New Ski House for Rent

[BenedictGomez]

If you don't want a bunch of STRs in your neighborhood then don't live in a resort town. People move to a resort town and then cry about it being a resort area. It was a resort town when you moved there why should it change? You want small town life, move to a small town, not a resort town.

You'd have much more of a point if what you're describing was the reality for the last 35, 45, 50 years, but it's not.

Many of the "resort towns" really were "small towns" until about 10 minutes ago, and the STR phenomena (it really IS a phenomena) has completely changed the character of the place in just the last 3, 5, 8 years.

 

[BenedictGomez]

But the problem really isn’t that. It’s about having affordable housing for service workers.

You should see what Vail's doing at Canyons. It's like building after building of apartments for PC & Canyons workers. Most of it is down by Cabriolet towards the golf course, but some of it's higher up the mountain as well. I imagine the parties are going to be epic.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Population has grown (even in VT) and while housing units have largely grown at a similar rate to population, the overall number of people living per unit has actually gone down rather significantly compared to years ago...resulting in a net shortage of housing. But sure, continue to blame STR. Maybe we should just not allow non-locals to own property. Would that be better?

FYI, over 20% of houses in Vermont are currently not owner-occupied (i.e. they're empty).

That's a metric ****ton of STR and vacation homes.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The one part I won't agree with though is excessive taxes or over-regulating specifically where STRs can and can't be within a town.

You seem to think that this is government overreach 100% of the time. What if the residents of said town overwhelmingly want ABNB and STR banned from their hamlet? I currently live in such a place. Should the residents have been told they cannot control the destiny of their own town?

 

[deadheadskier]

This is again where we disagree. I don't view an STR as a truly "commercial enterprise". Why is STR commercial but LTR isn't? You're renting a room (or whatever) to someone that is temporarily living there. This applies to both STR and LTR. If you want to consider STR "commercial", then LTR should 100% be as well. You can't have it both ways. I would consider it differently if one person is renting 10 rooms. But a single owner renting a single room/unit...that's not a "commercial enterprise"

Because STRs are dynamically priced transient housing and LTRs are not. LTRs are residential housing with the intention of the guests being "permanently" domiciled there. A STR is functionally the same as a hotel. The only difference is there's no front desk for your STR. Actually you don't even need the front desk at a hotel. I travel 100 days a year for work and many of the hotels that I stay at these days offer digital keys. I never even see the front desk people. So, my process for traveling to a hotel for work is virtually the same as my travels using a STR for recreation. I choose a destination, find suitable accommodations and click reserve.

I'm willing to make concessions for an owner occupied scenario renting out a room. Many communities that restrict STRs do this. My assumption is this exception is made because the traffic volume and demand is significantly less than people looking for a private rental. I'd have to look further into why these exceptions are made.

To me, it's all about balance. Balancing the financial desires of enterprising individuals with the desires of what kind of character residents as a whole want their community to have. That's the entire point of zoning of any kind.

And it's not just municipal zoning, but individual HOA regulations, which are effectively zoning as well. I think of my parents community on a golf course in Florida. 4 month minimum rental is the rule. They do this for a number of reasons. The residents feel safer by not having an ever revolving door of strangers coming in and out of the community. Transient guests tend to not care for the properties they rent as much as those domiciled long term (not always) so property conditions may deteriorate more rapidly in an STR environment impacting the property values of the neighborhood negatively.

This home may eventually be inherited by my brother and I if my folks don't need to sell it to finance end of life care. It's a killer spot 150 feet from the 11th tee box. The community is 2 miles from a great beach on the gulf. If we chose to rent it out, we absolutely could make far more money renting it weekly vs for the 4 month tourist season and then have it sit empty for 8 months. I could sign on with VACASA to manage it and barely ever see the place again. If my STR guests cause damage or throw huge parties disturbing the neighbors, I'll just let VACASA take care of it. Not my problem . Hopefully they take care of any problems fast, but if not well, tough luck to the resident neighbors who have to deal with the disturbance.

