Confederate flags.. in Vermont.. you really can't fix stupid, can you?

Because people think any kind of regulation is bad.

Oh look, yet another racist.

Thank you. This is a really important point. While nobody should underestimate the seriousness of Vermont's housing problems, the stunning "second worst" ranking in the HUD report is almost certainly an artifact of idiosyncratic data collection. All bar graphs are not created equal.

*eyeroll*

Yup. I love that they are there, so I can swing by after work if I'm totally out but I still support my local black market until the prices are reasonable.

I will also buy some things like gummies or a cannacigar one in a while, too. The big thing is the restrictions on concentrates are crazy too

Trying to look at this issue on a local level is fairly pointless. It is a national crisis. Homeless people are migratory. I'm sure there were plenty of folks who hopped on a bus and headed south for the winter, or west to California. It's what they do, and then they usually try to get back to their "local netwrok" when they can.

We also know there are plenty of folks from neighboring states who have landed in hotel rooms here because they couldn't get help where they were (to be clear, I am personally very ok with this).

Taking the count in January is actually fairly idiotic, imo. This is useless data that serves no purpose other than taking a snapshot of January. They need to do it again in the summer and get people out to the campsites and other places folks make their homes. Then we could compare those numbers and get a better idea of the actual issue here, but only doing a count in the dead of winter is silly.

Again, the most important point is that this is a national issue and we need to discuss it and address it as such.

Just tax the shit out of second homes until they sell to locals. I couldn't figure out why people wouldn't support this, but that's because all the rich folk with their single family home vacation properties are on this sub.

If you wanted it to burn right in the middle of Rt 100 that would be perfect.

I don’t think this has been mentioned, but, as a state or municipality, I would try to make being a long term rental landlord more attractive than being a short term rental landlord.

Before the str boom, long term was the only game in town so landlords dealt with the regulations and difficulties the state imposed, now they have a more attractive solution in STRs. It’s not surprising they’d leave one game for the other. I’d suggest updating landlord rights to fit with the current landscape. Otherwise, landlords will continue to opt for short term over long term.

So you support “Vermont culture” being a bunch of racist hicks fighting each other?

Locals are pricing out locals. Both in the rental market and in buying markets. Scarcity of housing drives up cost, and refusing to build is what creates the scarcity. There are definitely NIMBY Vermonters who don’t want housing options to decrease their property value. A development of 10 homes across road from their home could mean they only get a 100k profit rather than 200k when (if?) they eventually sell.

Found the eugenicist.

There are a number of things wrong with using this sort of data to try to paint any realistic picture.

1. The count was done in January when it is freezing outside. Homeless people are mostly migratory. Those that couldn't find shelter somewhere, probably got on a bus and headed south or west for the winter. They may be back when the weather warms up, so using this as a benchmark for how good we are doing sheltering folks isn't really giving us a proper picture.
2. The housing crisis isn't a Vermont issue or a California issues, it's a national issue. Again, homeless people are migratory. They move around. The homeless folks living on the cliff in Santa Monica are mostly from other places. I even met a fellow Vermonter there while doing outreach in the 2010s.

The idea of dumping money into landlord's hands "in exchange for temporarily keeping rents affordable and prioritizing people exiting homelessness" is completely insane. We need permanent affordable housing. This program would pay for repairs for the people who are partially responsible for the problem in the first place. It's completely bonkers.

Gov Scott isn't wrong to point out this is an issue bigger than VT, but I don't see any mention of what his administration is doing to build bridges with neighboring states and/or bringing this issue to the federal level (which is what we need to do if we want to find actual solutions). Again, this is a national crisis, not just a Vermont crisis.

Hey white trash step outside of your trailer and get in your rusted out pile of shit. Drive to the nearest large city and volunteer at a homeless shelter. Step outside of your bitchmade comfort zone and interact with people that don’t look exactly like you.

Just words so sticks and stones bitch.

Get Plastic for the windows, it'll make a huge difference.

Does which slur was used really matter? A slur is a slur, it's just hate speech. Which particular racial slur is probably irrelevant. Given previous occurrences this year already and the girls in the article pictures are black, I'm sure we can probably guess. If your kid was the target of the statement, would it really matter to you which word they used to insult and degrade them? To answer your other questions:

The raised fist is a globally recognized symbol of solidarity against oppression.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/history-of-raised-fist-global-symbol-fighting-oppression

"Hate has no Home Here" is a non-profit group from Chicago that is trying to combat hate speech.

https://hatehasnohomehere.wordpress.com/about/

Why does it matter what slur was used? Are some more acceptable than others?

Lack of well paying jobs and housing shortage are definitely a problem in VT.

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/obstruction-zone-how-vermonts-land-use-regulations-impede-new-development-and-complicate-the-states-housing-crisis/Content?oid=35279122

Act 250 actually has discouraged good growth and made McMansions about the only thing you can build because a Mcmansion does not immediately trigger Act 250 or zoning issues... a few might but even then its a low barrier to clear because its one home instead of multiple.

I disagree with that assessment two-fold. Act 250 can prohibit development by starving a builder of the funds to complete a project through "slowing development". There are some segments of society that have extra cash and try to build something with it, but Act 250 frequently punishes those who try by making it such an onerous and expensive undertaking. Owning land, paying taxes and mortgages, permitting on local & state levels, staff to repeatedly draw up plans to satisfy govt, neighbors, and random interested parties is expensive - let alone funding it without breaking ground for 15 - 20 years or until someone runs out of money or gives up. Thats insane, it disincentives people from building.

If you look at stats put out by the VHFA, people just stopped building in the late 90s, early 2000s (way before 2008). There are also a LOT of people that move here for the "Vermont way of life" and then fight every development that could serve to house people born here to keep their bucolic dream alive. This pushes development to be expensive sprawling messes where someone can get a foothold and run with it instead of smart, mixed use, downtown intensive development.

Which hurts people born in Vermont the most by restricting the number of homes on the market and allowing outside buyers to scoop up what remains, who are then widely resented for an issue they stumbled into. Would recommend reading this article by Seven Days from last year that does a good job at explaining the way NIMBYS wield Act 250 to protect their own housing interests.

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/obstruction-zone-how-vermonts-land-use-regulations-impede-new-development-and-complicate-the-states-housing-crisis/Content?oid=35279122

​

**Edited because the stats are put out by VHFA not VHCB, used the wrong acronym!

Obligatory CT resident that likes to keep tabs on my fellow NE states: yeah, no one is trying to turn VT into anything else, and I see the same arguments here that I do in CT. Outside of the cities and large towns, CT has just as many folks going "but it'll ruin the aesthetics" or "but it'll ruin the charm". Totally disregard the fact, though, that many of the towns saying that have open pit quarries on their main roads and have distribution centers/warehouses as their main fixtures right next to their downtown that contains a dive bar, 3 pizza places, and seven nail salons.

Let's be real here: the goal has never been keeping the "charm" of towns. It's always been about keeping "those" people out.

Thanks for another Link post OP!

According to the article VT also provides temporary shelter better than anyone else. Perhaps that's at least a region draw.

50 years of NIMBYism.