Submitted by Old_Ad_1301 t3_z6k2tj in vermont
I'm so tired of losing my friends. My ex wife is living with me due to lack of housing, I don't like her she dont like me, but housing is so hard to find were living together. Tax investment property and tax and regulate Airbnb like a hotel
On paper, Vermont has 20 percent vacancy rate which is driven by 2nd homes and a lot get used as Air BnBs, sure. It seems plenty are okay with collecting taxes from out of staters who pay to not be around and keep Vt small. Up until 2010 the state population was shrinking. The state is not business friendly. Super Troopers was a film set in Vermont and filmed in New York because the tax credits were better. That's sad but happens everywhere. Still. Point made. Not business friendly. The biggest industries are healthcare and education. Bring em in, usher them out but nothing to keep them there in the meantime except seasonal or agricultural work.
The issue that's popped up in the past 5 years is investor purchasing of homes IMO. They price out individual buyers with cash offers. Banning short-term rentals not only would benefit actual BnBs which are dying in the state. It would also discourage investors and give working folks a chance.
There are jobs in Vermont that our of staters want but can't take because there is literally nowhere to live.
This, exactly. Thanks for adding. All our family in Vermont is at retirement age or older, and nearly all their kids have left the state. Why? Jobs. This says it all. average annual employment growth over the past five years of -1.0%. The top three sectors by total employment are Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, Healthcare and Social Assistance, Manufacturing.
I think the state should look hard at what kind of incentives it can create to attract more businesses, especially in high growth sectors like tech, and healthcare.
let's not forget property taxes as a factor. It was literally the one reason I couldn't buy a home in VT. My friend lives in Duxbury and pays almost 5k a year for taxes. He has a well for water, his own septic, and lives on a public dirt road. And the local police are the State Police. so what are his taxes going for exactly when he gets almost zero services from the state and town? Schools mostly.
Probably education. More than half of my taxes go to education and our local schools are a mess. I also live on a dirt road but drive on paved roads to get to work so I benefit from local taxes even though they have risen at a faster rate than my salary.
There is enough room for growth in Vermont where families like mine would want to come in and revitalize small walkable towns. I would love to buy a rundown property in a decent small town work at the school My wife is a nurse. We're still trying to make it happen.
I’m not sure how more transplants are going to help when there’s a nasty housing crisis. I feel like people are ignoring this.
You have a worker shortage as well though. Nurses, teachers, residential construction.
Vermont is paradoxically stuck. Not enough people for available jobs. Not enough housing for the current population.
Yeah, it’s possible for sure. It’s certainly easier if you’re closer to a large hospital (Burlington, Dartmouth)
I’m having a bit of difficulty wrapping my head around the idea of VT being “unfriendly” to business. How friendly do you think the state should be to businesses of all types?
Just a honest question.
Typically that comes down to tax incentives. "Pro-business" certainly can go too far or you have companies taking advantage of a system. The biggest way I see cities getting ripped off are with ProSport stadiums. Football teams can get cities to spend a ton of money to pay for these stadiums and the cities typically look at the benefits of this sales tax that they will reap as well as the other benefits to local businesses who will also benefit from having a large population of people in their area. As far as Vermont's concerned if I have a private business I'm going to pay significantly more in taxes to have my business there rather than in New Hampshire or New York which means that I take my business the income that that business makes and the jobs that it would create as well as the tax revenue that you would get from the income tax from those jobs. I could see Vermont taking a more progressive attitude towards small business owners and giving them better tax breaks especially if they're paying x amount over a livable wage or whatever kind of targets that the state would want to set.
Fair enough. There has to be balance because as you said, big businesses love to run amok when there is lax regulation.
Yeah I'm not all about letting companies get away with murder; loosening regulatory restrictions regarding clean water, waste deposits etc. But if you're bringing in a business that might means employing more people with $50K + jobs and you can ease tax burdens to court some of those types of companies you'll have better paying jobs.
That sounds like an inventory problem. Low population and no housing.
>20% vacancy rate
>no housing
Yes, I live in southern vt. Was building the public station building in wilminton, had a laborer from mass, (he was union in mass laid off for a few months) I was his boss building the police/firestation (public safety building) as a laborer in the hills of Massachusetts he made 30 and hour, as his boss in Wilmington vt I made 20. I quit carpentry then in this state
It would sure solve a hell of a lot. Rich people milking money out of properties they don't live in will be upset, but who gives a shit about that?
The problem is not lack of houses. There are more empty homes than there are homeless individuals in this country. The problem is the barriers in place to obtaining housing.
