This isn’t news.

NOT accurate.

More significant than "VT is #4" would be looking at the top 5 list:

2. Massachusetts: 1.4 jobs needed at average renter's wage to afford a 2-bedroom

3. Rhode Island: 1.4 jobs needed at average renter's wage to afford a 2-bedroom

4. Vermont: 1.4 jobs needed at average renter's wage to afford a 2-bedroom

5. Maine: 1.4 jobs needed at average renter's wage to afford a 2-bedroom

Note they are all in New England, and more significantly, all ranked the same.

So the minimum wage in Vermont has to double in order for full time workers to afford a 1 bedroom rental. Vermonters earn $2,700 less per year than the national average.

Get on that, Phil Scott!

Maybe we should allow for some higher density housing in Burlington

> So the minimum wage in Vermont has to double in order for full time workers to afford a 1 bedroom renta

And watch - if it ever were to double land lords would double rents. unscrupulous fucks always looking for new ways to bleed people.

YUP

Rent control anyone?

Let's make legislators who own rental properties abstain from the vote.

[deleted]

1. Hawaii: 2.0 jobs...

> Maybe we should allow for some higher density housing in Burlington everywhere in vermont

ntoe: it should be ALLOWED everywhere (with a few exceptions for natural areas which should have basically nil development), but that doesn't mean a 6 story condo complex is gonna get built in the NEK

Beyond the price, availability isn’t here

Scott does do shit unless it impacts his electability!

Yeah island life is rough everywhere. Hawaii...idk how they do it.

We need to increase density exclusively in our downtowns and immediate vicinities.

We need to discourage further development in undeveloped areas.

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.

Phil Scott vetoed a minimum wage increase.

https://www.wcax.com/content/news/Vt-Gov-Scott-vetoes-minimum-wage-bill-567747671.html

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.

If you think Burlington is bad now, just wait until the landlords pass on the price of the new $230M high school. That's not even baked into rents yet.

This is a drum I'm going to keep beating. Yes zoning is an issue, but fixing that isn't a panacea. Build social housing that appeals to a variety of income levels then rent it out at a cost which covers a high standard of maintenance and upkeep (require that they be revenue-neutral in the bill, even). Aside from the upfront costs of construction, that gets you affordable high quality housing without any long term budget impact while relieving some of the pressure driving up costs for private rentals in the neighborhood. Hell, you could probably even distribute the construction costs over, say, 30 years and still beat market rates even with interest.

It's almost, as with every Republican, Scott is a massive piece of shit.

Don't forget just-cause evictions in Burlington and the rental registry, both of which were supposed to address this problem.

The entire country descends further into crisis by the day, and we continue to elect a governor who, by his own admission in the last debate, doesn't have any new ideas; he wants to continue what he's been doing because he says it's working. Everyone agrees the status quo is fucked, but most people are going to vote for the personification of the status quo for governor. I don't understand.

Throw in some smart social housing and you have a recipe for something pretty close to ideal — efficient urban centers with readily available services right out your door within a short walk/bike ride to surrounding nature.

Let's ban airbnb and invest in public housing.

It's utterly wild too, just how fast it all changes.

Seven years ago paying $550/m for a studio.

Now I'm jumping for joy that my rent increased to only $1850/m.

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.

The irony being most people who are conservative in Vermont are the ones that are gonna be hurt the most from Vermont’s low wages. That and young people, most liberal people in Vermont are upper middle class and don’t rely on the minimum wage. That’s not to say some very wealthy people also vote for them. Just pointing out the massive Con that is poor ignorant people voting conservative when that party cares zero about their needs and quality of life.

[removed]

> Rent control anyone?

Not a good policy, especially in the long run

This is the issue for me in Addison County. We lucked into a one-bedroom apartment in Vergennes but want a place in Middlebury. Too bad, can hardly find ANY home, much less in my price range.

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.

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

Their governor vetoed a minimum wage increase. I voted for Siegel but we all know Sleazy Phil is going to keep on regardless.

These two things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Regulate short-term rental housing tigher? Sure. Ban it outright? That might come back to bite you.

Invest in public housing? Absolutely.

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.

I honestly don't understand how a minimum wage increase wouldn't just lead to rental price increase?

Like... if you make more money, people/companies are just going to charge more money for the same things aren't they? Not being combative, but honestly never really understood how increasing minimum wage doesn't just lead to more expensive product.

That’s why we need rent control.

If minimum wages doubled, there would be greater demand for housing while the supply of housing would remain the same. That’d lead to a big jump in rental costs. It would seem we need a combination of increased wages AND a growth in housing. Otherwise, we’ll continue to be in the same situation in the future but with higher rental costs.

