Submitted by DaddyBobMN t3_119x7rv in vermont
Comments
Hagardy t1_j9p7n9e wrote
I’d be happy to go back to the days where we could build similarly to how many downtowns already exist. Many towns are zoned in such a way that if a building burns down it can’t be rebuilt it the same form, even though it’d stood for a hundred years because the zoning has changed.
Instead we’re forcing people to live in the 1950s-70s and claiming it’s to preserve the Vermont of the 1900s
Vermontess t1_j9p573x wrote
Vermont’s laws, regulations, complicated permitting processes, and slow court systems have made being a developer or landlord very expensive here relative to other states. The risk/reward ratio just doesn’t make sense for anything other than luxury housing.
This is only one part of the perfect storm that we find ourselves in, but it is indeed a large part of the problem. Will be really interested to see what they come up with. Hopeful it will make a difference because something needs to be done, even if it’s not perfect at first
-Motor- t1_j9pb7g5 wrote
"risk v reward of luxury housing"? Risk has nothing to do with it; it's just math (profit). Why spend $100 to build something you will sell for $150 when you can build something for $200 and sell for $500?
HeadPen5724 t1_j9ptkf1 wrote
Actually it’s more like spending $200 to build something you can sell for $150 v. Spending $250 on something you can sell for $400.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9pehk9 wrote
the risk is whether there is someone who wants to buy that $500 item vs if you had just built two of the $150 item for the same amount of money and definitely had buyers.
it's way more complicated than your simple math equation. of course there's risk for investing in real estate lol.
-Motor- t1_j9peuao wrote
There's more risk in cheap housing. People that can afford a mortgage for a cheap house, can't actually get the bank to lend them the money. I don't see $400k+ pro homes sitting empty.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9pgir3 wrote
do you know why you can see plenty of houses for 300k+ on realtor.com right now, and barely any for 200k under? because the cheap ones are bought up immediately.
anyone who can afford a mortgage for a cheap house can easily get a mortgage. it's really not hard to get a mortgage if you can actually afford the house. i can ACTUALLY AFFORD a sub 200k mortgage, but I've been approved for a 260k mortgage. it is way too easy to get approved for way too much mortgage.
-Motor- t1_j9phdu0 wrote
This is about new construction. That's where your started. Contractors aren't making cheap housing because it's not as profitable for almost as much effort. Period. No one, that isn't on some sort of government funded or outreach/charity endeavor is making cheap housing. And go talk to a realtor or a lender about $90-150k homes and prospective buyers credit. I'm in a family of bankers and mortgage brokers.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9psi6f wrote
> Contractors aren't making cheap housing because it's not as profitable for almost as much effort.
Wrong! Contractors aren't making cheap housing because they literally can't due to current regulations. All condo buildings are luxury because they have to be, it could easily be profitable if there was less regulation around building multi unit mixed use housing in VT.
ElBrazil t1_j9tsico wrote
> Wrong! Contractors aren't making cheap housing because they literally can't due to current regulations.
It doesn't matter. If regulations allowed cheaper housing to be sold at a profit, developers will still target the highest margins first, which is going to be the more expensive units
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9uckft wrote
maybe. at least the option would exist, and no doubt that option would be taken more than its being taken now (ie, never)
wholeWheatButterfly t1_j9qdy60 wrote
The risk is there end up being more regulation on affordable housing because Act 250 comes into play with 10 units or more, and developers are generally going to want to build more than 10 cheap units at once (whether in an apartment building or single family neighborhood). Once Act 250 kicks in, it is a uncertain bureaucratic process which could lead to years of disputes (which adds to cost), and even ultimately shut down the process. It's much easier and less risky to build one or a few luxury houses because it is less regulated.
I think lots of developers would prefer to make 20 cheap homes than spend the same amount on fewer luxury homes, but it's just a risky process with act 250 on top of other permitting and zoning. Making tons of cookie cutter houses or an apartment complex is, in many ways, easier than making a handful of luxury homes, since you can much more easily reuse material and designs.
