeryStarkery t1_j8n98k1 wrote

It's an investment, just like stocks. A place to park money owned by people who have too much. Except unlike stocks, people who hoard real estate are complicit in an active and ongoing murder of the homeless.

4

idreamofchickpea t1_j8nd4a6 wrote

So they function as tax shelters while the investors wait to sell at a profit?

5

ArkeryStarkery t1_j8pq9jp wrote

Pretty much! Best thing we can do is tax the fuck out of fully unoccupied homes, imo.

5

RandolphCarter15 t1_j8nun8t wrote

I know out of state people who were thinking of buying up houses as investments, and explained to them how obnoxious that was

0

idreamofchickpea t1_j8nvc87 wrote

Were they planning to be landlords or wait to sell for more money later? Just curious.

−1

RandolphCarter15 t1_j8nvh2v wrote

The latter. Basically buying them as stocks to sell when value went up. I'd be all for buying houses to rent out

4

WhileTrueIQ-- t1_j8n7hzs wrote

Don’t you think this issue is particularly acute in Vermont? And it seems pretty obvious that there are other reasons at play, many of which are pointed out in the article. I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment at all, but shadowy hedge funds are not the only villain here.

5

GrilledSpamSteaks t1_j8neefu wrote

I think housing is a problem everywhere. I also think the author focuses on the Burlington area appears to hope you won’t bother following the links in their story.

For instance: “That’s why Vermont now was the most expensive in-state college tuition of all 50 states, at more than $30,000 per year.” has a link in the middle of the sentence. Follow the link and the top of the page says: “Vermont has the highest average yearly in-state tuition of $17,083 at public institutions.” Scroll to Vermont section of that page and you get “The total cost of attendance at an average public 4-year institution is $29,665 for in-state students.”

I followed the one link chosen at random and it showed the author was in error about the numbers. That says the rest of the data in the article is suspect which means their conclusions are, at best, based in bad data. I also think they drifted all over the place rather than making a case about housing.

7

Trajikbpm t1_j8nf5yd wrote

Vermont is not special in these ways and actually a lot of what people cry about on this reddit statistics show we aren't even the worse by far. Doesn't mean it's not bad tho...

3

Vermonter_Here t1_j8nvquz wrote

It literally is special, though. Vermont has the highest per-capita number of people attempting to purchase property of any state. Source.

Per the source, it isn't even close. We're 10 full percentage points higher than the runner-up (Oregon).

The housing crisis is impacting the entire country, and yet it is measurably impacting Vermont worse than any other state. Anecdotally, my wife and I experienced this first hand. We attempted to buy a house last year, having saved up a healthy sum for a down payment, and receiving full pre-approval for a loan that put most homes on the market in reach. Unfortunately, the very fact that we needed a loan was essentially disqualifying. Vermont's market is currently so over-saturated, that every single home received a cash offer, and the cash always won instead of financing.

3

Trajikbpm t1_j8nwrvm wrote

That article was posted awhile back and its useless. It ls based on people using a moving company. I'm not denying people are rushing here in droves but Here's another

5

Vermonter_Here t1_j8nzlqq wrote

The one you linked used absolute number of people, not people per capita. The result is that it's essentially a list of states according to their population size, split into states with net population loss and gain. That's why the top four "loss" states are 4/6 of the largest-population states, and the top two "gain" states are the remaining 2/6.

The article I linked is one month old, and is an analysis of the entire previous year. It also normalizes the data per-capita, rather than just giving absolute numbers.

0

Vermontess t1_j8r34uj wrote

The source you cited also ranks VT as the 30th in the nation by uhaul movers. Its garbage data as stated elsewhere.

https://vermontbiz.com/news/2023/january/04/vermont-falls-30th-u-haul-rank-moving-destinations

2

Vermonter_Here t1_j96nooc wrote

I've seen that study, too. As the article mentions, it's possible the discrepancy is a result of demographics--i.e., people who can't afford to hire movers are more likely to rent a uhaul, which means the uhaul data will be weighted more heavily in favor of states that people with less money are likely to move to.

Unfortunately, all this data is proprietary, either owned by uhaul, or united van lines. I'm not aware of any independent researchers gathering broad, normalized market data on this. I'd be very interested to see it, if it's out there.

1

Trajikbpm t1_j8nx0t1 wrote

But no doubt there's a problem a big one

0