Should I be bitter that the HOA rules restrict my earnings potential on this property I eventually may own? I'm not. Because I respect the desires of the collective community down there and these were the rules that my parents bought into. If I want an STR property on the Gulf Coast of Florida, there are plenty of other options for me to buy that are designated by either the local government or HOAs. It works in the opposite direction too. I could just want to keep this place for personal enjoyment only. I don't. The local HOA could vote to allow STRs. If that's the will of the collective I could either accept those terms or sell. Or I could sue to protect my interests. It's the way it goes.

I guess you view these situations with a much more libertarian lense than I do. I'm likely never going to convince you that full time residents should have a say where STRs can or cannot exist in their communities. I do however find it strange (making an assumption here) you feel residents have a right to establish zoning for other commercial enterprises. Maybe you don't. I probably could make pretty good money running a strip club in your neighborhood in New Jersey. Any property for sale on your street?

Healthy debate that you and I probably aren't going to see eye to eye on. That's why we vote in our society. And yes I did see your second point on second home owners not having a say in local laws because they can't vote. My feeling is if you want that level control over community direction, move there. Those permanently domiciled who live in a community every day get one vote and collectively decide the direction of the community. That's it. They are the ones who have to live with how their community runs every single day. You are only there part time and don't have to deal with the consequences of how voting decisions can change day to day life. Or you could just own property there as an investor and never even go there at all.

Out of sight back of mind vs in plain sight front of mind.

 

[eatskisleep]

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/airbnb-crashes-the-party

 

[cdskier]

@cdskier I would like to hear your thoughts on why affordable housing for locals in resort areas is now so high and if STR's play a role in affordability?

I posted a few links earlier to articles that articulated many of my views fairly well, but I'll add/summarize a few points. It is a multi-faceted issue. STR plays a role, but much smaller than many here think in my eyes. Other factors:

Inflation outpacing wage growth (particularly at the lower end of wages which is the scenario we're really talking about here) - Even if a place hasn't converted to STR and stayed as LTR and price increases simply matched inflation, that's going to take a number of places out of the equation right there.

Wages too low. Let's be honest, some of these places have significantly underpaid their staff for years. Paying someone minimum wage to make snow or teach ski lessons is ridiculous.

Not enough new property being built.

COVID changed a lot too and took a lot of properties out of the rental pools in general. I'm not quite sure we've recovered back to pre-COVID levels.

There's also been a general increase in 2nd home-ownership. These units aren't necessarily going in to the STR pool either. There's a good number of places that have become 2nd homes that sit empty unless the owner is using them.

You'd have much more of a point if what you're describing was the reality for the last 35, 45, 50 years, but it's not.

Many of the "resort towns" really were "small towns" until about 10 minutes ago, and the STR phenomena (it really IS a phenomena) has completely changed the character of the place in just the last 3, 5, 8 years.

So Sugarbush was known as Mascara mountain back in the 60s but it wasn't a resort town until just "10 minutes ago"? I don't buy that. Killington, Ludlow, Stowe, etc have all been "resort" towns as long as I've been alive.

FYI, over 20% of houses in Vermont are currently not owner-occupied (i.e. they're empty).

That's a metric ****ton of STR and vacation homes.

Yes...the vacancy rate is high. But vacancy rate includes a shit-ton of categories beyond STRs. Properties categorized as vacant include for sale, for rent (LTR un-rented), timeshare units, seasonal use units such as hunting cabins or housing for seasonal workers, etc. But you're right that category includes vacation homes which may or may not be also STR. Should people not be allowed to own 2nd homes?

