Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

headgasketidiot t1_j1xis20 wrote

Build public housing. Ban airbnb.

65

mojitz t1_j1xnak4 wrote

Too many people write off social housing. It doesn't even need to be a drain on public coffers, either. Just build something decent that appeals to a mix of income levels and charge enough to cover maintenance/upkeep and you get yourself a long way just by cutting out the profit share. Obviously that wouldn't cover the very bottom of the income spectrum, but it could be a pretty cheap way of making housing a lot more affordable for the the middle class and working poor — with huge knock-on effects for the broader economy.

30

No-Ganache7168 t1_j216ell wrote

It worked when I was growing up because it wasn't free housing. It was housing for working people (most of them working very hard) and rents could cover maintenance. Based on articles I've read in BFP and Vt Digger, at least some non-working able-bodied people are living in subsidized housing. This doesn't help promote anything but laziness. Build homes specifically for working middle and low income Vermonters.

1

Tension-Cautious t1_j1ypgcg wrote

Well then why don't you do that?

−25

mojitz t1_j1z99pz wrote

I think you responded with something cute because you don't actually have an argument against this, but feel some sort of reflexive need to oppose any attempt to use the power of government for good.

13

HarrisonFordsBlade t1_j1yvwlc wrote

Every time the lottery jackpot gets really huge I buy a ticket. And then I fantasize about what I'll do with the money. At this point the plans are fairly elaborate. But the basics of it is that I will create rent-to-own communities with rent commensurate with people's income so that as many people as possible have the opportunity to own their own home.

12

cpujockey t1_j1z1c0d wrote

> rent-to-own communities

people will take offense to that. urban sprawl, property ownership, those are things a lot of folks deem satanic.

−8

HarrisonFordsBlade t1_j1z1ors wrote

Probably, but if I've just won a $500 million lottery I can afford to calm a lot of people down. ;)

5

cpujockey t1_j1z2pn6 wrote

that would be pretty groovy.

careful though: taxes will eat you alive, not just with property taxes, but on those sick gainz too.

I'm still shocked about how the vermont subreddit views single family homes and all. folks keep advocating for these huge apartment buildings thinking we have the infrastructure to handle a huge people box and yet the buses don't even run on time. Additionally, single family homes open the opportunity for ownership in more than just owning a POS - you have room to do shit and privacy that comes with that. I know if I was living in an apartment building I'd be evicted for making guitars and all other craft projects I do. No one wants to be smelling my lacquer, nor do they want to hear my power tools at 2 am when creativity strikes.

0

Twigglesnix t1_j1yn981 wrote

Simple rule, all rentals for vacant houses must be month to month only. No daily rentals for vacant houses. All of a sudden thousands of houses come online.

14

you_give_me_coupon t1_j20eteg wrote

Better yet, expropriate airbnbs (non-owner-occupied) and out-of-staters' third homes (camps for Vermonters are fine). Make them into public housing.

1

potroast1251 t1_j1zpvcz wrote

Being a short term rental landlord should be allowed only for residents of Vermont. You then keep Vermonters who rent out their little cabin or in law suite intact while stopping the gobbling up of home by out of state investors.

0

you_give_me_coupon t1_j20f8s4 wrote

There was a bill in the legislature to ban airbnbs unless the owner lived in them 60-70% of the year. This would have meant that renting in-law apartments or spare rooms would still be fine, as well as renting out your house for a month while you go somewhere else in the summer, but that speculating on housing just to rent it out short-term wouldn't be allowed.

It got killed very quickly. Our legislators work for wealthy people and tourists, not us.

8

TrumpImpeachedAugust t1_j20pd8d wrote

> It got killed very quickly. Our legislators work for wealthy people and tourists, not us.

Our legislative compensation makes sure of this.

In order to be a legislator in Vermont, you either need to be independently wealthy, or otherwise self-funded, which tends to result in a lot of business-owner legislators.

I'm not just referring to the money needed in order to run for office--once they're in office, they need to have a source of wealth, because they are paid ~$750/week (plus a per diem) but only for the 18 weeks that the legislature is in session. The result is not enough to live on for a year.

This means that unless you happen to work in a field where you can just disappear for four months in a row every spring, you have to be independently wealthy or retired. If you or I ran for office and won, we'd probably be financially ruined.

It's a controversial opinion, but I think we need to pay our state legislators more. The current system means that regular Vermonters literally could not afford to hold office even if they won it. You'd be elected to office, have to quit your job, and then survive on the $14k/yr legislative salary plus whatever seasonal minimum wage jobs you could find. (Except a good legislator has work to do year-round, making seasonal employment even more difficult.)

7