Submitted by Old_Ad_1301 t3_z6k2tj in vermont
Twombls t1_iy2dpwe wrote
Reply to comment by GrubSprings in Why can't vermont tax Airnbn by Old_Ad_1301
Yeah thats why the rest of the state needs to follow burlingtons lead and ban the damn things.
SmargelingArgarfsner t1_iy3804u wrote
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.
Zestyclose_Alfalfa13 t1_iy39bsf wrote
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.
GreenHorror4252 t1_iy5vfkz wrote
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.
SmargelingArgarfsner t1_iy3alje wrote
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. 🤷🏽♂️
headgasketidiot t1_iy3d8mq wrote
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.
CountFauxlof t1_iy3flrf wrote
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.
Twombls t1_iy3ku1i wrote
When the vacancy rate is <.5% 2 to 4% of the housing is quite a lot.
CountFauxlof t1_iy3m5x6 wrote
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?
jsudarskyvt t1_iy3zo2m wrote
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?
CountFauxlof t1_iy41hom wrote
I think it should be required to house at least a majority of its students. I think we're in agreement on that point.
pyl_time t1_iy50d9x wrote
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?
jsudarskyvt t1_iy5lmzd wrote
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.
Twombls t1_iy3mqmm wrote
>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.
CountFauxlof t1_iy3nr96 wrote
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments