# VT proposing restrictions on Short Term rentals



## djd66 (Feb 27, 2021)

Has anyone heard about the new legislation? WTF are they thinking? This is being sent around from VRBO



> > Dear Property Owner or Manager,
> >
> > The Vermont Legislature is considering legislation to severely restrict short-term vacation rentals. HB 200, sponsored by Representative Emilie Kornheiser, seeks to impose a primary residency requirement for all short-term rentals in Vermont.
> >
> > ...


----------



## Nick (Feb 27, 2021)

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?


----------



## kendo (Feb 27, 2021)

Nick said:


> 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?



Governor restricts travel.  Lodging industry tanks.  Legislation to the rescue...

"Q&A: Hotelier Hans van Wees brings attention to the plight of the hospitality industry - VTDigger" https://vtdigger.org/2020/12/17/qa-...o-the-plight-of-the-hospitality-industry/amp/


----------



## eatskisleep (Feb 27, 2021)

This is insane. Punish the person who tries to help cover some of their mortgage or high VT property tax.


----------



## icecoast1 (Feb 27, 2021)

Sounds like such a typical Vermont thing to do.  Reason 1000001 why I will never own property in that state


----------



## JimG. (Feb 27, 2021)

icecoast1 said:


> Sounds like such a typical Vermont thing to do.  Reason 1000001 why I will never own property in that state


+1 on that.

May never ski in VT again at this rate.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 27, 2021)

Rather funny. I would say that this will never pass but it is Vermont so who knows.


----------



## abc (Feb 27, 2021)

It'll never pass. All those 2nd homo owners who count on renting their place out when they're not using it...

Oh wait, 2nd home owners don't vote. Or they will?


----------



## skithetrees (Feb 27, 2021)

I don’t see how, if this bill passes, it withstands a legal challenge. On the plus side, if you are looking to buy in the next few years ...


----------



## ThatGuy (Feb 27, 2021)

kendo said:


> "Q&A: Hotelier Hans van Wees brings attention to the plight of the hospitality industry - VTDigger" https://vtdigger.org/2020/12/17/qa-...o-the-plight-of-the-hospitality-industry/amp/


Thats a depressing read


----------



## LonghornSkier (Feb 27, 2021)

skithetrees said:


> I don’t see how, if this bill passes, it withstands a legal challenge. On the plus side, if you are looking to buy in the next few years ...


there are semi-similar rules on the books here in the city and legal challenges have been unsuccessful.


----------



## skithetrees (Feb 27, 2021)

LonghornSkier said:


> there are semi-similar rules on the books here in the city and legal challenges have been unsuccessful.


Arguably a big difference between a multi-tenant building in NYC and an individual residential home with space between neighbors. Looking at city condos, they are largely filled with full time residents whereas ski condos are typically vacant most of the time. It’s hard to articulate a legitimate government purpose and an absence of a discriminatory impact for such a law in VT.


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 27, 2021)

Sounds like the Hotels lobbied for this ,fighting for scraps left over . If I was VT resident I'd be looking into a recall.  Going to crater the property values as well ,I don't think I've ever dropped an F bomb on AZ but here goes Fucking assholes .......


----------



## ss20 (Feb 27, 2021)

I love Vermont for the beauty, weather, serenity, and of course, the skiing.  Heck 80% of the people I encounter are wonderful too.  But their politics from the local level to the top are the most batshit crazy out of all 50 states but is able to fly under the radar about it given its small population (speaking of...are they dead last now?...I know Wyoming has been booming).


----------



## drjeff (Feb 27, 2021)

Wonder on the slim chance that this passes, if VT will have the same level of "enforcement" on this as they have done with Covid travel quarantine restrictions.... basically none....


----------



## JoeB-Z (Feb 27, 2021)

Phil Scott will veto. All these places to stay will be busting at the seams with booking by the summer. A lot of pent up demand and money.


