I was out last election and a younger guy brought him up. I asked what he thought about Scott. He said, "He's a great guy! He took us out in his limo to a game!" "Wow, yeah, very cool, so what do you think of his platform?" "Huh? He's great, really nice, great guy", "What does he stand for and how does that affect you and your family?" "Huh? I don't think he has a platform. I don't want to talk to you anymore".

Wait do you guys not know Vermont has never voted a governor out of office?

Scott’s nice guy routine is so tired.

To paraphrase, if you are sitting around a table with four assholes, you just might be the fifth one.

That’s why we need rent control.

https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits-protecting-low-wage-workers-from-inflation-means-raising-the-minimum-wage/

An increase in minimum wage wouldn’t really effect most people but it sure would make it easier to afford to heat your home if you are poor….or have better health care…or save a little to invest…or…or..we’ll you know.

Sounds like a good argument for UBI and guaranteed housing. Thanks. I’ll be sure to credit you.

This. Rutland, Burlington, the upper Valley, and the Montpelier / Barre area all have under-utilized urban areas. Remove parking minimums, loosen zoning restrictions, and encourage more infill development around existing infrastructure. Rebuild and reuse what we already have before destroying what’s left of Vermont’s natural land. We don’t want to become another Connecticut or Rhode Island, where just about every inch of the state is covered in sprawling single family homes.

I’m on a DRB and it’s infuriating how easy it (usually) is for us to approve people with 50+ acres subdividing into 3 ~15 acre parcels when it’s almost impossible to permit someone’s desperately-needed 8-unit rehab / conversion project.

We don’t need 2 new vacation homes. We need 400 units of mid-tier housing.

Yep. Downtowns need to build up (even just 3-5 stories). Nice and dense and compact and mixed use - like European towns. That leaves lots of space for nature, and makes services easier and cheaper too.

Right. Exactly. Those undeveloped areas are what I'm saying should have nil development. I think that would happen organically anyway - nobody is gonna build a gigantic housing project in the middle of nowhere, and act 250 should take care of that already - but definitely less outward spreading the better.

The other problem though, as in Burlington and the O.N.E. as an example, is that these old houses have been subdivided so much and poorly taken care of that we have neighborhood blite along with increased density and no parking, and they're taking away even more parking as they resurface the streets. Not good for those of us with disabilities, then add in the universities and COVID pushing students into what USED to be family housing. And lets not even get taking about THE PIT downtown. Increasing wages without increasing available housing will just add to the gentrification already going on across the state. If we are going to lower housing cost, available units need to exceed density. The universities have a huge roll to play in the problem.

Else we turn into what everyone who is wanting to move here is trying to get away from. I grew up in Northern New Jersey, and lived in Philadelphia, no thanks. I was lucky to get out while the getting was good. Some Vermont small downtowns could stand some residential redevelopment. Doing that everywhere is nothing more than suburban sprawl. That means more cars and traffic, higher costs, and deteriorating environment. Gotta be a better way. I believe the act 250 laws try to address that and are the way to go unless you are on the wrong end of the restrictions. Relaxing zoning restrictions for housing makes sense until the capacity to handle waste is exceeded. People need to scale back, drive less, spend less, consume less and be satisfied not having a McMansion in the suburbs.

[removed]

Yeah but only is a corresponding infrastructure is in place and maintained. That costs money. The alternative is a ghetto.

They build uninsured homes in volcano zones on the Big Island 🤷

Except that you've created a situation where it is financially advantageous to get rid of current tenants. Every single lease would be for 1 year only. It would produce the opposite of stability.

Certain rent control measures can/could work but it’s difficult to tune things properly.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/

If you cap increases then the rent always increases by that much every single year. 3% is probably very fair for a small rent increase every year.

If the profit isn’t there then no renovations will happen. Housing will become dated and the minimum maintenance to keep it up to code will be performed (which is what happens anyway in some cases).

Once in a home it’s difficult for tenants to leave because their rent is on the low end but newer leases are on the highest end of the spectrum. The landlord will try as much as possible to average it out so they receive the same (or more) income than they did before rent control.

All rent control is going to do is make new construction of apartments less likely, which is the opposite of what you want when you're already incredibly supply constrained. You also have people incentivized to never leave their apartment (especially after being there a while), so anyone new to the area gets even more screwed.

I’d love to see studies showing it isn’t true - if you have links I’m happy to be wrong. My anecdotal lived experience from rent controlled markets was that units rarely hit the market, and instead were often traded secretly so landlords wouldn’t know there was a new tenant. When they did hit the market they were priced outrageously because the owners were losing money on existing tenants and trying to make it up on newcomers. But again, that’s anecdote not data. I welcome new information that would improve my understanding.