Because STRs are dynamically priced transient housing and LTRs are not. LTRs are residential housing with the intention of the guests being "permanently" domiciled there. A STR is functionally the same as a hotel. The only difference is there's no front desk for your STR. Actually you don't even need the front desk at a hotel. I travel 100 days a year for work and many of the hotels that I stay at these days offer digital keys. I never even see the front desk people. So, my process for traveling to a hotel for work is virtually the same as my travels using a STR for recreation. I choose a destination, find suitable accommodations and click reserve.

We're not going to agree on this point. LTR and STR are both income generating. So to me they either both need to be "commercial" or neither need to be "commercial". I'm not going to discriminate based on the type of rental.

I'm willing to make concessions for an owner occupied scenario renting out a room. Many communities that restrict STRs do this. My assumption is this exception is made because the traffic volume and demand is significantly less than people looking for a private rental. I'd have to look further into why these exceptions are made.

That's dangerous to make that type of concession and is actually essentially what has caused some STR laws to be struck down by the courts. If you start favoring a home-owner over non-residents, some courts have found that violates the commerce clause and is unconstitutional. I'm sure there are plenty of places that do have laws like that already, but if they were challenged in court they could easily be struck down as you already have precedent at the appelate level on that topic.

To me, it's all about balance. Balancing the financial desires of enterprising individuals with the desires of what kind of character residents as a whole want their community to have. That's the entire point of zoning of any kind.

Agreed. Balance is important. Zoning is important.

And it's not just municipal zoning, but individual HOA regulations, which are effectively zoning as well. I think of my parents community on a golf course in Florida. 4 month minimum rental is the rule. They do this for a number of reasons. The residents feel safer by not having an ever revolving door of strangers coming in and out of the community. Transient guests tend to not care for the properties they rent as much as those domiciled long term (not always) so property conditions may deteriorate more rapidly in an STR environment impacting the property values of the neighborhood negatively.

I actually would have expected that to be the case, yet the other day I came across an article with some people saying the opposite. And thinking about it the logic they gave makes some sense. If you have a higher end STR unit, the people renting those units are usually (not always) going to be more respectful.

Steamboat Springs’ short-term rental owners don’t want to have a bad reputation

While the April 30 deadline is looming to license an estimated 2,900 short-term rental units in Steamboat Springs, some short-term rental owners say they’ve received an undeserved bad rap. As the overlay zone and licensing...

www.steamboatpilot.com

This home may eventually be inherited by my brother and I if my folks don't need to sell it to finance end of life care. It's a killer spot 150 feet from the 11th tee box. The community is 2 miles from a great beach on the gulf. If we chose to rent it out, we absolutely could make far more money renting it weekly vs for the 4 month tourist season and then have it sit empty for 8 months. I could sign on with VACASA to manage it and barely ever see the place again. If my STR guests cause damage or throw huge parties disturbing the neighbors, I'll just let VACASA take care of it. Not my problem . Hopefully they take care of any problems fast, but if not well, tough luck to the resident neighbors who have to deal with the disturbance.

Should I be bitter that the HOA rules restrict my earnings potential on this property I eventually may own? I'm not. Because I respect the desires of the collective community down there and these were the rules that my parents bought into. If I want an STR property on the Gulf Coast of Florida, there are plenty of other options for me to buy that are designated by either the local government or HOAs. It works in the opposite direction too. I could just want to keep this place for personal enjoyment only. I don't. The local HOA could vote to allow STRs. If that's the will of the collective I could either accept those terms or sell. Or I could sue to protect my interests. It's the way it goes.

I guess you view these situations with a much more libertarian lense than I do. I'm likely never going to convince you that full time residents should have a say where STRs can or cannot exist in their communities. I do however find it strange (making an assumption here) you feel residents have a right to establish zoning for other commercial enterprises. Maybe you don't. I probably could make pretty good money running a strip club in your neighborhood in New Jersey. Any property for sale on your street?