----------



## Zermatt (Feb 28, 2021)

drjeff said:


> Wonder on the slim chance that this passes, if VT will have the same level of "enforcement" on this as they have done with Covid travel quarantine restrictions.... basically none....


For direct listings it would be very hard to enforce. For AirBnB, VRBO, etc they would clearly have to follow the law. Public companies cannot profit from knowingly breaking the law.


----------



## Nick (Feb 28, 2021)

would any of you ever invest in an property in VT with things like this going on?


----------



## Jersey Skier (Feb 28, 2021)

Nick said:


> would any of you ever invest in an property in VT with things like this going on?


If you're using it for personal use only, not a big deal. Prices would drop if this ever passed.  I'm sure there are many second home owners who have no intention of ever renting for one reason or another.

If you're just buying as an investment, just buy GME.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 28, 2021)

Jersey Skier said:


> If you're using it for personal use only, not a big deal. Prices would drop if this ever passed.  I'm sure there are many second home owners who have no intention of ever renting for one reason or another.
> 
> If you're just buying as an investment, just buy GME.


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.


----------



## eatskisleep (Feb 28, 2021)

JimG. said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

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 (Feb 28, 2021)

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 (Feb 28, 2021)

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


----------



## cdskier (Feb 28, 2021)

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 (Feb 28, 2021)

Nick said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

thetrailboss said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

thetrailboss said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

djd66 said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

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 (Feb 28, 2021)

boston_e said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

WWF-VT said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

djd66 said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

WWF-VT said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

WWF-VT said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

WWF-VT said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

djd66 said:


> 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. (Feb 28, 2021)

djd66 said:


> 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. (Feb 28, 2021)

skithetrees said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2021)

chuckstah said:


> 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.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 28, 2021)

thetrailboss said:


> 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.


I'm always a bit skeptical of that argument. First of all, if you're going to have a property that would be a candidate for renting to someone for residential purposes, that means you don't plan to use it at all yourself. So now we're talking about someone who purely owns property merely to rent it. Is that really a significant portion of the rental inventory on VRBO/AirBnB/etc around vacation areas? Maybe it is, but I've always thought the majority of what you see for short term rentals are properties where owners want to use it some weeks themselves and rent it out others.

And I'm always a bit amused as well about all the people against short-term rentals in the first place. Short-term rentals aren't new. They've been around for ages via real-estate brokers (or even directly by owners). VRBO/AirBnB simply offered a new platform that was cheaper than real-estate companies and more modern and efficient (and also happens to be cheaper for the consumer often times as well). It is called evolution. People need to embrace change, not try to stop it. This is quite similar to cities trying to stop Uber or Lyft type of services.


----------



## Ski2LiveLive2Ski (Mar 1, 2021)

Might make it more likely for me to buy a place in VT - after their values crash


----------



## kingslug (Mar 1, 2021)

Theyre building places all over VT..to rent out. So its ok for company XYZ to build lets say 4 townhomes..like they are doing next to the Edelwiese deli, but its not ok for the average person to buy a place and rent it out? This is BS and will never pass.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 1, 2021)

you might be right, but one thing is for certain.  You as a 2nd home property owner have no voice...


----------



## kingslug (Mar 1, 2021)

If it came down to it..we just would never rent it then. We rent it out sparingly now any way. We don't have to. Last years rentals paid for the new floors we put in. No further plans for any renovations anyway. But..how will they differntiate between us and some guy that owns a small company that builds condos to rent. If they make it so you have to be a corporation to do this..ok..Kingslug real estate is born. 
Again..its BS.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 1, 2021)

I'd rent from King Slug Rental


----------



## kingslug (Mar 1, 2021)

No prob. 
We even looked at SB properties for the hell of it..everyone is trying to cash in these days. Prices up 20%. I have a feeling after this is all over..a lot of people are going to go "why did I buy this thing" ..and then the sell off will begin. What goes up..eventually comes down.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 1, 2021)