I'm not understanding why this is getting down voted
I’m not either. Maybe it’s the people who own second, vacant dwellings?
This is factually incorrect and I truly hope you don't believe it.
There are actually many more empty houses in vt than homless people. We have the second highest rate of unoccupied homes
Oh boy. It’s not a matter of belief, it’s a matter of objective reality, but I’m curious so I’ll humor you— where’s your evidence or any evidence at all to the contrary, DadBob CondescendingPants? And where is it you recommend I find an answer that lines up with your statement?
What about all of the lovely "seasonal homes" along the lake in Malletts Bay in Colchester? Most of them are vacant for 10 months of the year. What if you want to buy one and live in it all year round? You literally have to pay MORE money for the opportunity to occupy the same exact space when you buy the house because the houses are on "leased land" where the land owner charges a higher rate every year to rent the land that your owned house sits upon meanwhile for the majority of homes they're vacation homes that sit empty. Why have to pay more just to occupy a space that couldn't otherwise be occupied if you weren't there? If anything those who pay less benefit from those who stay year round because they keep an eye on the property and prevent squatters from moving in. Seriously there are a ton of emokty empty houses and unattainable houses because many are in disrepair and still expensive. Furthermore there is plenty of land where people shouldn't have to be forced to live on top of each other for an attainable cost but it isn't profitable for investors to develop that way which is why the look and feel of the towns are being destroyed anyway with ugly and unaffordable condo apartments where you can't even buy an RV if you wanted to.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be disregarded without evidence. Where is your evidence backing up the statement?
As it stands I’ve read two factually conflicting statements and so far neither has done any work to show they are correct.
As they said in high school math class.... show your work.
*I found the data fairly easily after a quick search. For reference, I think you are both only sharing the part of the data that suites your needs.
https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/realestate/vacancy-rate-by-state.html
Here are two sources. Apologies for not including them sooner. To clarify: I am by no means claiming solving homelessness or mitigating the rising rates of homeless people is a simple fix. There are many moving parts. That does not take away from the number of vacant dwellings vs. number of homeless people being a huge piece of the problem.
I found the data. VT has like a 20% vacancy rate. That is a lot but it looks like a fair amount of that housing is not applicable to the homeless issue. Like the 1000 units of condos in stowe can't simply be repurposed.
*Those were actually the two citations I found as well.
Can I ask you to elaborate on why we simply cannot repurpose the condos in Stowe? If we were putting people and their inherent value over making a profit there’s no good reason not to repurpose units such as those is there?
Sure. There is no public transport to and from the mountain condo blocks. How would people leave the condo enclave. You would need to put a public transport system in place.
Who manages the grounds in that situation. Would you still expect Stowe to be responsible for all that work at it's current level without the income the condos produce.
You would also destroy a local economy. This is extrapolation but hear me out. 1000 homeless people move to Stowe. The mountain looses business. The local economy based on the service sector of wealthy tourists is crushed. Locals loose their job as business close or downsize.
All those are valid reasons to not fill the condos at Stowe with homeless people.
The value of the units goes low, the Town of Stowe cant afford the level of services due to decreased tax collection and the town school and infrastructure suffer.
I guess the general idea is sticking people in housing without addressing any of the root causes for homeless is not that useful. Everyone deserves shelter so they don't freeze. That is not what you are proposing though.
Those are fair points. I’m not saying ending homelessness is a simple issue with an easy answer, and I do not claim to hold the solution, but again, if we put people’s lives over dollar amounts, it’s possible. Complex, difficult, but possible. For example, lack of public transport can be addressed. If people get homes/shelter, then they are far more likely to be able to save money and therefore patronize local businesses. Since realistically not every houseless individual or family would be given housing in stow, that would allow for certain dwellings being allotted for tourism, and wealthy patrons would still spend their money there.
Right, but now you have started a project where the housing part is only a small part of the whole. If you were to do that, why not invest in actual affordable housing in places that need it instead of take existing stock. Why take 1000 units on stowe for people who want housing in Burlington? Why not just build cheap dense housing in Burlington funded by a higher tax on secondary homes.
You’re exactly right, why not? What I was doing was responding to the hypothetical you posed. As far as what I’m proposing— what I’ve been proposing here is housing the homeless. That’s not all I’m proposing, though it’s all I’ve mentioned. Of course we need to address the root causes of homelessness. So many are unsheltered because the state and the system are broken and have failed them. Housing them is one of myriad issues contributing to it. I fully agree with taxing secondary homes and building more affordable housing projects in places like Burlington.
