VT proposing restrictions on Short Term rentals

[eatskisleep]

This is true. If I were to buy a second home I would not rent it out at all. I don't want other people to occupy my personal spaces. And I want my second home available to me at all times, at the drop of a hat. I have no desire to deal with renters.

And I still would not buy a property in VT because it's clear VT wants to make that kind of investment difficult.

Totally agree on both accounts. I wouldn’t want to rent a second home out, but I don’t want the government to restrict my ability to do so if the need or desire were to arise to rent out said property.

 

[skithetrees]

I am too OCD to rent out a place where I would stay. Only could do it if i never planned to use the place. As an investment, I don’t think VT makes sense. My place at magic is inflation adjusted probably worth the same as it was 30 years ago. A buddy at sugarbush just sold his house that he built 15 years ago at a loss. Granted, he overbuilt. But the values i see a lot of places don’t seem to appreciate. Maybe you can make money if you buy and rent out to eventually pay your mortgage. But I wouldn’t count on appreciation. My advice to people is only to buy if you will use and enjoy it. Too much of a hassle otherwise.

 

[slatham]

We too have no desire to rent our condo out and in fact made a pact to not do so. That said, I don't want VT to restrict (or in this case prevent) me fro doing so. It will also hurt over all values, and hurt skier visits and thus the profitability of VT ski areas. But based on my research its is unlikely this bill to prevent all but official VT residents from renting will not move forward. There have been all sorts of bills introduced in State and Federal legislatures that are DOA and this seems to be one.

 

[Nick]

even if I didn't plan on renting a 2nd home it's nice to have the option available without being burdensome.

 

[cdskier]

I pretty much agree with all of the previous few comments. I don't have any interest in renting out my place as I bought it to use it whenever I want. That said, I don't agree with the VT government saying you can only rent if it was your primary residence. Bad enough second home-owners have to pay property taxes without having any say in things (and in some towns have to pay higher rates than locals).

 

[thetrailboss]

I don't understand this at all. IMO short term rentals are safer than hotels where more people are located. and you really impact the people who own the 2nd homes. And why now, so far down the path of things starting to come back up?

It's easy to understand. The hotel and lodging interest group is advocating for their members, especially after a terrible year compliments of COVID.

As to my feelings, it is mixed. The cost of living and housing in Vermont are both high. The housing stock is old. There are not enough homes. So I get this reason for regulation. But I feel that sometimes there can be too much regulation and/or regulation causes unanticipated problems.

 

[drjeff]

It's easy to understand. The hotel and lodging interest group is advocating for their members, especially after a terrible year compliments of COVID.

As to my feelings, it is mixed. The cost of living and housing in Vermont are both high. The housing stock is old. There are not enough homes. So I get this reason for regulation. But I feel that sometimes there can be too much regulation and/or regulation causes unanticipated problems.

And let's not forget what also happens.... to get a meeting with the proper legislators who have the ability to either advance or prevent this bill out of committee and up for a vote, the various advocacy groups have to get a meeting with the proper legislators. Easiest way to get a meeting? Advocacy group lobbyists contact the legislators and tell them that they'd like to meet to give them a campaign donation check (and on a state level it typically doesn't take a lot of zeroes on the check to get a meeting).

Then if there's another advocacy group in an opposite or supportive view of the bill, they do the same thing. Typically with bills like this the last advocacy group and/or the one with the biggest campaign contribution check and/or sets up the most smaller fundraiser meet and greets with multiple committee members, is the "most influential" deciding group that can either end up advancing or killing the bill in committee and if it makes it out of committee for a full vote, then the process of donations from advocacy groups set up by lobbyists starts all over again.

And with some bills, as I saw first hand that affect my profession in my home state, this process can go on for multiple years if a failed bill keeps being brought up in committee.

Modern politics at its absolute WORST!!

 

[djd66]

It's easy to understand. The hotel and lodging interest group is advocating for their members, especially after a terrible year compliments of COVID.

As to my feelings, it is mixed. The cost of living and housing in Vermont are both high. The housing stock is old. There are not enough homes. So I get this reason for regulation. But I feel that sometimes there can be too much regulation and/or regulation causes unanticipated problems.

You understand this? Really? Please explain how renting out your ski condo will impact the housing stock? Furthermore, how will stopping people’s ability to rent out a ski condo would help the housing stock? Quite honestly, I could give 2 shits about the housing stock in VT. I own a home in VT and if someone is willing to pay me to rent my house I should be able to do this without any issue.

As far as the hotels, well I feel bad for them as they like many businesses are having a tough time dealing with the Covid rules. At Sugarbush, there are not enough Hotel beds to satisfy demand. If this insanity goes through, there will be less people that can stay in the MRV and less people that will be able to spend money in the local economy. Demand for real estate will tank as who would want to buy a condo knowing they can’t rent it out?

 

[boston_e]

Demand for real estate will tank as who would want to buy a condo knowing they can’t rent it out?

