Attn Second Home Owners in Vermont

[deadheadskier]

I do agree that second homes that generate no income should be taxed the same as primary residences.

Airbnbs should be taxed like hotels. Property tax plus lodging tax on top calculated off the nightly rate the owner is charging.

 

[cdskier]

I think ultimately we're largely in agreement...

 

[Plowboy]

Maybe I shouldn't have called it Airbnbs. Just the general idea of people owning multiple homes and getting to vote every place they own property. Though many Airbnb investors do use those homes occasionally too. I bet most folks who own at Clay Brook or Spruce at Stowe, likely have more than one vacation property in addition to their primary home. Maybe they have a place on the Cape or the Hamptons in addition to their ski condo. It doesn't sit right with me that they get to vote in multiple places.

If I'm a Warren resident , I don't want an out of state resident dictating school budgets, police, fire and rescue etc. The likelihood is that most temporary folks like that are going to vote for the lowest taxes possible figuring they don't really need those services.

To vote on town issues at Vermont's Town Meeting, you must be a legal voter, meaning you are a registered voter in the town where you are a reident.

 

[Plowboy]

I do agree that second homes that generate no income should be taxed the same as primary residences.

Airbnbs should be taxed like hotels. Property tax plus lodging tax on top calculated off the nightly rate the owner is charging.

State of Vermont

Guests who book Airbnb listings that are located in the State of Vermont will pay the following taxes as part of their reservation:

• Vermont Meals and Rooms Tax: 9% of the listing price including any cleaning fees and guest fees for reservations 29 nights and shorter. For detailed information, please visit the Vermont Department of Taxes website.
• Local Option Meals and Rooms Tax: 1% of the listing price including any cleaning fee and guest fees for reservations 29 nights and shorter.

 

[BenedictGomez]

When residents can start to decide that second home-owners should pay a higher rate simply because the second home-owners have no voice and can't fight back, that's where I draw the line and have a problem.

I don't.

I think it's puzzling to have voting rights in a place you dont live, simply because you're fortunate enough to be able to own multiple houses. Houses, for the vast majority of people are by far the most valuable asset they own.

As others have said, it's a "luxury", not the norm. So if the actual residents of a given area don't like the presence of myriad second, investment, or vacation homes, the residents of that area should be able to increase the taxes on them, or even tax them into oblivion if they so choose. They actually live there after all.

 

[kbroderick]

I think that's a big misconception that every second homeowner is wealthy. Many are not.

That rather depends on your frame of reference. Compared to most of the world population, any American who pays for their own housing (whether owned, rented, or whatever) is wealthy.

Compared to working-class Americans who are struggling to pay rent on their primary residence while also having groceries and cover medical insurance, someone who can afford an old-school camp (y'know, the kind without insulation or plumbing, sitting on a cheap-ass 99-year lease) is relatively wealthy.

That guy probably thinks that someone who can afford a primary residence, even if they don't own it, and still pay for a "fancy" place that has grid power, running water, and such that's a short drive to skiing is doing well.

And most of the above are probably scratching their heads at the seven-figure vacation homes that sit empty 50 weeks a year and wondering how that makes sense.

 

[2Planker]

NH is strange:
In some towns 2nd home owners pay more in taxes, in other towns they pay less as they do not use many of the tax payer financed services such as public schools.

Some towns even have a 3rd tier for residents that send their kids to private schools....

 

[Hawk]

I don't.

I think it's puzzling to have voting rights in a place you dont live, simply because you're fortunate enough to be able to own multiple houses. Houses, for the vast majority of people are by far the most valuable asset they own.

As others have said, it's a "luxury", not the norm. So if the actual residents of a given area don't like the presence of myriad second, investment, or vacation homes, the residents of that area should be able to increase the taxes on them, or even tax them into oblivion if they so choose. They actually live there after all.

What I think is most puzzling is that most of the people that call themselves locals move to VT later in thier lives. They sold thier big proberties in the cities and suburbs and bought up a peice of VT. Then they take a position in the local govenment or Con Com and crush all development with the mantra they they are saving VT from the hoards of interlopers. That is why VT has the cash problems that they have. People that have come with thier own money and means say I'm hear now and I don't want to ruin what I have. But this mostly affects the locals that have little money and need the development to supply the jobs and taxes. The MRV continues to loose jobs because everything closes and no one can build anything new because of regulation and the contribting housing loss to the Rental, VBRO, Vacasa situation. It my age if the taxes increase substancially I will just sell and take my money out. $300K pays for years of monthy rentals in Italy or France.