Agitated_Armadillo13 t1_j9pjbmf wrote
You can just tell us you have no idea what you're talking about instead
you_give_me_coupon t1_j9puja1 wrote
> We need to stop living in the days gone by where Vermont can be majority single-family homes and wide open spaces
I agree about the single-family homes, but we absolutely must keep the wide-open spaces.
cpujockey t1_j9vi83y wrote
> I agree about the single-family homes
but I hate hearing my neighbors. I like wood working, running CNC machines, and playing my guitar loud. Can't do that in a giant people box.
kellogsmalone t1_ja2u8yv wrote
I mean, you can...you might just need to ensure complaints :)
cpujockey t1_ja2wqqk wrote
Complaints get expensive and end up pissing off land lords. Ain't no way I can risk that in this housing shortage.
you_give_me_coupon t1_j9vstff wrote
I completely agree. I suppose we should be able to make the dense places denser (if people living there want that) without requiring density, or even worse, making wide-open spaces into people boxes.
ceiffhikare t1_j9qkfl1 wrote
There is more than enough land already locked up forever in trusts and preservation deals,lol. Every town could easily add another 5% in new housing and it would hardly change the landscape. Dont worry it will still look pretty for the damn tourists.
you_give_me_coupon t1_j9qsdu5 wrote
The tourists can go fuck themselves, I want it pretty for me and mine.
Vermontess t1_j9qvp12 wrote
FWIW Vermont ranks 25th for public lands In the country
kellogsmalone t1_ja2uaz7 wrote
How is this measured. Percentage of land preserved?
Vermontess t1_ja3d48q wrote
Yup
cpujockey t1_j9vhypk wrote
> single-family homes
i like my single family home though. hopefully those units never go out of style and the those big people boxes can be built where people want them.
HeadPen5724 t1_j9pt7h3 wrote
Actually our population is declining… and single family homes are still necessary and important, not everyone wants to live in a City. Government regulations made developing a property a 6 figure gamble on whether you may or may not get permits… that means developers need to make up that money. If the state got out of the way, developers could afford to build houses that coulld be sold cheaper since they didn’t need to cough up a million dollars just to get permits.
joementumsa t1_j9q5dnh wrote
Vermont's population increased between the 2010 and 2020 censuses and is estimated to be continuing to increase YoY since then.
HeadPen5724 t1_j9q992r wrote
Due to the influx of covid transplants… give it time and it will go back down again. From 20011 to 2019 it was all decline…
Aoe330 t1_j9qd1jd wrote
Yeah, I don't think they're leaving. Like, ever. They found out about what it's like not living in a city, and they don't seem to want to go back.
HeadPen5724 t1_j9qko3t wrote
This is like the third time this has happened in my lifetime. Maybe this time will be different 🤷🏼♂️
kosmonautinVT t1_j9sow60 wrote
Climate change says hello and welcome to Vermont
Will make COVID transplants look like nothing
Harmacc t1_j9y6k4k wrote
That’s pretty much why I’m here. Used to live out west. Trying to beat the crowds.
Loudergood t1_j9wi5be wrote
The census finished right as COVID started to take off.
Kiernanstrat t1_j9qxyqj wrote
Your opening statement is easily refuted with a simple google search. Population leveled off between 2000 and 2020 but still increased by around 15,000 residents.
HeadPen5724 t1_j9r3ns9 wrote
The state says it declined from 2011 -2019 and then bounced up… because covid. Sometimes two data points don’t really tell the whole story.
Azr431 t1_j9pdzfd wrote
Eliminating single family zoning exclusivity is a big barrier removal.
Galadrond t1_j9sse6x wrote
We can definitely house folks without compromising VT’s forests so long as we densify and use land that has already been developed upon.
kellogsmalone t1_ja2u1w2 wrote
Mixed use is a great solution that also preserves the character of town centers.
cpujockey t1_j9vitvz wrote
> We can definitely house folks without compromising VT’s forests so long as we densify and use land that has already been developed upon.
actually there's good lumber in those forests which make incredible guitars, furniture and other products.
Vermont Maple and Walnut is by far the highest quality wood for musical instruments I have ever had the pleasure of working with. We also have other species that folks find ideal for instruments.
I am not saying cut down the forests, but I am saying that it wouldn't hurt to take down a few acres here and there to build up some more rural living areas or even carve out a good plot for infrastructure projects like broad band.
Glad-Palpitation292 t1_j9qguv1 wrote
They should eliminate 5 and 10 acre zoning, as well.
kellogsmalone t1_ja2u3zv wrote
Tell me about this zoning.
