Help me out with how this would hurt locals' wallets more than benefit from tourists/visitors.

The legislature is proposing a $15/year hike on vehicle registrations. I don't think any of should be surprised when that passes because a lot of our representatives are going to say "it's only $15". For that registration increase, we don't get anything that we don't already have. I'm saying don't increase the registration fee, add in EZ Pass with the same $15 annual fee. That way when a Vermont resident travels outside the state and uses toll roads, they pay the lower EZ Pass rate vs a higher no-EZ Pass charge. Then set the toll rate on I89/I91/I93 at $0 for people with Vermont EZ Passes, but charge a couple $ for use of those roads by out-of-state EZ Pass drivers.

You already have some Vermont residents who drive on toll highways in other states buying EZ Pass from other states. Those of us who don't end up with the hassle of having to pay the toll plus the no-EZ Pass charge. EZ Pass works on highways in Maine, NH, NY, Mass, RI, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, WV, NC, OH, IN, KY, IL, MN, and coming soon to Georgia. That's a lot of miles of highways that Vermont drivers would save a few $ if they had an EZ Pass.

No, it's about the guns. Guns everywhere. Guns to be used. Gun rights.

It all melds into one big hazy cloud to me because the only response that ever comes out is spouting nonsense constitutional hypothesis-wannabes and more guns with more more uses for that more guns in our social and political spheres.

There's just too many guns and too much firepower running around on our streets. It's a message worth repeating.

This is exactly what is happening right now, how do the majority not see this? I work in a tourist area and the wealthy tourists are who the state wants, they don’t want the low income Vermonters who have lived here their whole lives. It’s terrible.

Then there is another issue I would take with all this as well and that is why should the govt have a list of my appliances like heat pumps etc that may or may not qualify for a different rate as suggested in the article. There really is an issue with collecting and qualifying it. Imagine the cost of keeping and collecting all that info. Only new heat pumps or what about one you had installed 2 years ago are you out of luck? Who will verify the claims as I am sure many will be tempted to claim more new items to lower the bill? That's just human nature. I agree with much of the intent of these bills but as usual I find them to not be well thought through and completely ignoring of collateral consequences.

At this rate I’m genuinely concerned for the disabled and people who are on ss right now, this state is becoming more and more unaffordable for low income Vermonters, they are trying to push them out.

We don’t want our Vermont to turn into your shitty California, fuck off, this is the Vermont subreddit so don’t lecture Vermonters on how we should feel about things that are happening in OUR state and our communities.

Wow they really hate low income Vermonters, so tired of the people who run this state making life harder for the people who live here.

The stock analogy, is what most people subscribe to when it comes to housing, which in my opinion is sinply wrong. The main difference is that housing is an essential human right, stocks are not.

Stowe was brought up in discussion, hence the ‘soloing’ them out. This is a larger systemic issue and many other towns are challenged with the same issue, to that read, we need to fix the larger problem. But it seems your solution is a NIMBY approach, which is telling about where you land in the social economic spectrum or you are merely a hopeful projecting this life. Gotta work today, so back to the salt mine for me, truly insightful conversation though!

How is that different than St J or Lyndon?

Vermont is never going to be affordable and has no interest in being affordable. The sooner people realize that, the better. The word is out, the gentrification is on, there's no going back to 2019. Does anyone actually believe Vermont is going to build another Burlington (40k housing units) in the next seven years? For Vermont to be affordable it would need to look very different and we all know that's not happening.

I guess it's finally time to put an Antique plate on my summer car (it's 32 years old after all...)

Did you mean to post this comment to a different submission?

I think there is give and take to both of our points. I'm not set in stone on my opinions. It's just that Stowe is a lightning rod for these articles due to the ski resort. To me, that means that actual solutions are being overlooked, and it just charges the conversation.

Please install another cellphone tower lol. It's incredible that a place with that much traffic has the worst cell reception I've seen in a decade.

>And we’ve all been stuck on the mountain road for at least two hours. It’s nuts.

I've turned around 3 times in 2 years...