 

[x10003q]

What I think is most puzzling is that most of the people that call themselves locals move to VT later in thier lives. They sold thier big proberties in the cities and suburbs and bought up a peice of VT. Then they take a position in the local govenment or Con Com and crush all development with the mantra they they are saving VT from the hoards of interlopers. That is why VT has the cash problems that they have. People that have come with thier own money and means say I'm hear now and I don't want to ruin what I have. But this mostly affects the locals that have little money and need the development to supply the jobs and taxes. The MRV continues to loose jobs because everything closes and no one can build anything new because of regulation and the contribting housing loss to the Rental, VBRO, Vacasa situation. It my age if the taxes increase substancially I will just sell and take my money out. $300K pays for years of monthy rentals in Italy or France.

The largest brake on development in Vermont is Act 250. It was enacted in 1970. People who sold their primary homes in expensive areas and then move to Vermont permanently are not moving the needle in Vermont elections and are not to blame for the state zoning limits passed over 50 years ago.

 

[Hawk]

The largest brake on development in Vermont is Act 250. It was enacted in 1970. People who sold their primary homes in expensive areas and then move to Vermont permanently are not moving the needle in Vermont elections and are not to blame for the state zoning limits passed over 50 years ago.

You are underestimating the Warren Conservation Commission. They question everything and drag the process out for months, adding substancial costs. I believe they were one of the issues with the developement of the employee housing at Sugarbush.

 

[mister moose]

The largest brake on development in Vermont is Act 250. It was enacted in 1970. People who sold their primary homes in expensive areas and then move to Vermont permanently are not moving the needle in Vermont elections and are not to blame for the state zoning limits passed over 50 years ago.

Not too sure about that...

Between 1965 and 1975, an estimated 100,000 Baby Boomers came to Vermont. They came to escape the riot-torn cities and the anger that split the nation during Vietnam, to find utopia in a commune, to live off the land, to create a new progressive political order.
Now Daley has chronicled the invasion that changed Vermont in “Going Up the Country: When the Hippies, Dreamers, Freaks and Radicals Moved to Vermont.” Her new book recounts the renaissance that revived the Green Mountain State, drastically altered its politics, and made it the mixing bowl it is today.

The migration continues, many retirees moved to Vermont in every decade. Add in the Covid surge. Meanwhile, a large percentage of youth leave the state.

Vermont has the second worst retention record for college graduates, with nearly 70% of students leaving the state after graduation and as they enter the job market

 

[shpride]

Didn’t Vermont have a grant in the last few years to entice people to move there?

 

[mister moose]

Didn’t Vermont have a grant in the last few years to entice people to move there?

Yes, it wasn't an outright grant. I t was pre-COVID, and you applied to the State to be eligible. There was limited funding so it was not open ended. Up to $10,000 in moving expense would be paid as an incentive.

 

[drjeff]

Didn’t Vermont have a grant in the last few years to entice people to move there?

The thing that I have noticed anecdotally over the years, is if say a state or an organization has to offer a grant/some other type of financial incentive to get people to move into (and then ideally stay longterm) in that area, then there tends to be multiple underlying challenges associated with that state/region, that make it less appealing on the surface to the majority of folks who they are trying to target to move into the area (in my dental profession, there are numerous programs that will either have a great amount of student loan forgiveness and/or housing stipends/etc like this all over the country, but they almost always are in areas that the majority of folks view as "less desirable to live in", and as soon as their commitment is done, they leave the area, and the shortage that the organization behind the grants to get people to move there is back a square one, looking for another person to fill the void that was once again created when that prior person left).

Granted, not everyone will adapt to what in most of these locations tends to be a more rural, quiet lifestyle, but at its core, it tends to not just be that, it also tends to have a component about how the state and local governments run those areas, and in many cases make it more challenging for either businesses to operate, or as is discussed in many AZ threads over the years, the ability to have reasonably priced housing for the masses, as opposed to just the "wealthy", and in a location within reasonable distance to where folks would be working. Dealing with that 2nd part, (local regulations) could very well put a much more substantial dent in the challenges getting enough people, across numerous sectors of the local "economy" (schools, healthcare facilities, general businesses, etc), in a way that while would bring some changes to many regions, could very well end up being GOOD changes above and beyond the fact that its a change, which is so tough for many to deal with

 

[thetrailboss]

Didn’t Vermont have a grant in the last few years to entice people to move there?

Yes in part to address their terrible demographics coupled with other issues involving affordability.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The largest brake on development in Vermont is Act 250. It was enacted in 1970. People who sold their primary homes in expensive areas and then move to Vermont permanently are not moving the needle in Vermont elections and are not to blame for the state zoning limits passed over 50 years ago.

The largest brake Vermont's economy are Vermont's radical left-wing politicians, and that's been going on for years now. Howard Dean was the governor when I lived in Vermont, and he made it his mission to chase all the successful businesses out of Vermont that he could. It was complete financial suicide, yet the voters cheered him on as the likes of IBM and Rossignol left, and it never abated as his successors continued the same "businesses are evil, we must punish them" mindset..... Nokian, Green Mountain, and on-and-on. That state continues to self-inflict gaping financial wounds while its citizens are the assailant.