Glad-Palpitation292 t1_ja2x6cs wrote
What, five and ten acre zoning? It's a type of zoning district that only allows one house on each 5 or 10 acre parcel, respectively. If you want country roads lined with million dollar "rustic modern" post and beam houses (you know, the ones built to look like old farmhouses connected to a barn, so they put red siding on the attached three car garage) and that are owned by people from other states, it's the best way to do it. By setting the acreage requirements so high, it eliminates entry level houses, because the lots themselves go for $150,000 before you've broken ground for a foundation.
It's also really inefficient from a tax perspective. First, because the houses are fewer and further between, there is a smaller tax base, even though individual houses are more valuable. Second, even while 5 and 10 acre zoned houses are highly dispersed, their owners still need municipal services, which take more effort to provide and are therefore more expensive.
There's also the Current Use program to discuss, which is its own huge problem for affordability. But you asked about zoning.
kellogsmalone t1_ja31wo5 wrote
Good to know. I personally would love to rehab an actual farmhouse with 5-10 acres but I assume that would be a bit different than what you described. I actually want to homestead and have some livestock. This zoning sound more like these pseudo mcmansion style developments that seem rural because they're sparsely distributed given the acreage but sure look like subdivisions.
Glad-Palpitation292 t1_ja3e6yj wrote
Correct.
No-Ganache7168 t1_j9po0xb wrote
Allowing more infill in designated villages/ downtown areas makes sense. Allowing suburban sprawl in open areas will make Vermont look like NJ or Raleigh NC. My fear is that they won’t strike a good balance between promoting affordable housing and preserving what makes Vermont so unique and desirable.
EscapedAlcatraz t1_j9qkmtc wrote
The Vermont Housing Finance Agency estimates that the state needs to make 40,000 new housing units available by 2030 if it wants to return to a healthy market. And Maura Collins, its executive director, said achieving that goal will be “all but impossible” unless Vermont invests more money and overhauls its regulatory environment.
We are going to ruin the State.
cpujockey t1_j9viwrw wrote
> We are going to ruin the State.
already is.
kellogsmalone t1_ja2umjw wrote
Even without R1 zoning, rules can be put in place about designs and make them incorporate into the existing character of a town. A three or four story in town apartment building put on somewhere that might have been a decrepit factory or turning on old lumber mill on the water into condos is a lot smarter than just putting up hundreds of track homes.
A lot of this is going to come down to your local townships some pretty sure that stuff still needs to be approved by your housing departments and that would be determined at the county and the local level. There's still avenues to preserve and protect communities in the general vibe that makes Vermont so attractive.
you_give_me_coupon t1_j9puyik wrote
> Allowing suburban sprawl in open areas will make Vermont look like NJ or Raleigh NC.
Makes sense that our legislators would want that, since most of them are from places like those. (yuk yuk)
[deleted] t1_j9q11cn wrote
[deleted]
Loudergood t1_j9wiarr wrote
90s Williston happened with current regulations.
460Wbymag t1_j9rdp7d wrote
Coming from somebody who grew up in NJ, increasing housing and population in Vermont will require more schools, police, fire, hospitals, social services and government which in returns means your taxes will go up and the cost to live in Vermont will go up. More housing will NOT lower the cost of housing, that is a lie perpetrated by people who want to build more. Just look at NJ, NC, FL, and everywhere that major development and population boom. The housing costs did not go down, the opposite happened, prices went up over time. The cost to build apartment buildings or multi family homes is so high that the developer won’t be leasing them for $1000/month. Dream on. Leave Vermont rural.
No-Ganache7168 t1_j9ri7j3 wrote
You make a good point
Loudergood t1_j9wifaq wrote
There's no reason these should be more expensive on a per capita rate when you scale up and gain economy of scale.
ArkeryStarkery t1_j9r6a53 wrote
Do you think the balance is good now?
HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9olc3e wrote
Ugh. I’m torn on this.
On one hand, it’s clear we have a major problem with local zoning keeping the landed gentry wealthy and keeping “those” people out.
On the other, the state has a miserable record of “fixing” problems by taking control over them (school funding and healthcare are obvious examples).