Your assumption is correct. I do feel residents have a right to establish commercial zoning. Where we disagree is that STR should be treated differently than LTR. To me you either allow both in a residentially zoned area or neither. You also don't allow some in one residential zone but not another residential zone within the same town. That comes across as somewhat discriminatory/elitist to me. You want to set limits on the number of rooms/units for a single owner, that's fine as well to me. And yes, I tend to be somewhat libertarian on this particular situation.

Healthy debate that you and I probably aren't going to see eye to eye on. That's why we vote in our society. And yes I did see your second point on second home owners not having a say in local laws because they can't vote. My feeling is if you want that level control over community direction, move there. Those permanently domiciled who live in a community every day get one vote and collectively decide the direction of the community. That's it. They are the ones who have to live with how their community runs every single day. You are only there part time and don't have to deal with the consequences of how voting decisions can change day to day life. Or you could just own property there as an investor and never even go there at all.

Out of sight back of mind vs in plain sight front of mind.

Yea...I see both sides and have some mixed opinions. To me there should be some better way to balance that to give all property owners some degree of input. Not quite sure what the right answer is for that proper balance. Maybe some sort of weighted voting rights.

 

[deadheadskier]

By your logic then cdskier, a hotel is the same thing as an LTR. Are you okay with your neighbor tearing down their house and putting a hotel up nextdoor? Or do you feel differently about hotels than STR. If so, why? STRs are far more similar to hotels than LTRs. LTRs are more similar to owner occupied dwellings. Length of residence and dynamic pricing are the difference in my view.

I definitely do not support second home owners having any input at all on community direction outside of their current means via political donation. I disagree with our structure for political donations too, but that's what the SC has decided so we have to live with it. Current rules have already made our country Plutocratic leaning. Giving greater influence to property investors only furthers that.

Take Musk. One quick Google search reveals we have 19,502 incorporated towns in this country. At his current net worth and ASP of homes in the US, Musk could buy 28 homes in every single town in the country. Should Musk have the right to have input into the direction of every single town in America?

In a less extreme scenario, say you decide in retirement you want to keep your primary and SB homes, but also desire a home in NY wine country and on the Jersey shore. You feel you should have influence in all 4 places?

I don't. One person, one vote is a far more important central tenant to maintain as a society than protecting representation in every single location you pay taxes in. The wealthy already have greater influence in this country than the poor. I will never support rule changes that even further widen that gap.

 

[cdskier]

To me hotels are substantially different. And the difference really comes down to volume. One owner renting one unit is a big difference from one owner renting 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, etc rooms. And this is where I've stated I'm fine with some degree of regulation. You want to limit it to one STR per owner or something like that, fine. The STR/LTR line also varies from location to location. Why is 90 days in one place considered the cutoff for LTR but another place says it is 120 days? These are arbitrary numbers and another reason why I can't support that type of delineation. It should be based on the type of activity, not length.

And yes, I do think representation of some degree is important if you're paying taxes. We had a pretty important war about that very topic, didn't we? Let's take another extreme example. Let's say a town has 10% of the units occupied by full-time residents and the other 90% are 2nd homes. Should those 10% suddenly be able to say the majority of the owners in the town are no longer entitled to rent at all?

Let's circle back to VT for a minute. The high vacancy rate and amount of seasonal home rates were brought up previously in this thread (I think by BG). According to the Vermont Housing Finance Agency (which focuses on helping people in the lower income brackets obtain financing for homes), the vacancy rate has been consistent for years. So it being high now isn't some new phenomena. The same thing with the percent of housing stock that is designated seasonal use. Today it is 17%. In 1990 it was also 17%. In 1980 it was 15%. That's not much of a change. And they also outright admit you're unlikely to convert those homes to a non-seasonal use scenario. Also per VHFA, STR accounts for a very small overall percentage of the housing stock in VT (it peaked at 1.4% - 2.5% prior to the pandemic depending on which metrics they looked at). Obviously some towns are going to be higher, but those are the same towns where banning STR would cause more harm than good.