The entire country is likely in another real estate bubble.  Residential anyways.  Commercial, especially office space, is F'd.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 1, 2021)

cdskier said:


> I'm always a bit skeptical of that argument. First of all, if you're going to have a property that would be a candidate for renting to someone for residential purposes, that means you don't plan to use it at all yourself. So now we're talking about someone who purely owns property merely to rent it. Is that really a significant portion of the rental inventory on VRBO/AirBnB/etc around vacation areas? Maybe it is, but I've always thought the majority of what you see for short term rentals are properties where owners want to use it some weeks themselves and rent it out others.
> 
> And I'm always a bit amused as well about all the people against short-term rentals in the first place. Short-term rentals aren't new. They've been around for ages via real-estate brokers (or even directly by owners). VRBO/AirBnB simply offered a new platform that was cheaper than real-estate companies and more modern and efficient (and also happens to be cheaper for the consumer often times as well). It is called evolution. People need to embrace change, not try to stop it. This is quite similar to cities trying to stop Uber or Lyft type of services.



I don't support the bill, but I do absolutely support the argument that VRBO etc has contributed greatly to housing shortages in vacation areas.  Such services vastly simplify things for owners for everything from booking, to insurance, to cleaning.  The insurance is a big one because my understanding is that if your unit is damaged, VRBO response and resolution is very quick vs using some local real estate company like in the past who simply don't have the economics of scale on their side to handle problems as easily.

I'd love to see the stats of STR vs LTR or Seasonal Rentals today vs 25 years ago.  I know as I've looked at STRs in Stowe the past couple of seasons, I've seen properties that I used to know were year round rentals or typical ski bum seasonal properties from when I was a resident in town.  Talk to any long time business owners in town and they will tell you they have a far more difficult time finding staff today vs 25 years ago and the number reason for this is lack of affordable housing.  Same is true of owners of businesses on Cape Cod I used to work at seasonally. VRBO and its resulting removal of properties from the LTR pool shares a lot of the blame.  

I know some cities have the same issue and have responded by restricting the total amount of STR units available via permitting.  Portland, ME would be one of them.  There's a lengthy wait-list to get a permit.  Boston has them too and there it's specifically designed to prevent large investors from buying up long term rentals and converting them to STR properties.  

I don't think someone like the people on AZ who rent out their one vacation property a few weeks a year to help offset their expenses is the issue.  They're still using their place, so this bill is bogus for the impact it would have on them.  But doing something to limit larger investors from taking up multiple properties they have no intention of using?  Something very much does need to be done about that.  Perhaps a higher rooms and meals tax to either discourage the practice or that generates enough proceeds to build more affordable housing for locals.


----------



## ss20 (Mar 1, 2021)

jimmywilson69 said:


> The entire country is likely in another real estate bubble.  Residential anyways.  Commercial, especially office space, is F'd.



Yep, and I'd argue that some urban places are going to be a real bargin if you're renting.  NYC average rent is still down by 17% compared to last year.  

It's very interesting.  While we may go "back to normal", a good chunk of the world we lived in on March 1, 2020, is gone forever.  So much change at the macro level so fast.  Peak oil, rural/suburban growth not seen since post-WWII, the rise of telecommuting.  Gonna be interesting to see how it all plays out.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 1, 2021)

At the bagel store in Hunter a local that works at Hunter says it has impacted his ability to hire season employees..no affordable housing left.


----------



## Hawk (Mar 1, 2021)

skithetrees said:


> 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.


