Recent comments in /f/vermont

SnooMaps1313 t1_jdkmlam wrote

Someone (from Rhode Island if their license plate is an indication) in my NNE neighborhood recently bought a little house identical to ours, which was at the bottom of market pricing in late 2020. Then they built onto it this past year and essentially doubled its size and amenities. That starter home has been converted and removed from the starter home market forever.

8

suzi-r t1_jdkjytc wrote

Could be that Easy’s point is that outsiders have become insiders, so to speak. Happening all over VT as newbies come in, judge VT to be inadequate compared to what they had elsewhere, change things & price out many of the older VTer & even their kids…neither understand nor respect the efforts & culture of those who have lived here before them, & certainly don’t respect the quality of the rural life & environment here, or the natives & long-timers they coexist with. It’s not just VT either, it’s everywhere. Talk to a rural Florida native (a friend of mine who settled here a few years ago) about what happened to her father’s farm and the family’s small town. Or a local in NH (and another, a former student of mine living on disability allowance in a nearby Vt town) just thrown out of their apt. bc the building’s been bought by someone who want to “remodel” & sell/rent to ppl who can pay lots more. Or a dairy farmer in central VT whose income has diminished so quickly that improvements and diversification are unaffordable and the herd must be sold. And many more, all across the nation.

1

No-Ganache7168 t1_jdkjnwc wrote

When I got married my husband and I bought a $150,000 home that was 1000 square feet with three small bedrooms one upstairs bathroom and a half bath in the basement. It was on a 100X150 lot. Would first time homebuyers purchase such a home if more were built? It seems everyone wants a 2,000 SFT home on a few acres. Of course, those homes are going to be more expensive

4

No-Ganache7168 t1_jdkiyfr wrote

Vermont has always had second homeowners. The shortage started to escalate when people who otherwise couldn’t afford second homes bought them bc they could rent them on Airbnb with little financial risk.

They started buying them with small down payments. In most areas they can pay their mortgage while still using them for several weeks or months per year. I have a neighbor who lives in NYC but stays here from December through march so her daughters can ski. She and her husband work from home and fly to nyc once a month. The rest of the year they rent their home for $400 a night and based on the cars that come and go they have a high occupancy rate.

Would they have purchased a second home if they had to pay two mortgages? I have no idea but having a second home that also generates income is a good deal.

As far as the Stowe people mentioned are concerned, most have more than one home and rent out the second to pay for both mortgages. It’d not like they are renting rooms above their garages.

1

Dukaso t1_jdkb8hs wrote

Hey buddy, I just want to reiterate, don't give those leeches a god damn cent of your own money. Also NEVER acknowledge the debt as YOUR debt. This is the estate's debt, and you need to always refer to it as such. Money is weird and if you ever acknowledge the debt is yours UVMMC is going to try to suck you dry.

Even if you were promised the estate, don't ever refer to the debt as yours by proxy. You're going to inherit the remainder of the estate (if there is any) after everyone gets their pound of flesh. Even if you're representing the estate, the debt always belongs to "the estate", not "you".

Don't give them a chance to screw you. It's so fucked up that we have to worry about semantics when dealing with the death of people close to us.

3

Milkfordays OP t1_jdk0jyo wrote

I feel like a lot of people are more okay with lesbians than gay men or trans people and god forbid you bring up non-binary people and all Hell breaks loose. I want to adopt kids because an overwhelming majority of homeless kids are lgbt and I almost ended up on the streets as a kid myself because of sexuality.

2

headgasketidiot OP t1_jdjzjzx wrote

Yeah, the thing about our world is that it doesn't actually work, so we end up wanting contradictory things. We need to attract workers, but we also don't have enough housing, so we want to build more, but if you deregulate, then you end up with awful suburban sprawl, plus we also want to preserve the forest. Regulate? Now it's unaffordable. State housing? Come on, be serious -- plus we have no money. Raise taxes on the wealthy? No because they'll leave and then we won't have jobs. We need to save the environment, but we also need economic growth; if we don't have enough economic growth, we don't have the money to spend on saving the environment.

At the heart of this is a population with a fundamentally religious belief in an economic system that just doesn't work, but we cannot question it, so we try to meet its contradictory demands, and the results are nonsense.

6

BooksNCats11 t1_jdjt97a wrote

Yes. The larger issue at play is that people moving here from far away places have idyllic ideas about what actually happens here. That's the problem. It's not us, we've been the same since forever. People moving here don't bother to actually see what's what before coming in.

5