I agree here. I wonder how many people buy ski condos with the idea of partially using it themselves, but also renting it out for occasional holiday weeks etc to help pay the taxes / bring in a little bit of income to make it possible for them to buy?

 

[skithetrees]

The ironic thing is that this will hurt the middle income people who love Vermont and rent to help pay for the second home. The wealthy who could give two sh... about Vermont won’t care.

 

[WWF-VT]

I agree here. I wonder how many people buy ski condos with the idea of partially using it themselves, but also renting it out for occasional holiday weeks etc to help pay the taxes / bring in a little bit of income to make it possible for them to buy?

If you have to rent your ski condo to help pay taxes or bring in income to make it possible to buy then you can't afford it

 

[boston_e]

If you have to rent your ski condo to help pay taxes or bring in income to make it possible to buy then you can't afford it

"Make it possible" may not have been the best choice of words. "Make it more palatable" probably would have been better..... but the point stands that if there is zero ability for someone to rent out their place for occasional weeks or weekends it will discourage a decent percentage of people from buying.

 

[thetrailboss]

You understand this? Really? Please explain how renting out your ski condo will impact the housing stock? Furthermore, how will stopping people’s ability to rent out a ski condo would help the housing stock? Quite honestly, I could give 2 shits about the housing stock in VT. I own a home in VT and if someone is willing to pay me to rent my house I should be able to do this without any issue.

Well....tell me how you really feel. And the sense of entitlement doesn't win friends or influence people. We're all glad for you that you have a home in Vermont.

That aside, as to the argument that is raised, and it is not necessarily MY perspective, is that when one rents out a home on VRBO or for short-term rentals that is one less home that is being rented to someone for residential purposes. That's one argument. Some respond that the market addresses this concern; others think that regulation is needed.

Demand for real estate will tank as who would want to buy a condo knowing they can’t rent it out?

And that proves my point about "unintended consequences" of regulation.

Honestly, I would not lose too much sleep over this proposal. I don't closely follow Vermont politics anymore and I don't know the "ins and outs" of what is going on under the Golden Dome, but I think that a lot of people will be opposed to this proposal and, like a lot of ideas, it will die.

 

[thetrailboss]

If you have to rent your ski condo to help pay taxes or bring in income to make it possible to buy then you can't afford it

Agreed.

 

[djd66]

If you have to rent your ski condo to help pay taxes or bring in income to make it possible to buy then you can't afford it

For it has nothing to do with what I can afford,... I own a place that people want to rent - what is wrong with that?

 

[chuckstah]

If you have to rent your ski condo to help pay taxes or bring in income to make it possible to buy then you can't afford it

Disagree with this. While not a ski condo, renting my very modest beach shack on Cape Cod 2-4 weeks per summer really helps to keep costs of upkeep and tax burden in check. An extra 5-10k never hurts. Without this option the math might still work, but no sure thing. I'm sure many ski home owners feel the same.

 

[raisingarizona]

You understand this? Really? Please explain how renting out your ski condo will impact the housing stock? Furthermore, how will stopping people’s ability to rent out a ski condo would help the housing stock? Quite honestly, I could give 2 shits about the housing stock in VT. I own a home in VT and if someone is willing to pay me to rent my house I should be able to do this without any issue.

As far as the hotels, well I feel bad for them as they like many businesses are having a tough time dealing with the Covid rules. At Sugarbush, there are not enough Hotel beds to satisfy demand. If this insanity goes through, there will be less people that can stay in the MRV and less people that will be able to spend money in the local economy. Demand for real estate will tank as who would want to buy a condo knowing they can’t rent it out?

It’s driving the cost of living up in mountain communities making it harder to find housing for the working folks that keep things running. The short term rentals and covid have really screwed these towns.

 

[JimG.]

For it has nothing to do with what I can afford,... I own a place that people want to rent - what is wrong with that?

Nothing.

I totally understand your position and agree with you even though I would not care if I could rent it I would not want the govt to tell me I couldn't.

 

[JimG.]

The ironic thing is that this will hurt the middle income people who love Vermont and rent to help pay for the second home. The wealthy who could give two sh... about Vermont won’t care.

Always the result of govt intrusion.

 

[boston_e]

Disagree with this. While not a ski condo, renting my very modest beach shack on Cape Cod 2-4 weeks per summer really helps to keep costs of upkeep and tax burden in check. An extra 5-10k never hurts. Without this option the math might still work, but no sure thing. I'm sure many ski home owners feel the same.

This was my point exactly. As I subsequently mentioned “make it more palatable” or “more do-able” probably would have been a better choice of words then “possible”. If someone would truly lose their home if it doesn’t rent out for a couple of weeks then yeah they probably can’t afford it. But that’s not going to be the case with most people hoping to pick up a little extra income by renting a place out a few weeks each winter. As you mention and extra 5k most years could be what makes the math work for a good percentage of buyers.