Are you kidding me.  Go look at the prices right now at sugarbush.  The market has never been hotter.  I know at least 5 people who have sold for way above what they paid.  A condo in my building sold this week for $217K that was bought for $140K 5 years ago.  The house up the street that was bought 7 years ago for $550K sold for $1.2M.  The market is insane.  I am not saying to Buy right now but if you are selling.  OMG.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 1, 2021)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't support the bill, but I do absolutely support the argument that VRBO etc has contributed greatly to housing shortages in vacation areas.  Such services vastly simplify things for owners for everything from booking, to insurance, to cleaning.  The insurance is a big one because my understanding is that if your unit is damaged, VRBO response and resolution is very quick vs using some local real estate company like in the past who simply don't have the economics of scale on their side to handle problems as easily.
> 
> I'd love to see the stats of STR vs LTR or Seasonal Rentals today vs 25 years ago.  I know as I've looked at STRs in Stowe the past couple of seasons, I've seen properties that I used to know were year round rentals or typical ski bum seasonal properties from when I was a resident in town.  Talk to any long time business owners in town and they will tell you they have a far more difficult time finding staff today vs 25 years ago and the number reason for this is lack of affordable housing.  Same is true of owners of businesses on Cape Cod I used to work at seasonally. VRBO and its resulting removal of properties from the LTR pool shares a lot of the blame.
> 
> ...



There's a lot of factors at work here. Consumer behavior has changed as well (a lot of that has to do with technology). It is far easier to find a rental thanks to technology. I can sit at home and look at dozens/hundreds of options from the comfort of my couch. Years ago you had to either visit the area or take a bit of a gamble through a real-estate agent describing what you were looking for and hoping you got what you wanted. As a result people would often go with the "known" of simply using a lodge/inn/motel, etc because they could expect a consistent experience. Now there's a shift in demand with more people wanting various STR options. A lot of people no longer simply want a traditional hotel/motel/inn/lodge experience. They want room to spread out with their families. They want a kitchen to be able to do their own cooking instead of always going out to eat, etc. Blaming VRBO/AirBnB on a lack of affordable housing is foolish and short-sighted. Did they create demand for STR? Or was the demand always lurking and they just recognized that and capitalized on the opportunity? I don't like the idea of seemingly punishing success.

Now if you want to limit people using STR purely as a business (i.e. specifically targeting those larger investors with multiple properties), then I'm fine with finding some way to do that (as long as you can also protect individual owners that are just offsetting some of their own expenses via STR). If an individual owner can get more for their own property via STR instead of LTR, I don't have an issue with that though. I don't think it should be an indvidual property owner's responsibility to offer cheap affordable housing options. That property owner has expenses and bills to pay too. I do agree a lack of affordable housing in resort communities can be an issue, but we need to find the right solution to deal with it. Simply trying to restrict STR is not the right way. Demand for STR clearly is strong. Cutting off supply will just create other issues (one of which could be consumers choosing to take their demand to other states/communities/resorts).


----------



## Hawk (Mar 1, 2021)

I will never rent my place to anyone.  I am up all year round and have way to many personal things in there that I value.  I also paid it off a long time ago so it is only the condo fees and taxes.  BUT I really hate that the legislature would pass something like this.  It hurts the smaller guy.  Also who says that the second home owners have a responsibility to house mountain employees?  Isn't that the responsibility of the multi-millionaire owners?


----------



## cdskier (Mar 1, 2021)

Hawk said:


> Are you kidding me.  Go look at the prices right now at sugarbush.  The market has never been hotter.  I know at least 5 people who have sold for way above what they paid.  A condo in my building sold this week for $217K that was bought for $140K 5 years ago.  The house up the street that was bought 7 years ago for $550K sold for $1.2M.  The market is insane.  I am not saying to Buy right now but if you are selling.  OMG.


I completely agree. Was just having this conversation on a lift this weekend with someone. Even the cost of building new has shot way up. The guy I was talking to said he actually had to substantially increase the insurance on his house here in the valley because he could never rebuild it for what it was previously insured for.



Hawk said:


> I will never rent my place to anyone.  I am up all year round and have way to many personal things in there that I value.  I also paid it off a long time ago so it is only the condo fees and taxes.  BUT I really hate that the legislature would pass something like this.  It hurts the smaller guy.  Also who says that the second home owners have a responsibility to house mountain employees?  Isn't that the responsibility of the multi-millionaire owners?