Be prepared for housing and associated infrastructure to get exponentially more expensive and controversial as the state “fixes it”.
contrary-contrarian t1_j9pbahx wrote
This bill is largely de-regulation. The state isn't inserting itself into these regulatory procedures, it's limiting what municipalities can regulate (and reducing the purview of act 250).
This by all accounts should help make building in towns and villages easier and more affordable
HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9pcvv1 wrote
If only. Rainbows and unicorns.
contrary-contrarian t1_j9r8zf3 wrote
I mean... suggest something helpful then? Instead of sitting on your ass being useless?
HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9tdf1f wrote
Sure. At the State level…
End act 250. The 10 acre loophole and forest fragmentation is the result of this grand idea.
End current use tax beaks. Most of this goes to the wealthy.
End TIF districts. Allows pet projects to be prioritized in generally wealthy parts of the state.
Ban all future building above 1750 elevation
Statewide property and school tax with no variation between towns.
Tax second homes at double the residential rate.
Get environmental laws on the same page with development rules. For example, Vermont uses village designation to allow/incentivize more density in towns. Those towns are almost always next to a river that can no longer be managed as it was for the last 200 years of favor of fluvial erosion. In the age of climate change and redrawn federal flood districts, the end result is that nothing gets built.
At the regional level… Actually decide if regional or county planning is going to be a thing, and if so, give them authority. Currently we have a weak county/regional government. Playing around at the regional level without establishing the authority and role of the regional/county government is just a bureaucratic mess.
At the local level… Towns currently have local zoning, this was done at the behest and funding of the VT legislature. Well intentioned, but a problem of the legislatures own making that now keeps VT as a diorama under glass.
Let the towns and cities make their own zoning. Give tax breaks to those who allow greater density development. The local option tax shows that incentives for development work (see Williston, South Burlington and Burlington). Towns and their residents need to realize a benefit if they are being asked to change their current qualify of life.
What I can guarantee is that adding more layers of government regulation on top of the existing drivers of restriction and cost will not end with a positive result in a timely manner.
contrary-contrarian t1_j9txjhu wrote
Now match your policy goals with Vermont's political climate.
I agree with many of your proposals but the issue with governments is they are governed by politicians. Vermont has a citizen legislature with no dedicated staff assigned to the legislators. The majority of whom are not educated enough or savvy enough to fully understand the ramifications of complex land use and zoning issues.
It is going to take small steps of improvement to get anywhere. This bill is a leap in terms of Vermont making progress. It's not perfect by any means but it is much much better than nothing.
HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9u4bxu wrote
Except it doesn’t change the major problems and adds levels of government regulation at the regional level.
So very frustrating.
contrary-contrarian t1_j9udaxd wrote
I agree it doesn't make major changes. As I noted those are unfortunately politically untenable.
However, it doesn't add levels of regulation, it removes them.
Mr-Bovine_Joni t1_j9pgnar wrote
Municipalities already have a chokehold on housing zoning - hence the insanely high prices. Taking the veto power away from towns in some cases will allow more to be built, increase housing quality, and bring prices down.
HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9pi8av wrote
Hook, line and sinker. They have you.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9pe89t wrote
this bill is not giving more control to the state, though...
HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9pi34n wrote
Do you actually believe that the state will stop after taking this step of control over local zoning?
The state already “incentivizes” traditional village settlement patterns (largely along now un-managed rivers in the age of climate change??? /smh) with designation, funding and regional planning entities.
I’m sure Burlington residents are gonna love the plan that the Jericho/Underhill legislators have in store for them.
This is not gonna end well or inexpensively.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9ps1fb wrote
slippery slope fallacy. zzzz address the bill, not some wild "what ifs" pulled from your ass
it's pretty unlikely that this bill passes anyway
HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9q1w5u wrote
I think this bill or a similar bill is likely to pass this or next session.
Please read the proposed legislation, it’s linked from the Digger story.
The elements of the regional plan portion of the bill are straight up central planning, including a requirement to hire “housing resource navigators” to direct the Towns.
More layers of government regulation never make life (or housing) more affordable for average Vermonters.
homefone t1_j9qfr3o wrote
Good. Local municipalities shouldn't be able to restrict all housing development, maybe barring large single family homes. The median home in Massachusetts costs well over $600K. If you'd like to fix the problem before we arrive at a similar point, the only way to do it is to build more housing and that's impossible without addressing local zoning.
