I think we should be regulating or taxing short term rentals and passing those proceeds on to homeowners who want to build things like OP stated.

We do! Get up to $50,000 to create or repair an ADU:

https://accd.vermont.gov/housing/vermont-housing-improvement-program

There are a lot of incentives available to purchase a Vermod, besides the energy savings and resale value.

ADUs are also subject to lesser zoning restrictions than certain other types of housing, depending on size and location of the unit themselves (ie, eg, same lot as an existing owner occupied single family home). While not the biggest monetary incentive this can really streamline the process in many municipalities.

I can create one hell of an ADU for 50k - wow.

> it’s Time for tax incentives for Garage apartments, Tiny Houses, In-Law Apartments, and Granny Pods

Yes, but it'll also require zoning changes in a number of towns (good luck), and significant inspection and minimum standards so that you're not sleeping in a "converted" sugar shack (and gods bless).

Absolutely.

Sadly, a converted sugar shack (and god bless) could be a step up from homelessness (a sleeping bag on the sidewalk).

How about for living in my truck?? lmao

Let's create a whole bunch of tiny homes and stack them on top of each other.

We need less people here. Not more

Fair true, but if a landlord wants to make profit off it, there's something to be said about insisting on a minimum standard of investment.

Incentivize? How about stop road blocking. Just now coming from a town office to discuss a large multi unit building that I would like to purchase to turn into long term rentals. Turns out there are 3 different zoning rules that prevent it from being rented as a multi unit. Currently a 2 unit with room for a third and the zoning rules wouldn’t allow it to be a 2 unit but it’s grandfathered in. This is the second property this month where zoning is preventing me from developing a multi long term rental.

That's awesome! Is this new? I knew Montpelier had a program like this but I didn't realize there was a statewide one.

Does a garden shed count as an ADU?

Not sure. A friend recently told me about it, but I’m not sure how long it’s been around.

The state economy disagrees.

Unless you already have a ADU, you would need an extra 30k just to get a septic in on top of whatever else it would cost to build it. Toss in an extra cost if this sub gets its way and you need a licensed electrician/plumber/contractor and 50k won’t even begin to put a dent in the construction of a new ADU.

So now that America is in the absolute shambles, everyone here is concerned with the economy. Got it

Let’s levy some ungodly tax on 2nd homes and single fam homes turning into rentals and maybe we could give some of the (nice) housing back to the workers/full timers.

VT now allows an ADU by-right https://accd.vermont.gov/housing/planning/adu

Thats nuts!

I bet you could make serious cash with an air bnb sugar shack.

You ok?

Thanks for asking. Sincerely. Im great. I am just against more people moving here.

not sure if you know this but a big reason we need more ADUs is for the people who are already here but can't afford to live. That $50K grant mentioned above is designed with the purpose of giving people funds to create ADUs with the stipulation that you rent to people who are at risk of homelessness

Build public housing!

They did this in TX using shipping containers

We kind of have a mechanism for this already, though it’s split between the municipal and state levels. We could jack up residential property taxes across the board, but offset the change for VT residents by also increasing the homestead tax credits & renters rebates.

Not worth the $$ if you need to replace your septic if you are adding a bedroom.

VT needs to update the septic rules to reflect low flow devices so people can convert a 3 bed septic to 4 without spending $30,0000. Because if you need to spend $$ to make your ADU + $30,000 for a new septic, you are never making that money back on rent

Rutland’s zoning (as well as the zoning laws in every other city in the state) already allow ADUs on any taxable lot, and there’s already money on the table to build them.

There’s also subsidized loan programs (1.25% last year, probably higher now with interest rates going up across the board) to replace older pre-manufactured homes with modern, more efficient pre-fabs.

^^This guy affordable houses^^

Guess I am voting for Prop-2 and @MatthewGeer

To get the incentive "VHIP participants must agree to rent units at or below HUD Fair Market Rents for the County and work with Coordinated Entry Lead Organizations* to find suitable renters for at least five years."

That's - good - news to me. I wonder if I was getting it crossed with the minimum building size in some zones, and the weird restrictions on mobile homes.

if any of us loses our homes we are all at risk of being homeless. They are doing to the housing market what was done to the diamond market. Buy them and horde them. It makes the ones on the market far more valuable.

Great idea!!!

How about passing the proceeds on to renters who'd like to buy a house and actually live in it year-round?

Or hear me out.. helping homeowners build more apartment stock will water down the market and help renters indirectly. You'd have to add a bunch of stipulations if you're directly giving money to renters. What if they get money and move out of Vermont?

If you're providing down-payment assistance to purchase a house IN VERMONT, they couldn't very well just abscond with the cash. True, the would have to be some kind of stipulations that they live full-time in the property for X number of years, or the money has to be paid back.

But that's fine; it's not JUST about housing stock (though to be fair, that is a factor). The point is, home ownership is the largest source of wealth for most Americans. I would rather see financial assistance directed to help renters get into a home and start building that wealth, rather than write a big check to existing homeowners who already HAVE that equity... so they can make even more money by collecting rent from tenants who are still struggling to achieve home ownership.

[deleted]

I want to turn renters into homeowners. This strategy turns homeowners into landlords and puts more money in their pockets every month. Renters would hopefully see some benefit in terms of cheaper rent, but that only indirectly at best helps with the goal of turning them into homeowners.

Taking STR tax revenue and paying homeowners to build apartments transfers money from property investors to existing homeowners to build the unit, and then from renters to existing homeowners as the homeowner collects rent on the unit that potentially cost nothing out-of-pocket to build. Homeowners win 2x, investors lose (this is good), and renters also more or less lose (this is bad). So yes, I'd rather see the wealth transfer from property investors to renters, who then purchase a home. The property investors still lose (good), home sellers win (could be argued either way), and the (now former) renter has a home of their own to live in (good).

Or maybe the state should just take the tax revenue and directly build affordable homes that are deed-restricted to full-time residents with a preference to first-time home buyers. That's probably simpler, helps solves the supply problem, and helps first-time buyers. But if we're passing proceeds onto somebody in the form of a subsidy, then like I said, I'm firmly in favor of a plan that turns renters into homeowners, rather than homeowners into landlords.

[deleted]

Agreed. I was addressing the premise in the post i initially responded to, which was "tax short-term rentals and pass the proceeds onto homeowners to build ADUs," which I'm opposed to for the reasons previously stated. Further, the most upvoted reply on this post as a whole is pointing out a government program that provides up to $50,000 to existing homeowners to build an ADU. In the context of those kinds of programs, where the government is just writing somebody a check, I'd rather see them write a check to a renter to help them become a homeowner, than to a homeowner to help them become a landlord.

But like I said in my previous post, I'd rather the government just take the money and build more housing, with the caveat that it needs to be somehow targeted at first-time homeowners.

[deleted]