Let's also consider what would happen if STR was banned in a resort town. What would the owners of those properties do? I see a few scenarios:
1) They switch to LTR at higher rates that seasonal workers still wouldn't be able to afford (a la the very post that started this entire thread).
2) They sell to someone that can afford to own the home without needing rental income (banning STR isn't going to crash the housing market and suddenly make these properties affordable to substantially more people). Now the home is either used by the owner or just sits empty more.
3) Maybe they didn't truly need the STR income and can get by and just hold onto it only for their own use (in the scenario I'm thinking of here, the owners still want flexibility to use it at some points during the ski season themselves, so LTR isn't an option for them)
4) I feel like I had another thought in my mind a few minutes ago when I started typing this list...but I'm blanking at the moment...oh well.

There are ways to discourage people buying properties purely for investment or purely to game the system without simply banning STR. To me banning STR is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction. Outright banning is the lazy way out instead of crafting a well thought out balanced set of regulations.

 

[Smellytele]

Okay you guys won’t ever agree. Let’s move on…

 

[cdskier]

I'm bored...it was over 80 degrees here today!

 

[ss20]

Nice debate for a change.

 

[SenorQuesadilla]

Yeah, it's folks having a reasonable discussion....don't really know what they're supposed to move onto, nobody's forcing you to read this thread.

 

[BenedictGomez]

So Sugarbush was known as Mascara mountain back in the 60s but it wasn't a resort town until just "10 minutes ago"? I don't buy that. Killington, Ludlow, Stowe, etc have all been "resort" towns as long as I've been alive.

The only town in that list I can intelligently speak to is Stowe, and yes, Stowe in 2023 is vastly different to Stowe in 1993 (the first time I visited) or Stowe in 2003 (the last year I worked there). From a sense of community, it's basically unrecognizable in just 20 short years.

 

[Andrew B.]

If they were able to get the same amount of money from an LTR, then they wouldn't be doing the STR. So if you're saying someone should be using their private property for housing, you're implying they should be charging less than the STR price. Personally I'd rather STR in my town rather than hotels. From a skiing perspective, the lack of a lot of hotels is one of the exact things I love about the Sugarbush/Mad River Valley area compared to an area like Killington.

Let's use the Jersey Shore as an example of an area that needs STR to survive. Please explain how Seaside Park, Ortley Beach, Chadwick Beach, Normandy Beach or any of the towns on LBI would survive if STR didn't exist (and maybe we have different definitions of STR, but to me weekly rentals fall in that category as well). These towns have relied on people renting individual homes/bungalows for decades. There's no major hotels in these areas. The handful of "resorts" and motels that do exist in these areas of the Jersey Shore are hardly enough to accommodate a fraction of the people that visit the Jersey Shore.

My neighborhood on cape cod (beach community) has had weekly rentals since the 60’s. The one hotel anywhere near it is for the Uber-wealthy. We have a nice little community and have never had real trouble from renters.

 

[deadheadskier]

The only town in that list I can intelligently speak to is Stowe, and yes, Stowe in 2023 is vastly different to Stowe in 1993 (the first time I visited) or Stowe in 2003 (the last year I worked there). From a sense of community, it's basically unrecognizable in just 20 short years.

Yup 100%. And this was all warned about when the Spruce development was being proposed in the late 90s. The Mountain company said, "No, no, the impact and changes will really only be felt up at the mountain. The town will just benefit from all of this new tourist money. Everybody gonna win from this."

And those against it warned that , "All that extra outside interest will not be just up at the mountain, it will be the entire town and it will simply result in second home owners completely taking over the town and turning a place that was already difficult for locals to afford , to essentially impossible."

The latter is what happened. And situations like this is 100% why VT has its Land Gains Tax structure; to discourage speculation from outside investors that would rapidly deteriorate housing affordability for locals. They knew back in the 70s this was going to be a problem. It only marginally helps, but that's why it exists.