Housing and shelter are not the same thing.
I’m aware of this. Those who are unsheltered are typically unhoused, I thought that was evident.
You switched from housing to shelter in your post so I wanted to level set on what was being discussed.
I thought I had been encompassing, maybe I had not made that clear.
I think disagree on a core level. I agree shelter is a “right” and we as a society can not let people die on the streets because they have nowhere to go. I think housing is a privileged and redistribution of it is a general “bad idea”
How is every person having housing a “bad idea”? Housing itself is a human right.
I never said that. Not sure if you intentionally misunderstood or not so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I said shelter is a human right.
Housing is a privilege.
Distributing existing housing this is a bad idea.
Can you please explain why, to you, housing is a privilege? Here was my line of thought with my last comment: you believe housing is a privilege and believing redistribution of housing is a “bad idea”, ergo by that logic, you think housing everyone is a “bad idea”.
Again, not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or not. You continue to focus on the wrong part of my statement. Housing everyone is a great idea. Doing so via a redistribution of private property is a “bad idea”. Did that help?
Not quite. I’m failing to understand why redistribution is a hangup for you. From each according to ability, to each according to need— everyone needs housing, no one actually needs to own a second dwelling, especially left unoccupied. Rent control could also do a lot of good. Our society has failed the most vulnerable of us. Redistribution, while only one idea, does not seem like a bad one at all.
Add to that the simple issue that the unoccupied condos are still private property, and they can't be summarily taken over and repurposed as shelters without going through a very long and very expensive eminent domain battle, which the government would likely lose by the time things made it through the state and likely federal court systems. Same with any other tourist/second/snowbird homes. A place isn't "available" just because it was empty when the Census Bureau did its nose count.
Well I think the idea would have to be that they couldn't just house homeless people who aren't working. What if people moved to an affordable part of Stowe and then worked for the city in a system where the city basically benefits from having the people there. If they can work to improve the area and live for a reduced cost of living then they would be able to afford a vehicle and wound not need to rely on public transportation. Or create a system of public transportation and have some of the people who move in to the area be the people who drive and fix the machines. As someone who recently bought a house in Milton and who works in Stowe I have to say that my 1 hour each way drive is one of the quickest commutes of us at my company. I have people driving an hour and a half each way to come work in Stowe and afford to live so far away. Why would business close if more people moved there? My business gross sales today were $200 in stowe and rent cost $500 a day. I have to lay more people off in the morning (which is why I'm not sleeping right now)
Homelessness is notoriously difficult to quantify, even our own census bureau admits that. Depending on who is doing to estimating the real numbers are two to five times higher than what is counted.
And why the need for name calling, can't you have discourse like an adult? How many accounts have you been through at this point?
Okay, you’re right, the name was unnecessary and I apologize for that. “How many accounts have I been through” following the question of if I can have discourse like an adult would have me as you the same of whether you can also have discourse like an adult.
Do I think the numbers we’re given of homeless people reflect the true number of homeless individuals? Nope. But I also am not just pulling the statement of “more empty homes than houseless folks” out of my behind? Also nope. The research done, while impossible to perfectly quantify given how much situations fluctuate person to person, shows what it shows. I’m curious though why you seem to so firmly believe there aren’t actually enough homes to end homelessness since still no evidence has been shared to back up your point. Could you please cite your sources? Not asking as a “gotcha”— if I’m wrong, I’ll gladly rectify my stance. Believe it or not I am actually open to learning.
> This is factually incorrect and I truly hope you don't believe it.
I would love to see what facts you are relying on to make this statement.
My dad is named Bob, is that an insult now? Lol
Check the username of the person they are responding to, it was a barbed response to antagonize them.
oh good, he would hate to know that being called DadBob is an insult on the internet for some reason.
https://someunpleasant.substack.com/p/three-factoids-that-arent-quite-right
https://ggwash.org/view/73234/vacant-houses-wont-solve-our-housing-crisis
Talking about NYC apartments: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jul/25/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/ocasio-cortez-new-york-city-there-are-3-vacant-apa/
Air bnb is taxed in the same manner as hotels. https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/2334
Yeah thats why the rest of the state needs to follow burlingtons lead and ban the damn things.
I don’t think banning is the right answer, there has historically always been a place for short term rentals in most places people want to visit, VT included.
I think a better solution is this, a regulation that requires all short term rentals to be registered with the state or town. Pay a somewhat hefty fee, meet minimum housing standards etc. Additionally, if the property is owner occupied, then you are allowed to short term rent unlimited days per year, with a max of 30 continuous. If the property is non-owner occupied then you are limited to either 60 or 90 days of short term rental per year with a max of 30 continuous. Steep penalties for violations.
