Whop-Dangle t1_jdfpphb wrote
Brave Little State recently did a great piece on VT AirBnB’s that everyone should read. Basically, AirBnB’s only account for 3% of VT’s available housing while 2nd family vacation homes take up 17% of all available housing. The biggest communities affected in VT are near ski resorts, which is no surprise. The real culprit in VT is that building is not keeping up with demand, and act 250 might be the biggest culprit: https://www.vermontpublic.org/podcast/brave-little-state/2023-03-09/how-many-airbnbs-are-taking-away-from-vermonters-its-complicated
DaddyBobMN t1_jdfqw4z wrote
The few folks who have been saying this keep getting shouted down by the frothy-mouthed masses.
Folks gonna believe whatever makes it easier to support their viewpoint and direct their anger.
[deleted] t1_jdi4ah0 wrote
[deleted]
therealrico t1_jdg3pnm wrote
As I a former host I was always skeptical of Airbnb impact on the city. There is no doubt it didn’t help, but I think it’s impact was far overstated. The inability to build enough housing to keep up demand has been a problem far earlier than 2012 when Airbnb really started to grow in the area. I recall seeing an old news clipping from the 80’s when Bernie was the mayor complaining about a lack of affordable housing.
dillydally85 t1_jdhfvf2 wrote
UVM not providing housing is definitely the biggest problem with the rental market in Burlington. But at it's peek there were 300+ Airbnb listings in Burlington (To be fair that number has dropped dramatically in the last couple years) That's a huge number of unavailable mostly lower cost apartments. Imagine a 300 unit complex being built somewhere in the old north end. That would be a TON of housing.
therealrico t1_jdi1jd4 wrote
So here’s the problem with that 300, what does that mean? Is it entire homes? Private rooms? Total combined listings? Are these owner occupied or dedicated Airbnb listings? Why is this important? I’ll use my old listings as an example.
I created 4 separate listings for my house. 1 listing was to rent the entire home, and usually I’d go stay with my parents. The other 3 were private room rentals. Now the way I did it I don’t think it is common, but if there were other hosts doing it, that can potentially skew the numbers. Also in my house case, me stopping doesn’t necessarily result in increase of housing as I’m not renting out the rooms to long term tenants.
I also think owner occupied examples such as my own are a net gain for the city. There isn’t enough hotel rooms , and a ton of people are priced out regardless. Having cheaper options means more people can visit, equals more money. I collected rooms and meals tax and paid the city, the money I earned stays here versus the Hilton or other large chains. The people will also spend the money at local businesses.
I also for two years rented out a studio and put it on Airbnb. In that case I agree it shouldn’t be allowed. That is a text book reason that contributes in a negative way to the housing shortage.
So I believe Airbnb can be a good thing, but also agree it should be regulated in an intelligent way.
I will also add, I considered buying properties for Airbnb and I couldn’t make the numbers work in a way I thought was worth it. And this was back in 2015, when prices were high but not stupidly high. If anyone purchased around here for the sole reason to Airbnb, I bet they aren’t making as much of a profit as they thought they would.
Manchves t1_jdh5kyb wrote
We wanted to build on land we owned 5 years ago. Market was all out of whack with construction costs and it made building impossible as a house that would cost 325k to build would only be worth 200k. Bank would only give a loan on what the house would be worth, so the other 125k would need to be cash in addition to the down payment. Not sure how it is now but back then unless you had a truck full of cash to just throw into a fire, you couldn’t build in our area.
Mother_Willow1095 t1_jdfvvh7 wrote
Im curious what percent of vacant homes are owned by investors and being warehoused to build a supply crunch to keep prices high.
FourteenthCylon t1_jdg1pu3 wrote
Virtually none. Property taxes and upkeep guarantee that that's a losing strategy in the long term. Despite the covid-era spikes in real estate prices, house prices here aren't going up fast enough to justify buying houses and keeping them empty in the hopes of selling them for a profit later. Empty houses here are empty because their owners only live in them for two months a year, or because they're in bad condition and are more or less abandoned.
Back in 2005 people in some real estate markets like Arizona and Florida were buying houses and keeping them empty because prices were skyrocketing, they knew they could sell the house in a year for a big profit and the good times were going to last forever. Of course, once the bubble popped in 2006-2008 they all got caught by the recession and those empty houses got foreclosed on. The market conditions and easy financing that made that kind of speculation possible haven't been repeated yet.
hjd-1 t1_jdfwqe9 wrote
VT is nowhere near big enough for that strategy to work for anyone. You’re thinking cities as big as our state where this happens.
Mother_Willow1095 t1_jdgwh87 wrote
Yeah true. I read something recently on manhattan landlords doings this. For that reason and so they dont have to fix the rent controlled units in buildings
06EXTN t1_jdfyehq wrote
>act 250 might be the biggest culprit
no shit sherlock. I'm all for no billboards but A250 is a dinosaur that needs extinction in place of new legislation that is more up to date with the times. It was passed in 19 fricking 70 for crying out loud.