[deleted] t1_j9p5yx4 wrote
[deleted]
1T-Nerd t1_j9peebg wrote
It will be interesting to see the qualifications for the "Missing Middle-Income Homeownership Development Program" and how the vetting process would work. Although the same could be said for any of the proposals highlighted in the article.
My initial concerns with this one here is the targeted townships for this 90 million dollar project. I've not yet dug into it but am curious if the Vermont senate is also targeting legislation to curtail STR as this seems like a huge contributor to the housing crisis going on here.
​
I think the bills worthwhile fundamentally but it needs to be done in lockstep with curtailing STR running rampant across the state.
hsrahmas t1_j9q75oi wrote
Just eliminating STR's will not be enough to address the housing shortage because there are not enough single family houses to fill the shortage.
Revising zoning so developers can build something other than single family neighborhoods will help address the issue much better in the long term.
1T-Nerd t1_j9q7vau wrote
I'm not suggesting that at all. The point I am making is that in addition to revising zoning considerations you must also impose some form of legislation like is being done in tourist towns out in Colorado to mitigate STR.
Edit: My own neighborhood has 12 single family homes. Since Covid the number of STR has gone from 2 to 5 of the 12 total houses. One of which was formerly a single family for a long term renter who had to move due to the house being sold to someone who turned it into an STR.
No-Ganache7168 t1_j9qrp6a wrote
What’s more, there is nothing stopping developers from catering to the STR crowd. They could build smaller, cheaper homes in neighborhoods and rent them out.
1T-Nerd t1_j9qte1r wrote
Hadn't even considered that as a potential opportunity. So to follow that thought trend: I'm a developer who (qualifications for these state funded grants not yet known based on the linked article alone) gets state funding and re-zones a 5 acre swatch of farm land into multiple 2,480 square foot homes (median home size in the U.S according to Google). As it stands now nothing would stop me from turning this into a multi-unit STR community.
​
This all really feeds back into my original thought which was what will the gatekeeping be to qualify for these subsidies from a developer perspective and measures to lock out these becoming STR immediately.
kellogsmalone t1_ja2uex9 wrote
It's really corporate investing. Corporations now have 20% of the market of rentals nationwide.
naidim t1_j9pwt5g wrote
What's STR?
1T-Nerd t1_j9pxt4l wrote
STR = Short Term Rental (AirBNB/VRBO)
Kiernanstrat t1_j9qy8rq wrote
Drives me up a wall when people use unexplained acronyms.
naidim t1_j9u3nrf wrote
It can be frustrating, especially because so many have multiple uses. Sometimes it can be simple to figure out through context, but regardless, for communication purposes alone, its a never a bad idea to be explicit or to give examples.
kellogsmalone t1_ja2ucap wrote
IKR?
memorytheatre t1_j9s3y3a wrote
One big difference between New Jersey and Vermont. New Jersey is across a river from the most dominant economic city in America, perhaps the world. Vermont is across a lake from the Adirondacks.
How many people do you think want to move to a place with very few good, well-paying, career-worthy jobs? Where winter is 6-7 months of the year? Unless you think there will be a mad rush to get at those crappy seasonal service jobs, I wouldn't freak out too much about it.
Rich people FROM New Jersey, NY, Mass, Conn. buying up houses to use as second homes in Vermont. Now that is something to freak out a little about.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_j9otax8 wrote
Government:
If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions.
Despair.com
Galadrond t1_j9ss7a7 wrote
There’s certainly plenty of useless strip malls and parking lots around the state that could be demolished and replaced with multi purpose buildings that include affordable rent controlled apartments (~$500 - $700) in the upper floors. Just add a residency requirement to qualify for them.
appa-ate-momo t1_j9oxqae wrote
I don't see a problem with the vast majority of this. We need to stop living in the days gone by where Vermont can be majority single-family homes and wide open spaces. More people live here now, and we need to be realistic about how to house them.
The people complaining about government control here are off-base. State control of housing is literally the opposite of what caused this problem; a hands-off approach led to developers choosing over and over again to only build luxury properties, leaving the majority of residents with little to no affordable options.