This would allow people to supplement income renting a in-law suite, or allow snowbirds to make some seasonal money. It will also ice out the investors who want to buy up SFH and run a mini hotel chain.
The other angle to play is the fire code. I’m not sure what VT has adopted but in my hometown we are classifying STR’s with occupancy greater than 5 as Lodging and Rooming Houses per NFPA 1 & 101 which requires sprinklers and fire alarms. It has been very effective.
If you're old enough to remember a time before airbnb, people who needed extra income got a roommate, That didn't generate as much income as airbnb short-term rentals, but it did provide housing which is what we need. If you live in your home and need the extra income, get a roommate.
B&B's have been around a long time, they weren't invented by Airbnb. In fact, they even predate hotels. Before the internet, you could book a B&B through a travel agent.
I get that, but the people who drive the economy in destination locations still need to have a place to stay.
Back then there was industry and employment to be found all over the place. All those jobs are gone and ME, VT, and NH rely largely on the service industry and tourism to pay the bills. We need places for these people to stay when they visit, but not at the expense of our neighborhoods and our ability to house our population. We need to strike a balance. That’s what that proposal does, protecting the community, and balancing the rights of owners with the need to curtail the growth of STR’s. 🤷🏽♂️
Yes. For once, the solution is so simple. I don't understand why everyone wants to make complex tax systems that add more nonsense to our already byzantine and often unenforced tax code to disincentivize Airbnbs. Ban them and be done with it.
the burlington city council provided essentially no metrics to back up their decisions to restrict short term rentals, but one of the few points I found interesting is that they were estimated to only “take up” about 2-4% of the housing portfolio.
When the vacancy rate is <.5% 2 to 4% of the housing is quite a lot.
I think the onus of responsibility should really be on the city to ease up on the zoning nightmare here and allow more housing to be built. I'd be curious to see what percentage of the housing stock is occupied by students. Additionally, once you start implying that it's the private sector's responsibility to house people, how do you look at hotels or people with large houses/lots?
UVM has over 10,000 students but only has housing for 3,000. That exerts big pressure on the Burlington housing market. It ripples outwards from Burlington to surrounding communities. Why shouldn't a private university be required to house all its students?
I think it should be required to house at least a majority of its students. I think we're in agreement on that point.
Well, for one, UVM is not a private university. That said, I'm also not sure of any way that Burlington or the state of Vermont could force them to provide housing for all students...has such a thing been done for any college or university, anywhere?
UVM is not a state school. It is a quasi -public school due to its agricultural school. But in all other regards it is private and has the money and land to provide housing for all its students. Without adequate housing for the student body extreme pressure is put on the surrounding areas and the ripple effects are felt outwards for many miles.
>private sector's responsibility to house people, how b you look at hotels
I think burlington should put a morritorium on hotel development until the housing crisis is cleared up. Plenty of my neighbors agree with me.
There are 3 or 4 giant hotels under construction. Only one or two appt buildings.
There have also been plenty of proposals to encourage hotels to become low income housing.
For houses with large lots the city is working to encourage the construction of accessory units.
I think that a moratorium such as that would fit with the rhetoric we get from city council, but I don't think it will happen. It's crazy to me how little vertical development is allowed, and at this point I think that it's a hard sell for investors.
Did you just link Australia? Lol
Air BnB is taxed, or should be.
Meals and Rooms Tax
You may view your venture as small scale compared to a larger bed and breakfast or inn. However, Vermont tax law requires that you collect and remit tax, just like any other business operating in Vermont.
Vermont law states that sleeping accommodations offered to the public for a consideration on premises operated by a private person, entity, institution, or organization are subject to the Vermont Meals and Rooms Tax if those rentals total 15 or more days in any one calendar year. Note: If you rent your room or other type of lodging to the same person for 30 or more consecutive days, the person is then considered to be a permanent resident, and different rules apply.
The following is a noninclusive list of types of lodging rented or owned by the host which fall under the provisions of the law:
A house or room(s) in a house Cabin, cottage, condominium, ski lodge Barn, bunkhouse, tree house, camper, tent
Well the meals and rooms tax is a sales tax imposed on the end user. The Airbnb is collecting tax from the customer and remitting it to the state. It doesn’t affect the Airbnb owner’s wallet.
What I believe the person posting means is that the property owners themselves should incur more tax to make purchasing a house for use as a short-term rental less profitable and therefore less desirable.