EscapedAlcatraz t1_jdh5mwb wrote
And it has kept Vermont from looking like New Jersey. Mission accomplished.
ejjsjejsj t1_jdjcjav wrote
The fact there's well under a million people in this whole state is why it doesn't look like NJ
EscapedAlcatraz t1_jdjdeb7 wrote
If there were lots of high, paying jobs, housing was inexpensive and the weather delightful there would be hordes of people here. The lack of these three factors has kept things largely the way they are with people here willing to make the financial and lifestyle sacrifices that living here requires.
ejjsjejsj t1_jdrlmnv wrote
Ya those things you named are why there's so few residents
Mad__Vlad t1_jdgz2l7 wrote
It’s really our waste water laws that hold back single family homes, but I’m with you on act 250, it needs hefty revisions to modernize it.
MEuRaH t1_jdh5al4 wrote
I've talked to several realtors and they all said the same thing. I would ask about AirBnB's impact on their profession and they all said Act 250 is the real killer.
shelled_peanuts t1_jdh85up wrote
if realtors are saying that, im not sure i want anything changed.
obiwanjabroni420 t1_jdhdol1 wrote
Realtors are also directly telling people looking for homes how much profit they can make using a house as a full time vacation rental.
I’m all for people who have a vacation home renting it out when they aren’t using it (basically the original idea of Airbnb), but this “buy a house to use as a private hotel” shit has got to go.
headgasketidiot t1_jdh98g5 wrote
20% of housing is second homes and vacation rentals, functionally kept outside the housing pool by rich people, but the real culprit isn't building enough? That doesn't make sense on its face unless we accept that a giant pool of vacation rentals and second homes is desirable or at least acceptable while there's a single homeless person, which I personally don't.
We could have 25% more housing inventory tomorrow if we just take the empty vacation homes and Airbnbs. Plus, if we accept that 20% of our housing will remain functionally outside the pool, and the only way is to build our way out of it, that means we're going to have to build 25% more housing than we need to build otherwise as vacation rentals and second homes continue to get snatched up.
DrPremium t1_jdhakih wrote
How do you propose we go about constitutionally (or morally..) seizing people’s private homes “tomorrow”?
headgasketidiot t1_jdhbfyc wrote
The constitution has the takings clause, which says the government can't take people's stuff without paying them for it. I say we take them and pay them for it, then operate them as social housing at cost to fund the program.
As for the morality, having thousands of empty homes while many are homeless is immoral. Right now, our tax dollars keep those houses empty. if a homeless person tried to stay in an otherwise empty house, armed agents of the state would show up and do any violence necessary to keep those houses empty.
amhais OP t1_jdhvepp wrote
OMG dude grow up. Being a complete tankie is a bad look.
DrPremium t1_jdhntdb wrote
A bit of a glossing over of the founding principles of our democracy I have to say... but on the moral side, should 2nd home ownership be banned? I'm not saying problems don't exist, I just think you're knee-jerking a reaction to them. Very slippery slope when you start saying normal folks should just give up whatever 'excess' they have to those in need. Sounds a bit like a certain failed ideology we've seen in the last century...
headgasketidiot t1_jdhq5lz wrote
> Very slippery slope when you start saying normal folks should just give up whatever 'excess' they have to those in need. Sounds a bit like a certain failed ideology we've seen in the last century...
Christianity is a little older than the last century.
DrPremium t1_jdkpro0 wrote
oh I must have missed the part of the bible where it said 'take other people's things by force
headgasketidiot t1_jdlz657 wrote
You said "normal folks should just give up whatever 'excess' they have to those in need. "
Here's a Bible page that says exactly that:
>But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?
Another
>Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.
That one seems pretty relevant to this discussion.
Here's one that says you should lend to the poor even if the debt jubilee is coming up, during which the state will cancel all debt:
>If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. >Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin
DrPremium t1_jdn60hs wrote
Am I blind or am I missing the “by force” part? Something tells me I’m not engaging with a rational actor… I’m backing off this ‘discussion’
headgasketidiot t1_jdn8e88 wrote
You're not blind. You just moved the goalposts. That's why i quoted your original comment.
ejjsjejsj t1_jdjcz0v wrote
>The constitution has the takings clause, which says the government can't take people's stuff without paying them for it.
And what part of the constitution would that be?
headgasketidiot t1_jdjg81p wrote
It's literally called "the takings clause" in legal scholarship.
ejjsjejsj t1_jdrlipk wrote
That clause says just compensation must be given
headgasketidiot t1_jdrn8at wrote
Yes it does. Are you saying that's different from what I said?
>Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I am proposing we take private property, aka second homes, for public use. That clause says we can't do that unless we provide just compensation. In other words, like I said, the government can't take people's stuff without paying them for it.
ejjsjejsj t1_jds5fzn wrote
I misread your initial comment
df33702021 t1_jdhknjn wrote
It's not really "Act 250". It's that the public majority doesn't want anything built and Act 250 is the result of that. As is Current Use, which literally is a program to reduce development. Add on conservation easements and zoning and NIMBYism at the more local level. Vermont doesn't want development.
And then throw that in the pot with wastewater, building costs, labor shortages, and seasonal building schedules and here we are.
vttale t1_jdmicje wrote
I am highly suspicious of claims that Act 250 is the biggest culprit when the housing crisis is a national phenomenon informed by a number of factors of our economic system and social policies. As of some 2017 data I found, normalized to population size, Vermont isn't even in the top 10 worst off states..
I am not saying Act 250 is not a factor, because obviously it fits squarely in with "our economic system and social policies", but a generic blanket of blame is not called for either, especially with the weak "might be" qualifier. That said, I'm also not sure how much it even applies to this story, because there was only one mention of Act 250 in it, and in a more neutral context that did not look to assign blame to it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments