Recent comments in /f/vermont

wittgensteins-boat t1_j1z11ih wrote

Altitude makes a difference.

Most of Massachusetts population is near the coast, less than 100 feet in altitude, and warmed or moderated by water.

Vermont average altitude is 1000 feet.

Even when we assume people in Vermont are in valleys, at 500 feet, that makes a difference. Plus no sea weather moderation.

5

MarkVII88 t1_j1z0vt8 wrote

Too much BANANA NIMBY in Vermont to expect any major success in development, especially when it concerns "affordable" housing. Everyone agrees it's a good idea, but nobody wants it anywhere near their own house.

It's too easy to stymie development in VT. People and "interested groups" will use any excuse available to delay and increase costs in an attempt to prevent new housing. They'll say the impact of new development on local traffic will be detrimental, that the infrastructure can't sustain the predicted traffic volume, and sue in court. They'll say the new development doesn't adequately address drainage concerns and will damage a fragile, nearby bog ecosystem that nobody previously gave a shit about, and sue in court. And then, and then, and then...

8

escobert t1_j1yzv80 wrote

>Ultimately what's really a threat to Vermonters is a broken property tax system. As property values increase, so do property taxes and just like California and Colorado, eventually the taxes alone will evict the poor from their homes opening it up for rich people to take everything Vermonters worked for.

Already happening.

10

MarkVII88 t1_j1yzb5o wrote

intimated

[ in-tuh-mey-tid ]See synonyms for intimated on Thesaurus.com

adjective - made known indirectly; hinted or implied: It's the intimated aggression that's so offensive in the headline “Shareholders seize control of floundering corporation.” Whether because of my persuasive manner or the intimated suggestion that I regarded him as a progressive, he pounded the table in agreement.

2

Reasonable_Expert_23 t1_j1yvygo wrote

Zoning is not the only barrier. It’s very expensive to source building materials in Vermont, and labor is scarce/expensive. The only thing that pencils right now for a lot of developers are large multifamily apartment buildings and the rents needed to cover costs are high even for middle incomes.

I live next to Hartland and Sharon - neither town has any zoning and there’s been hardly any new development, despite being pretty close to the Upper Valley core.

Yes, let developers build within reason and mandate affordability to the extent possible. But we also need to increase public subsidies, build social housing, and scale up other public assistance programs.

14

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

PeacefulWay t1_j1yrnfq wrote

My sketchy inspections guy got shut down with the new rules a couple years ago. My newer sketchy inspections guy told me to go else where with my rusty dump truck as he was only one enforcement away from losing his certification.

To be clear, the truck is fine. Just a three inch crack in the upper left corner of the windshield that I’m not inclined to replace.

1

Rare_Message_7204 t1_j1yqigj wrote

What happened to good old fashioned research? You could have answered your own questions relatively quickly. If you aren't even aware of our public transportation situation you would probably benefit from doing your own research before coming here.

6