What that fails to take into consideration is that even if the owners had to increase price to maintain a profit margin, the demand would likely still be there - meaning people would still pay more money to rent an Airbnb in Vermont.
I think the only true answer is to increase housing supply. Then there’s the whole issue of how to actually increase housing supply in VT, but that’s a whole different conversation.
You lack imagination. If you only double the tax, sure, demand won't really be impacted. You need to go all in and realize that for many rich folk, the tax won't matter, but for anyone who isn't loaded, it will be prohibitive. Use all those extra tax funds to create actual high density, lower income housing.
We are approaching 25% of all sales being investment properties. Do you know why that is? Outside of the investment that's happening around the country, VT is going to be one of the best places for climate change in the US. We need to make property available to lower income folks now, because a real wave of rich people are coming, and it will be like nothing seen before.
By 2050 sea level rise is anticipated to be a 1'+. The amount of people soon to be displaced in unimaginable. We need to act now if we want this state to survive with it's current look/feel. Otherwise, the money will start to flow, and once it gets going this state will change faster that a pit crew changes tires.
This isn't talked about enough.
If it takes until 2050 for 1' rise we'll be lucky. As for trying to prevent the changes that will ensue, if we fail to kick our fossil fuel addiction, they will not be able to be prevented.
>We need to act now if we want this state to survive with it's current look/feel.
Why should VT get to survive a global catosphroe with it's current look and feel? For real, on the face of global climate change, expect social norms to change.
Because, fuck everyone else. they can stay in California. Plenty of people live in deserts. Build nuclear power plants and desalinization plants. Pump water inland, make large inland lakes and fill aquifers. I don't care if they suffer hotter summers. Same with Texas
I love the honesty in this answer.
It is definitely an honest answer. I like the way Vermont is. If I wanted to live by a bunch of jag offs, I'd move to San Diego. I'm not changing what I love about Vermont so some rich assholes can move here to escape hotter summers and drought. and crowd me out. lm not the one with private planes and 3 houses and 6 cars. Last time I even flew, you were still allowed to carry pocket knives on planes.
I'm with you. I wish most of the recent COVID refugees would leave. I would go back to no cell service at home ans slow internet to get rid of the people who moved here. Not gonna happen, but I understand your sentiment.
Me and my freinds spoke about the vast difference between the back to the lander hippie types who came previously and the HipsterKarens who came after Covid. The hippies made good neighbors but we don't see these new people being as amicable. The other migration didn't fight their towns as soon as they moved in, attempt to shut down their neighbor's farms, pepper spray bear hunters on public land and all the other surreal crap we've seen recently.
To be clear, if a rental property, including a short-term rental, is a second home or otherwise not a primary residence to the owner in Vermont, property tax IS levied at a higher rate.
Not necessarily. There are two tax rates: homestead and non-homestead. Homestead is primary residence, non-homestead is everything else. Zoning, building type, etc. may effect the valuation of the property, but the tax rate is the same whether it's a second home, Airbnb, hotel, factory, retail space, etc. And in many places, businesses have lobbied to have the non-homestead tax rate be lower than the homestead rate. So second homes and rentals are often taxed at a lower rate...
That's not really the case in most towns.
Honestly we need to do both. Simply increasing housing supply wont do much. If its all gettinv turned into airbnbs anyway.
Interesting article in VTDigger today, Lawmakers contemplate ‘third-rail’ reforms amid housing crisis
Got it, good point.
Correct.
Both airbnb specifically and investment property in general are taxed and taxed heavily. When you airbnb you pay both property taxes and room and meals tax.
Heavily? Not nearly heavily enough to mitigate the damage done to our housing market.
Even better idea, there should be no AirBnB for less than a month on any vacant property where the renter doesn't also live (you can rent a room or a guest house if you reside on the property) otherwise all houses must be rented on a month to month basis. Sanibel Island does this, it's a very smart way to ensure residential properties are used by residents and that traditional hospitality businesses can do the businesses.
Some houses are just camps that can't be lived in all year 'round. I'd have no issue with allowing those to be STRs.
sure, that's fine. But any house that could be a house for a resident of vermont should not be rented two weekends per month to people from Mass for parties and vacant the rest of the month.
[deleted]
AirBnb is taxed. I don’t think they are the source of your problems.
To beat the obviously dead horse, AirBnBs are taxed same as hotels.
A different approach (consider it before you burn me). 1. Reduce requirements for affordable housing in most of Burlington. 1. Reduce tax on new housing development. 3. Require institutions to sponsor high density housing near their campuses.
What we need is more, better housing stock. Only private enterprise will create this, and only if it's profitable. If developers can make unlimited amounts of new units with incentive to make unlimited profits, they will. Unlike trickle down, this is rising tide - it lifts all ships when more, better housing becomes available. Those who can afford it, do, and leave in their wake vacant "better" housing. The current practice of enforcing affordable housing in all developments only reduces the likelihood of them being built, and doesn't actually create more affordable housing (see: Vermont).
Real capitalism doesn't provide the greatest good in most cases for basic needs, but for housing it actually might - maybe the best waterfront location in all of Burlington should be rented at market rate instead of as affordable housing? For instance, if the building at the end of lake street was rented at market luxury rate it would generate 3-4x (?) revenue which could be used to provide 2-3x the amount affordable housing in another location. This might be an unpopular idea with some folks, but probably provides the most common good.
"Native Vermonters" would rather set themselves and their houses on fire before more housing is allowed to be built here.
Acting like builders aren't booked out for the next 12 months...
You would see more housing stock but it wouldn’t be more affordable. Large scale developers would build huge complexes and charge rents affordable to the upper middle class. Look at the rents for new developments in Williston and south Burlington. Recently I visited a friend in lamoille county and there were lots of new housing developments being built. I asked my friend if it was easier to find affordable rents and she said that the 1 and 2 bedroom units were going for $1800 to $2000.
I think one of my favorite motivational posters describes the AirBnB problem perfectly. It says “no single drop of rain believes they’re responsible for the flood”
This is reductive, the problem doesn’t really exist in the housing market, which is just adapting to economic conditions. VT needs jobs and business incentive. Then other businesses and housing investment will follow. I like the metaphor in general though.
Why isn't UVM required to provide housing for every student?
Also Champlain
Let's make that every employer as well.
Why? Colleges dont employ students. Not the same thing at all.
Every single worker needs a place to live.
But every company is not paid a fee by the worker to be able to go to the workplace and have the job. Your logic isn't present. There is no parallel between an employer providing housing and a university not providing it, Except that the university not providing the housing displaces the workers and makes the employer have to scramble. In many cases anyways employers do provide housing to their workers. But that is out of necessity so they can have workers. If there was housing available the employers would not need to provide it themselves.
The students don't pay for housing if they're not getting housing.
The students who don't pay the university for housing pay local landlords top dollar for the hundreds of rental properties near the university. The people that used to occupy these hundreds of rental properties because they were close to their jobs in Burlington cannot compete with wealthy college students and have to move to Plattsburgh or some other surrounding area and the people that used to live locally in Plattsburgh now how to move outwards becasue they can't compete with the ex-Burlington residents. The cycle continues rippling outwards from Burlington. UVM has tons of space and cash to put up a few additional housing developments for their students.
We do tax AirBnB like hotels.
They are taxed. This is really telling on yourself, thinking that taxes are so repellent that nobody would ever bother having an AirBNB if there were taxes on it. Taxes will never be able to catch up to profits on these rentals.
The real solution to the problem is doing other things other than doing higher taxes on rentals. Things that you won't like.
I like how you don't actually name those things
We regular people need to get angry, get organized, and make our elected officials terrified of us. Right now the state wants working-class Vermonters out and well-off out-of-staters in. This is a big reason why efforts to tax AirBnbs more, or crack down on hedge-fund ghouls owning them en masse (requiring AirBnbs to be owner-occupied 60% of the year, say) always get shot down, followed up by some VPR-class "fact checker" telling you that really, you don't actually want housing you can afford.
💯
You're absolutely right about our legislators wanting local Vermonters to leave, they see us as obstacles. Chittenden county (transplants) dictates our elections I think. I also know that for many older locals their Airbnb is actually their retirement so maybe owners who are full time residents or retirees should catch a break.
I've seen it a few places here so I will make a general comment. You can't charge property owners different taxes based on what state they live in. This would be unconstitutional discrimination. You can charge different tax rates based on how the property is used, so long as the rules apply equally to all people regardless of what state they are domiciled in. So you can tax all the second home owners, but that means raising taxes on Vermonters with second homes too. You can raise the tax on investment properties, but that will raise the tax on rental properties owned by Vermonters too. People need to stop suggesting that we can fix this issue by taxing the shit out of people because they live in New Jersey and the like.
Absolutely tax the bejeezus out of second home owners and property investors. Make a carve out for Vermonters who own a small summer camp or hunting cabin - everyone else should be on the menu for significant tax hikes.