I essentially agree. Renting to someone I implicitly trust is the only exception I would make. I've historically (not this year) rented my condo 1 weekend a year to one of my cousin's and his family. That's it. I would never trust strangers with all my personal belongings. Insurance is irrelevant if there are personal things that you can't replace. And I so agree with your last sentiment. Not sure why some people think second home-owners have this responsibility at their own expense. It just makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 1, 2021)

Nick said:


> 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 has nothing to do with COVID19 & everything to do with government wanting more tax revenue.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 1, 2021)

ss20 said:


> I love Vermont for the beauty, weather, serenity, and of course, the skiing.  Heck 80% of the people I encounter are wonderful too.  But* their politics from the local level to the top are the most batshit crazy out of all 50 states but is able to fly under the radar about it given its small population* (speaking of...are they dead last now?...I know Wyoming has been booming).



I think of this occasionally, and I think Hawaii can give Vermont a run for its' money, but yeah, definitely among the most extremist in terms of far-left ideology taking over government.  Idaho would be my choice for the far-right version. Neither extreme is a good thing when it has complete control.


----------



## Hawk (Mar 1, 2021)

Excuse my ignorance....What kind of taxes do VBRO and Air B&B pay in VT vs Hotels and B&B's?  I really have no idea.


----------



## parahelia (Mar 1, 2021)

Hawk said:


> Are you kidding me.  Go look at the prices right now at sugarbush.  The market has never been hotter.  I know at least 5 people who have sold for way above what they paid.  A condo in my building sold this week for $217K that was bought for $140K 5 years ago.  The house up the street that was bought 7 years ago for $550K sold for $1.2M.  The market is insane.  I am not saying to Buy right now but if you are selling.  OMG.


I think it's happening in ski towns everywhere, too.  We have a 2BR condo at Sunday River, bought in 2016 - one of the many built in the Les Otten days.  Cheap construction, no frills, but super convenient.  Similar condos are now being listed for over 300K which seems just bananas for old buildings with deferred maintenance galore (more than double what we paid!)  I guess the smart move is to cash in on the fever and sell, but we like the place and didn't buy it as an investment in anything other than easier weekend trips.  In this context, it's not surprising that Sunday River accelerated the fancy new Merrill Hill development, lots of buyers these days.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 1, 2021)

drjeff said:


> Wonder on the slim chance that this passes, if VT will have the same level of "enforcement" on this as they have done with Covid travel quarantine restrictions.... basically none....



Oh no, look to other places as your guide.  It will happen if it passes.   This is given an "umbrella" name, but the reality is it's designed to specifically target AirBNB & VRBO.   That's all you need because if you take out those 2 players you eliminate a really decent chunk of this market.  Alternatively, it could be BS legislation being used to bring them to the table and  easier swallow higher taxes through their e-platforms in future legislation, which, IMO I wouldnt rule out that that's the real goal here & this is just Vermont's opening move at the chess board.


----------



## Killingtime (Mar 1, 2021)

I bought a condo in Vermont in 2007 when the real estate market was already showing signs of cracks and I thought how far could it go down? 10 or 15% I could live with because my wife loved the place and I expected to have it a very long time. by 2010 it was worth half of what I paid. Banks stopped lending on second and vacation homes and buyers who were willing to fork over cash dried up. It took a very long time for the values to come back up. It feels as though we are going through something similar right now and it is 2005/2006 all over again.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 1, 2021)

Hawk said:


> Excuse my ignorance....What kind of taxes do VBRO and Air B&B pay in VT vs Hotels and B&B's?  I really have no idea.


The same thing...the VT Meals and Rooms tax. AirBnB collects and remits to the state on your behalf (assume VRBO does as well but didn't specifically look). So interestingly enough, restricting STR via these options actually also would potentially hurt their tax revenue.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 1, 2021)

chuckstah said:


> 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.