Ask any local and they'd put that toothpaste back in the tube if they could. They aren't better off financially today than they were 20 years ago. Almost everyone got forced out by outside investors. It used to be that the business owners in town could afford homes, and there was a decent enough pool of apartments for workers. I never had much of an issue finding a place to live on a bartenders salary. Far from the case today for local business owners and definitely not the workers. My best friend owns a restaurant in town and had to buy in Wolcott. His modest childhood home he grew up in while his parents owned their restaurant in town that lead Neil to pursue a similar life track? It's now an STR. I think he'd rather be able to afford a place in town and sell a few less sandwiches a day.

It really should be no surprise why the locals don't show the gratitude cdskier thinks outside investors should be getting. The community was far more balanced economically before they completely took over. Hell no should they should not have more influence in the direction of the town. They've been able to control more than enough with their dollars. They don't get to vote too. They can move to town full time if they want that right.

And cdskier, the taxation without representation origins of the Revolutionary War wasn't a fight to have voting rights and control in BOTH the UK and the new world. They simply wanted control where their primary home was in America. If the goal was to have representative rights every single place they owned property and paid taxes it would have been written into the constitution. Wanting to give that much control based upon wealth and ownership is 100% a Plutocratic POV. I hope to eventually buy a second home near Lake Winnipesaukee. If I want a say up there, I'll move there as my primary residence and forfeit my voting rights in Newmarket. It's that simple.

 

[deadheadskier]

Okay you guys won’t ever agree. Let’s move on…

Haha, you are probably right

Anyone want to rent OPs house?

Maybe he will let you sublet a room to a local liftie to help with Cannon's labor shortage due to lack of local affordable housing.

 

[snoseek]

You know I just rented out a house for a week and it was overall a good experience. I like cooking my own food and being able to wash clothes. I made sure it was owned by someone locally.

I'll probably rethink doing it again though as it seems hypocritical for me to use an app and bitch about the problems it brings.i kinda miss cheap motels in a way.

 

[cdskier]

I'm not going to respond point by point again. It is pretty clear we're going to just have to agree to disagree as neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

One general thing I will say though is that the only constant in life is change. You can either embrace the change and find a way to make it work and benefit everyone, or you can try to reject change which will ultimately hurt growth and progress in the long run. The example of Stowe changing rather significantly starting in the 90s is a fair point, but also supports my view that this change wasn't simply caused by the "recent explosion of STR phenomena". Communities do change. That's undeniable. I've seen it in my own community. I sure don't agree with all the changes. Anyone that expects there to be no change is not being realistic.

Also the comment from snoseek is interesting. I'm not a huge traveler, but out of the AirBnBs I've stayed in recently, all were owned by locals (not intentionally...but it just worked out that way). The most recent one from my Finger Lakes trip a couple weeks ago is the same one I've now stayed in for 3 years in a row. The property is the owner's house where she built an addition over the garage essentially designed exactly for this purpose. Beautiful, great location, quiet, comfortable, clean, etc. I've never been a fan of hotels/motels and this situation is perfect for me. I can cook my own breakfast in the morning and have a comfortable space to relax in at the end of the day. This is exactly the type of thing more and more people also want.

 

[snoseek]

Also the comment from snoseek is interesting. I'm not a huge traveler, but out of the AirBnBs I've stayed in recently, all were owned by locals (not intentionally...but it just worked out that way). The most recent one from my Finger Lakes trip a couple weeks ago is the same one I've now stayed in for 3 years in a row. The property is the owner's house where she built an addition over the garage essentially designed exactly for this purpose. Beautiful, great location, quiet, comfortable, clean, etc. I've never been a fan of hotels/motels and this situation is perfect for me. I can cook my own breakfast in the morning and have a comfortable space to relax in at the end of the day. This is exactly the type of thing more and more people also want.

Yeah to me this is an ideal situation. Money stays local and its.overall a better experience. I don't like eating out much these days and cooking my own food is awesome