1 - NIMBY describes a behavior, not a class of people. You are correct that some people dangle affordability concerns in bad faith to try to block unwanted development. However, here there is real evidence that short-term rentals are having a major impact.

2 - That is anecdotal evidence at best. Tourist towns did fine before AirBnB using bed and breakfasts, motels, etc. The market will adapt.

3 - restricting short-term rentals is not unconstitutional, just like have local zoning codes is not unconstitutional. And the focus on the 25% is entirely appropriate given how difficult it is to develop new housing in Vermont (lack of labor and suitable land being major factors amongst others).

4 - again, there is no evidence to suggest that AirBnB is propping up the hospitality industry. If there is demand for it, other forms of guest accommodation will come online.

Will depend on elevation, sun exposure, etc. I live in the hills about 35 minutes south of St J, and we still have plenty of snow, but down in the valley below our place, we're beginning to see dirt. Some places will be snow free this week, others might see snow until late April. If you're moving into dirt road country, mud is going to be a bigger impediment to moving, generally speaking (can't speak to your specific circumstances, but it is much easier to move around here when the ground is frozen rather than squishy... large trucks are prohibited from the pavement to my place this time of year, for example.) Sorry you're not coming by choice, but welcome to VT!

It is melting, but we're getting 4 inches tomorrow. I don't know if you're asking if it is in the roads/sidewalks (no, for the most part) or if you mean is it here at all (yes.)

If you want there to be no snow at all, I'd check your preferred weather app and when you see 10ish days of over 40, you're probably okay.

Yeah, I pasted this elsewhere in the thread, but an argument much like you're making is laid out in some detail here: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/09/npr-is-not-your-friend

The whole thing is very Manufacturing Consent. I don't doubt the reporter's honestly; I just think that, as Chomsky famously said in that interview, the people who end up doing the reporting are the kinds of people who believe the kinds of things they do. When's the last time anyone at VPR gave an openly anticapitalist framing of an issue? I think On The Media is probably the only NPR show that dabbles in leftist thought. Meanwhile, there are like 10 different shows that are just neoliberal apologia (How I Built This is just capitalist great man propaganda. Science Friday has tons of uncritical coverage of corporate products, etc.).

I'd like to provide a response:

1. I usually look for evidence that those who are against Airbnbs are not NIMBYs who wrap themselves with the affordable housing argument. Almost every person I've spoken to in person who is against Airbnb is an obvious NIMBY.

2. Almost every working class person who I have spoken to on the issue is very afraid of Airbnbs disappearing because of the direct and second and third order effects that economic activity generates. I also find it very curious that the anti-Airbnb crowd has absolutely no proposed ideas for how to replace that economic activity.

3. You state with the back of the napkin math that 25% of the housing crisis can be solved by taking back Airbnbs. Let's put aside the constitutional issues with your ideas and I will, for sake of argument, accept the math. That means 75% of the issue is due to other factors. Why are you focusing on the 25% when 75% is a bigger number?

4. You speak of affordable housing. Airbnbs provide a lot of jobs that will dissappear with your ideas and no proposed replacement for that income. It doesn't matter how low rent is when unemployment spikes.

The anti Airbnb ideas are DOA for most of the state for these reasons.

Brave Little State is fantastic for some stories but they definitely have a habit of “both-sidesing” and doing superficial reporting on topics like this. Here they just pinball back and forth between talking points from different camps without much analysis. To just regurgitate a talking point like “AirBnBs help people afford their homes” without further examination is poor journalism.

Yes, it all melted two weeks ago.

And then it fell back down from the sky again last week.

There's a reason we like to say that NPR stands for Nice Polite Republicans.

Great question, I wish I knew!

> Yeah, it was a really strange editorial choice.

I think it's entirely expected of VPR and NPR. :(

Thanks for your post, it's really good, and lays out a lot of the reasons I stopped donating to, and then stopped listening to, VPR and NPR. I'm sure /u/bravestatevt will read your post, but I don't expect anything will change, because the issues with their coverage are structural.

The whole post was good, but this part stood out:

>Let me reframe this, with the opening stories of the episode in mind. Our economic situation is such that middle class folks have turned to mining our communities to stay afloat. This isn't a story about how Airbnb is providing an important lifeline for people; it's one of decades of policy failure that has resulted in people desperate to hold on carving up their own communities, and the conflict that causes, which they reported on so nicely at the beginning.

This is something I saw over and over before I gave up on VPR/NPR. Big issues with real impact on regular people would usually get reported on (sometimes stories just wouldn't be covered, but that's another issue), but when the root causes were right there and obvious, the reporting would nonetheless be some dissembling mush about "nuance", or "complexity", usually with a heavy-handed implication that there was nothing to be done.

Why does this happen, when following threads back is straightforward and would make for engaging stories? I would bet anything that certain lines of inquiry are just banned at VPR, either implicitly or explicitly, depending on who or what would be implicated. If the thread leads back to our overall economic system, or failures of some (allied) political party over decades, or especially if they lead back to businesses owned by the oligarchs who fund VPR/NPR, then no one is going to pull on those threads. This happens a lot, because basically every major problem we face leads back to material economic conditions imposed on us by the oligarch class.

TLDR: NPR and its affiliates are beholden to the oligarch class who largely fund them. This affects their coverage in significant ways, leading to specific problems like you pointed out, among others. As long as NPR is funded by billionaire "foundations", it is going to work in the interest of those billionaires.

Hard disagree. She's gay and likes guns and rural life. Vermont is perfect.

Excellent critique and even better explanation, I hope you’ll get a response from the BLS team!

The whole thing reminded me of this much less friendly critique of NPR, which I thought was very well laid out https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/09/npr-is-not-your-friend

what a clusterfuck. What is going on in that administration

Thanks for pointing this out. New housing will just be bought by hedge funds, AirBnb speculators, 3rd-home types, and out-of-state WFH yuppies, just like now. We need rules that incentivize housing going to people who need it and actually live here.

The likelihood of being able to see the moon in April in VT is low, that's for sure.

I would be curious to see if whoever was the creative lead on this episode has any relevant investments. It reeks of the stuff that they brought to burlington city council when we banned airbnbs.

All of burlington is substandard

[deleted]

For comparison, I think VT’s vacancy rate is 0.5%…

Totally. It’s really shitty. I forget the percentage of purposely vacant apartments owned by investors in the city, but I think it was like 40%. Which should be criminal.

I think part of the "under building" numbers are counting housing that is substandard. I don't have the article or numbers ATM, but I believe there is a significant portion of elderly in Vermont living in dangerous and substandard housing that isn't always captured in these housing numbers.

Edit: 7k houses substandard living conditions VT digger 2020

[deleted]

To understand the housing crisis we should keep in mind that while we need 30-40k homes to be added to inventory to meet the demand, people who need housing can't afford what the market is building.

Check the median price for a house in your county; in CC it is now over 500k.

This isn't really an accident. It's more like making undesirable people move into the flood plain and then acting surprised when a flood washes them away.

[deleted]