From what I understand the fees scooped up by AirBnB is a pretty substantial part of the amount paid by the customer. Instead of paying AirBnB, perhaps towns can set up their own websites for short-term rentals in their area and the fees can go to building more housing, fixing up abandoned properties, etc.
All of the Airbnb owners in our area are full time Vermont residents. In some cases it’s even their primary source of income. These owners use a host of local tradespeople to manage their properties. Their visitors come and spend liberally at locally owned and staffed stores and restaurants. Banning airbnbs, or jacking up taxes so as to make it prohibitive, would kick a lot of your neighbors in the ass. This is not always an outsider issue.
If we are in the midst of a housing crisis in Vermont then the state should be battling for its people. Start by offering massive incentives for builders to increase the supply of affordable places to live. Affordable, transitional, subsidized, the state should cast a wide net. It is absolutely possible to balance very real environmental concerns and there is plenty of space.
Because the state legislators and the governor own AirBnBs themselves, and don't want them regulated or taxed. They've had bills to place AirBnBs on the same level of regulation & taxation as traditional B&Bs, inns & hotels, and every year they've killed or vetoed them.
They'll make noises this next session about trying to fix the housing crisis, but won't do anything to de-incentivize the conversion of long-term to short-term rentals.
This comment is false. Air bnb is taxed just like hotels.
But I bet it felt good typing it tho
Source for the Governor and legislators owning AirBnBs?
Democratic legislators don’t want to. Until they do, nothing moves on taxes.
This comment is false. Air bnb is taxed just like hotels.
Maybe. Airbnb is a catch all phrase for short term rentals. Most short term rental income is not fully claimed on individual taxes and our legislature has shown a distinct lack of interest in stopping that practice.
Additionally, short term rentals do not have the regulation and associated costs of regulation to pay.
Simply put, our current legislators have done little to nothing to control short term rentals as our housing crisis has exploded.
Ban airbnb. We don't need it. We were fine before and we'll be fine after. There were inns, hotels, vacation cabins, etc. before Airbnb. There's no need to allow a company to cannibalize our housing stock for short term unregulated hotels.
YES. Unless it’s an owner occupied dwelling, like renting out an extra bedroom in your home - ban them.
My comment is proving to be pretty controversial. People post on this sub about housing almost every single day; you'd think it'd be a pretty uncontroversial stance.
I think you are confused as to what AirBNB is if you said "vacation cabins" are fine.
I think you're confused?
Airbnb is a website that allows a property owner to book any property for short term rentals. Vacation cabins are sometimes called camps here, and they're usually a small building in a scenic location with limited amenities intended for short-term, recreational use. I have no problem with the concept of vacation cabins. I do have a problem with people depleting our housing pool by converting single family homes and apartments into short term rentals.
Oh you meant the second homes that are called camps. Usually if somebody says vacation cabins they mean second homes but are rented to strangers.
Sure, those too. I take no stance on the concepts of camps or vacation cabins or whatever right now. My point is all those things existed before Airbnb, but what didn't exist is the plundering of our housing stock for short term rentals.
Everyone turns their properties to Airbnbs because it can easily take over a year to evict non paying tenants in VT. It's not even part of the conversation or in the news but that's why.
[deleted]
I feel for you. I’ve had girlfriends who lived with loser boyfriends bc they couldn’t find or afford housing on their own. I also have a feeling that a lot of couples live together more bc of housing than bc they want to be together 24/7.
Several years ago a friend was able to get out of an abusive marriage abs buy a fixer upper in town for under $200,000. That would never happen today. Airbnb investors started buying property in my town during Covid.
Increase property tax across the board, and add a commensurate (or greater) increase in the homestead rebate to negate the increase for first homes.
We need to be clear on what AirBnB is for. We know people with a darn and they built a little cabin they rent through AirBnB. That's not telling away housing. But when people buy houses or condos and turn them into AirBnBs, that's an issue
Raising taxes on anything will not fix your housing issues.
Also double property tax on all non residents. Vermont is not your playground.
John Dutton
If you're within the income range for homestead exemptions in Vermont, non residents (and anyone) with a second home in Vermont are already paying up to double property tax on those second homes.
one of the huge issues with this is that the non-homestead rate includes businesses and therefor is prevented from increasing, so I believe in certain counties it’s actually lower than the homestead rate. personally I think that there should be a non-resident tax rate as non-homestead is inherently flawed and it can drive up rents.
as an example, look at Athens:
http://tax.vermont.gov/property/education-property-tax-rates
> personally I think that there should be a non-resident tax rate as non-homestead is inherently flawed and it can drive up rents.