That same Act 250 that Scott vowed to destroy before becoming governor? The same one he attempted to take control over? Without those protections, smart development in the state will mean nothing while we see single-family houses and businesses everywhere.

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.

Time to buy some rental property.

Lol. You think minimum wage increase will solve the problem?

The only way housing/rental costs can go down is by building more units. As long as Burlington does not incentivize more units being built, it's just a race to the highest bidder and then you'd need another minimum wage hike in 5 years.

It's some thing like 1/2-2/3 of our legislators iirc.

Would rent control follow inflation? I could see that working. Rents are only allowed to rise in step with inflation.

Says who? Greedy landlords?

Cap rent increases to 3% annually for existing tenants.

Cap rent markup between tenants to 10%.

Enjoy a more stable rental market.

Seems totally fair to have them vote on that eh?

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.

Rent control is bad for young people because it creates a huge incentive for older renters to hang onto an apartment as long as possible. Unless we are also going to build a huge amount of new rental units rent control is only going to exacerbate the tight rental market problem.

While this is the clear solution, NIMBYs will stand in the way as they always have. Our beautiful state could do so much better.

> Ban it outright? That might come back to bite you.

How? It’s not like hotels and motels didn’t exist pre-Airbnb. And it’s not like word-of-mouth, unregulated, and often illegal short-term-rentals didn’t happen either. Airbnb just makes it exceptionally easy to be an unaccountable absentee landlord.

Higher density residential leaves more room for nature than the equivalent average sized housing.

How is that any different then now...?

This provides some limit vs. none.

It is advantageous to keep tenants because tenant turnover = admin costs.

Turning over a tenant every year is a massive pain in the butt.

I would also support banning no-cause evictions to stop what you're saying from happening (with carveouts for selling the property/owner occupancy).

What about units with heat or hot water included. Inflation does not include energy prices.

This is a classic economists myth that simply is not true.

Allowing landlords to raise rent unchecked creates an unstable market that fucks over young people who can't afford to live anywhere near where they work.

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.

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.

This is what Burlington’s just cause eviction will lead to. If you need a lawyer to change tenants after a year, all tenants will get a year

I don’t know anything about rent control or about housing economics in general. I’ve always rented and have never had too much of an issue finding something.

But, as I’ve grown older I’m becoming less and less in favor of how insanely capitalist America and Americans have become. Would controlling rent based on housing value or some other means work?

If you’re renting out an apartment building worth 500,000 and you have 5 units, so roughly 100,000 a unit, rent can only be so and so much. Enough for the landlord to make some money and to do maintenance but not screw renters as well. I’m sure this isn’t a great idea for the “American dream” type of people who feel they can charge or do whatever they want since this is America, but the American dream certainly feels like it turned into a myth years ago.

Again I’m ignorant on this subject, and maybe that’s the way rent controlled suppose to work, but I am curious.

It wouldn't be an eviction because the lease would clearly state it is for 1 year and 1 year only. Turning over a unit would involve maybe a day of work getting a listing posted and scheduling showings then a few hours of showings. There would be no issue getting a new tenant in the current market and the situation isn't changing anytime soon. The increase in rental fees would cover these costs easily and most large landlords use a property manager anyway so little headache on their part to do that.

Idk, not an economist. Wasn't say yea or nay. Just curious to see what people who support rent control and minimum wage increases have to say on the matter. I also believe inflation is normally set by lots of factors, energy being one of them.

Your experience has been with rent control on specific properties. This creates scarcity of those properties and thus the issues you've laid out. I'm proposing milder rent control for all rental properties vs. much more strict rent control for only a select few.

The idea is to curb the massive money grabs like we're seeing right now with landlords raising rent at unprecedented levels just because they can, not because they need to.

It’s not but I think tying rent to inflation is a bad idea.

>”Key Takeaways. Core inflation is the change in the costs of goods and services but does not include those from the food and energy sectors. Food and energy prices are exempt from this calculation because their prices can be too volatile or fluctuate wildly.“

In New Hampshire the minimum wage is $7.25 yet the average NH renter earn 25% more than the average VT renter.

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

A few people have tried. Locals did not like their politics or god or something and act 250 was weaponized to prevent it from happening.

Yup, spread out a month of operation costs across 12 months of rent and you don’t lose anything.

That’s fair - i actually think your idea of a cap on rental increases whether renewal or new is an interesting idea that might avoid the pitfalls of classic rent control. I agree with you that the cost of acquiring new tenants probably means that landlords would have minimal incentive to churn.