At least this year felt better with the new parking limitations. However, I don't like that it's just another added cost for skiers. I'm a proponent for 2-3 bus specific parking lots near the restaurants and town. Ones that do not make 10 stops along the way. That way it promotes the businesses of the town that are away from the resort, and it provides a clear spot for free efficient public transport.

>its cool if you want to defend this, I’m just not going to.

Yeah. I get that. You are doing the exact opposite. You are calling them malicious, a gate community, and soloing them out.

>Well if you can’t afford to buy stock in the first place it’s a moot point in the larger discussion of affordability.

Who says that every stock needs to be affordable? I can't afford Berkshire Hathaway, should I call that company malicious for not dividing their stock to my level of affordability?

You are attacking one town, that frankly doesn't have the infrastructure to support a massive increase in size. In another comment I pointed out that Waterbury center is a much better candidate for expansion with the infrastructure already in place. However, everyone only wants to focus on the ski town with the resort.

That makes sense to me. I know very little about the actual politics of what we’re talking about… all I know is my own experience of working in the same restaurant for 9 years. Over the last few years I’ve noticed that workers are being forced further away, which sucks, and at the same time, the amount of people who visit Stowe is becoming overwhelming. This town simply wasn’t built to accommodate this many people. Like I remember at least two times when cell phone service straight up crashed because there were too many people in town. And we’ve all been stuck on the mountain road for at least two hours. It’s nuts. I know I’m contradicting myself here (workers should have housing but Stowe is beyond its capacity) so I think what you’re saying makes a lot of sense!

No, it's called making the bad choice better. Instead of leaving the public school in a bad situation and making the private school better with public taxes.

Phil Scott's freely chosen GOP/VTGOP has taken away a woman's right to autonomy over her own body; and they're stealing books from our children's libraries and hiding those books away. The Republican Party is actually outlawing men who want to wear clothes that make them feel good. They are attacking your children and their ability to grow by going after your kid's education, health care, food and shelter.

And they're laser focused on giving in-animate objects (guns) the rights of human beings.

Just thought this was a good time to mention these realities.

A fair few who could afford to live there in the first place, that doesn’t equate to affordable. Its like saying stock holders of a company profited because the saw their stocks rise and sold when the time was right. Well if you can’t afford to buy stock in the first place it’s a moot point in the larger discussion of affordability. Stowe is the closest thing Vermont has to a gated community, its cool if you want to defend this, I’m just not going to.

I agree that there needs to be housing for the workers, but I don't agree it necessarily all needs to fall inside that town. I believe, with the expanding resort and local businesses, that housing needs to be built to support the workers.

The only focus is on the town itself, which is an option, but there is plenty of space between Morrisville and Stowe. My favorite spot would be to expand Waterbury center. That area has the infrastructure to support expansion. It has the larger grocery store, hardware store, gas stations, land, proximity to interstates, and more.

People want Stowe to do everything, it's just not the optimal with current infrastructure.

>What you are describing is gentrification.

You are describing gentrification, and you are calling it malicious. I'm just stating the town was built up for many decades as a vacation destination, many of which were initially purpose built as second homes/vacation rentals, not displacing the locals. A fair few of locals typically profited on their homes through the years.

>Just because the town was built as a resort area doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism and good housing regulation.

No, it just makes it the focus of the criticism. Waterbury Center would be a great place to expand housing, but you don't see multiple articles on that. Everyone just focuses on the town with the resort.

[deleted]

Sure, but people still gotta live somewhere, especially those who work in those areas. What you are describing is gentrification. Just because the town was built as a resort area doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism and good housing regulation.

Well, Stowe has a lot of restaurants and 75% of restaurant staff commute at least a half an hour to get to work. This is probably true for people who work in hotels too. I commute an hour every day because i moved out of morrisville (I live up north now) and there are zero restaurants around me where I’d actually make money. So it’d be nice if the people who worked in Stowe could live in Stowe. Another commenter said Morrisville is an option, which is true, but most of my coworkers live in Johnson, Jeff, Eden, etc.

Edit: added on, and this was a response to the question “does Stowe need to be affordable to all?”

Yes it is, by the real question is why would it be lower if not profitable? Answer: Good regulation. Of course this logic assumes that you agree housing is a human right.

You have to think outside the profit motive to understand why developers would provide affordable housing.