Taxing people based on their residency is likely unconstitutional discrimination. Three constitutional provisions, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause, may invalidate differential tax rules for nonresidents.
that's a fair point - in that case I think the homestead deduction should be standardized statewide and there should be different deductions for business and non-homestead with non-homestead being necessarily taxed at a higher rate than homestead. I don't think it makes sense to group non-homestead with business/rentals.
I'm sure enforcement would be difficult.
Vermont is 100% New Yorks playground and has been for decades and it seems lots of people are ok keeping the population down and taking their taxes. Your property taxes are already pretty high.
I can tell you must live in SW VT. Quebec and Massachusetts bear responsibility as well. Taxes on these folks could absolutely be higher.
I'm a little further south now....Texas.
I'm sorry.
Me too.
Just yours?
100% agree. Tax 2nd homes and non primary property at a higher rate.
[deleted]
Investment properties are taxed to the highest amount. That is one of the reasons rent is higher then it should be.
I do not own investment properties.
This is incorrect. In VT, commercial properties are not taxed enough, on purpose, as a way to attract industry. This "highest amount" is nominal -- a 0.015 difference in rate in Burlington. Rent is higher than it should be for many reasons, but property taxes is not one of them.
Well apparently its profitable
It is profitable, but it needs to be because as a landlord, the rent you are charging needs to cover not only the cost of the building but putting away for needed repairs. The tenants does not pay to fix a broken Furnace at 2:00 am, a leaky roof, a new appliance or taxes and insurance which are high in VT.
They are taking all the risk, they should get some reward. All the people saying the mortgage is only... have no idea they base mortgage costs are not even nearly close to the cost of owning a home.
There were landlords making bank when rents were a fraction of what they are now.
And for those who don’t get a subsidy, property taxes have increased about 4x in the past 15 years. Comparing rents from “before” to rents now without taking into account the increased costs and risk of renting now to “before”
Look at the democratic Burlington candidate, she owns a rental and lost the security deposit after a tenant moved out mid lease because her letter said you can appeal to the housing board but didn’t explicitly say you have 30 days in the letter.
The risk of losing a security deposit? Give me a break. And rents have also increased about 4x in the last 15 years. Anyone who owned their units back then is absolutely taking it in now.
Yeah, you are out a chunk of change over stuff like not explicitly saying 30 days. Renting today is more risky than before. Shit like the inability to evict make it dangerous enough that you need to cover your ass.
Is a place like Burlington I assume the general sentiment is who cares, im renting or college kids or UVM kids who decided to stay so fuck it, soak them. Get out of chittenden county and shit is more affordable.
They aren’t taxed to the “highest amount” the highest amount is theoretically infinity… they are clearly taxed to an amount that is less than the level that would result in the landowner selling the property. For any property being used as a short term rental there should be an annual tax of 100% of assessed value. That would get them on the market, or in the rental pool very quickly. It would also help the people who run hotels and motels stay in business as they hemorrhage guests to ABnB.
I’ve always thought that hotels and motels that can’t compete would be the best candidates for affordable housing.
This is done a lot and I feel like it's not productive because ultimately vacationers and residents are competing for beds and this does nothing to increase the available total. Fewer hotel beds=more demand for Airbnbs
Why would you be calling for more taxes on there people's property? It is literally none of your business what they do with THEIR property.
Its none of my business what they do. However I think it shouldn't be profitable to run an airbnb.
Because?......welcome to capitalism and America. Believe it or not a lot of people like to use Airbnb over hotels. Don't need government getting involved and telling people how to live or manage their property.
This is the monthly housing hate thread. Always starts with assumptions that every house is owned by JP Morgan, and not just some person who wants to live in Vermont when they can, but have to work elsewhere because this state has no fucking jobs. It’s jobs people. Housing follows jobs.
Is that why Buffalo and Detroit have so much housing free?
You’re missing a little thing called population density.
Is that why rents are cheap in Boston?
walterbernardjr t1_iy1xjrc wrote
Airbnb’s aren’t the root cause of housing un affordability, they’re simply a contributing factor. Root cause is lack of jobs that pay enough to compensate for the houses, and lack of houses altogether. The second is a nation wide problem started in 2010, and in the 6-8 years following as we built 2-3 million fewer homes than necessary. The first is a factor of Vermont’s geography but could be improved, but what industries are driving jobs in the state? Almost nothing.
Im not saying don’t tax Airbnb’s. Im just saying it won’t solve the problem.