That sounds like a plan that’d work well in a country less fanatically devoted to unchecked capitalism, but would be a hard sell in the US.

There are some types of housing where the state caps profitability to the owner, but it’s almost universally in cases where the owner can’t make more than some fixed profit on sale, not on rent. This is how a lot of grants to assist low-income house purchasers work.

It’s also reasonable to think that doing so would reduce many potential builders’ interest in making more housing. Which is maybe a sign that we should have more “social housing” built by the state or nonprofit groups. But, again, lots of Americans think that’s communism and, well, they may not know what communism is but they sure don’t like it.

Interesting. I truly don't know how people are affording to live right now.

Something has to change.

That’s what blows my mind !! They’re gonna cut Social Security Medicaid everything that these people rely on you’ll be gone

Reducing regulations and taxes is the way forward.

It is backwards to increase taxes to subsidize housing to make it affordable.

The people who have been in charge of vermont for decades created a state where only the the rich and large corporations can afford to live here and large corporations can succeed.

The opposing view would be that progressive policies have led to vermont being a state that only the rich and large corporations can afford.

The states largest employer is the state and there is a vacuum of money leaving the state in retirement funds.

Less regulations would allow for actual starter homes and density building that is not subsidized by the state.

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

Universal basic income? Guaranteed housing for every Tom, Dick and Harry too?

How to lose an election should be the title of your manifesto... Comrade. Lol

I think my reply was at least as serious as yours.

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.

Are you trying to say Phil Scott has acted mostly to benefit his business buddies? Say it ain’t so!

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.

Oh, you mean landlords should have to do a better job of maintaining the properties they are making money from? What are you, some kind of Communist?

/s

Or even one acre parcels, the septic restrictions kills subdividing larger lots.

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

Right. The energy and food sectors are exempt when figuring the National inflation rate. Funny how those industries are excluded. Petroleum and industrial agribusiness. Who needs gas and food anyway, sheesh!

What percent of the Vermont population rents their home? Or, put another way, what percent of Vermonters don’t own their home? In a town like Burlington most people rent. In a town like Shelburne most people own. Owning your home is the key to affordability. Renting your home makes you subject to exploitation. Aside from students, who should be housed by the school they are attending, Not earning enough to own your home is the problem.

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".

Rents should raised no more than 2% per year, in step with property taxes. Wages should follow inflation, i.e. round up to 5% as inflation hits and stays at 8% a quarter and if over 11%, round up to 10. 5x5. Dual edge sword tho, if you want to base your income on inflation quarterly, like a balloon, up then down. This is for employees 25 and older, as migrants, teens and college kids have and will continue to be treated like interns. Old people with money want to use young/new people, regardless of how smart they are. You have to make your case as an individual for a raise and collectively in adverse working conditions.

Much as I’d hate to see a bunch of 1-acre plots with single family homes, I’d take it over no housing options at all. And it’s still better than a subdivision of ~1/8 acres lots with single family homes, which is extremely common in MA.

Edit to add: what I mean is I want to see town center build wastewater systems so we can build denser houses than septic allows, as well as more multi family and attached houses, and not build suburban sprawl houses.

Down in my corner of the state land is outrageously priced for anything worth building on and only sold in ten acre plus parcels. It’s really one of the main reasons our average new construction is at $400k, only the wealthy can drop $100k on a parcel then actually budget a build as well.

Because our Governor won’t allow towns to enact rent control. Anything over $1500 a month in VT is highway robbery. VT also needs to address the epidemic of short term rentals sucking up the housing supply.

We are now at high global inflation largely due to energy costs. Also infrastructure failures with minimal to no maintenance over 40 years. Also, globalizing commerce to the extent that our nation's farms and ranches are decimated. (Soy, China, Tariffs. Corporate farms and real estate. etc and etc.) When we're not watching what politicians are up to, theyre changing laws to benefit cronies vs constituents. Don't get me started (too late!). https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/inflation-rising-food-energy-prices-economy/

Southern VT is a case study in why we need dense mixed use downtowns and public housing in this State. Barely anyone can afford to pay much more than $500 in rent + utilities while maintaining a car because their apartment building is in an un-walkable location.

If you want see examples of Urban Planning done right, look at towns and cities in the Netherlands.

Phil Scott is a landlord. Just saying.

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

Yep - worry and anger about it is growing. r/Vermont_Underground

This is why they can charge what they want.

Say what you will about Phil Scott, but I can almost certainly guarantee he doesn't travel in a limo.