Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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?

2

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?

6

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.

3

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?

3

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.

0

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.

4

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.

2