Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

huskers2468 t1_jee5pp4 wrote

Reply to comment by ChocolateDiligent in Proof that capitalism won’t solve the affordable housing crisis. by No-Ganache7168

I agree that as of late, STRs have become a higher percentage than typical, but I disagree that it's malicious in an area that was built with second homes and "vacation rentals." The houses were propose built and expanded for that market for 50+ years; this is not a new phenomenon for a ski town.

1

ChocolateDiligent t1_jee69g4 wrote

Sure, but people still gotta live somewhere, especially those who work in those areas. What you are describing is gentrification. Just because the town was built as a resort area doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism and good housing regulation.

5

huskers2468 t1_jee70ml wrote

>What you are describing is gentrification.

You are describing gentrification, and you are calling it malicious. I'm just stating the town was built up for many decades as a vacation destination, many of which were initially purpose built as second homes/vacation rentals, not displacing the locals. A fair few of locals typically profited on their homes through the years.

>Just because the town was built as a resort area doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism and good housing regulation.

No, it just makes it the focus of the criticism. Waterbury Center would be a great place to expand housing, but you don't see multiple articles on that. Everyone just focuses on the town with the resort.

1

ChocolateDiligent t1_jee7ya3 wrote

A fair few who could afford to live there in the first place, that doesn’t equate to affordable. Its like saying stock holders of a company profited because the saw their stocks rise and sold when the time was right. Well if you can’t afford to buy stock in the first place it’s a moot point in the larger discussion of affordability. Stowe is the closest thing Vermont has to a gated community, its cool if you want to defend this, I’m just not going to.

3

huskers2468 t1_jeeacl3 wrote

>its cool if you want to defend this, I’m just not going to.

Yeah. I get that. You are doing the exact opposite. You are calling them malicious, a gate community, and soloing them out.

>Well if you can’t afford to buy stock in the first place it’s a moot point in the larger discussion of affordability.

Who says that every stock needs to be affordable? I can't afford Berkshire Hathaway, should I call that company malicious for not dividing their stock to my level of affordability?

You are attacking one town, that frankly doesn't have the infrastructure to support a massive increase in size. In another comment I pointed out that Waterbury center is a much better candidate for expansion with the infrastructure already in place. However, everyone only wants to focus on the ski town with the resort.

2

ChocolateDiligent t1_jeecps2 wrote

The stock analogy, is what most people subscribe to when it comes to housing, which in my opinion is sinply wrong. The main difference is that housing is an essential human right, stocks are not.

Stowe was brought up in discussion, hence the ‘soloing’ them out. This is a larger systemic issue and many other towns are challenged with the same issue, to that read, we need to fix the larger problem. But it seems your solution is a NIMBY approach, which is telling about where you land in the social economic spectrum or you are merely a hopeful projecting this life. Gotta work today, so back to the salt mine for me, truly insightful conversation though!

2

huskers2468 t1_jef0ckg wrote

I wouldn't necessarily state it's NIMBY, as I agreed they some housing needs to be built to accommodate the increasing workforce of the area, I just believe that there is a better spot for the majority of the housing.

Imo NIMBY would be to refuse the optimal location for the housing just to not have it in your area. I don't agree that it's optimal in a crowded tourist town that doesn't have proper traffic flow, a large grocery store, or other needed items.

Have a great Friday! Good talk.

0