Yup.  I'm surprised numerous people agreed with the original poster.  The income from rent clearly can strategically be used to help "afford" the unit better, you can even model it as bringing down the cost of the acquisition.  It's not much different conceptually than when I sell OOTM call options against a long position. It brings down my cost basis.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 1, 2021)

I agree with both of these.

If you have to rent all but say 2 weeks in your "prime season" to make it work, then yes you probably shouldn't have bought it.  However, if you want to rent it a few times to help pay the taxes or offset some renovations.  then you are just being a smart financial person.  Hell if I could rent my primary residence to pay for things I might consider it  LOL


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 1, 2021)

BenedictGomez said:


> It has nothing to do with COVID19 & everything to do with government wanting more tax revenue.


Maybe, but I am pretty sure it has more to do with what I said--special interest groups representing their constituents.  In this case, the hotel and lodging industry that are hurting in Vermont after COVID.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 1, 2021)

That is also true.  I'm pretty sure that's why NYC has a ban on STR.

nobody should be making knee jerk reactions right now...   

The lobbyists should be working over the VT legislature to loosen their insanely tight restrictions instead.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 1, 2021)

I think the term affordable housing has changed a tad bit these days. What exactly is affordable housing anymore?
What I have seen is that rundown house down the block that no one wanted..well its now refurbished and turned into a rental. All over the place..so much so that now they are building new ones. Drive around Stowe..you will see. Been going on for  a while now. Those little studio condos on the mountain went up quite a bit in the last year..and now they are building more of them. They're not building anything to house employees. No money in that.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 1, 2021)

thetrailboss said:


> Maybe, but I am pretty sure it has more to do with what I said-*-special interest groups representing their constituents.  In this case, the hotel and lodging industry* that are hurting in Vermont after COVID.



Oh I absolutely agree with that too.  It's happening all over America whereby AirBNB & VRBO are under attack & often it's partially (perhaps all) driven & funded by the hotel lobby & their campaign donations.

What it's definitely NOT about, however, is COVID19.


----------



## skithetrees (Mar 1, 2021)

Hawk said:


> Are you kidding me.  Go look at the prices right now at sugarbush.  The market has never been hotter.  I know at least 5 people who have sold for way above what they paid.  A condo in my building sold this week for $217K that was bought for $140K 5 years ago.  The house up the street that was bought 7 years ago for $550K sold for $1.2M.  The market is insane.  I am not saying to Buy right now but if you are selling.  OMG.


I’m looking at 30 year trends. I don’t know what the market is this year, doesn’t affect me. It will all even out over time to basically no gain. You are looking at 2007 right now.


----------



## Hawk (Mar 1, 2021)

Ya it leveled out into my friends pocket.  To the tune of 75 grand.  In 30 years at Sugarbush the real-estate has been basically flat and now is going up.  I doubt it will go back down to the levels pre covid.   So if you are looking at trends why would you not know what is going on this year?  Isn't this year part of the trend?


----------



## kendo (Mar 1, 2021)

there's (2) other VT bills in development targeting the short term rental market... both for creating a statewide STR registry and for implementing annual Health & Safety inspections and fees.  

H.256 Draft Bill Template (vermont.gov)
and 
S.79 Draft Bill Template (vermont.gov)

The state has no STR registry and the lodging industry has been pushing for more STR H&S oversight and fees (or reduction in their fees - which would never occur).  These bills have more of a chance to be implemented as they create a known STR database for additional state and local regulations.    

H.200 (70% owner occupancy) and the (2) bills above were recommended by a May 2020 Dartmouth STR study - commissioned by VT lawmakers to define "policy options to address the uneven playing field".     prsshorttermrentalfinal.pdf (dartmouth.edu)

Expect to see another bill forthcoming that will require additional insurance coverage for STR owners, as most homeowner policies have a business-use exclusion.


----------



## skithetrees (Mar 1, 2021)

Hawk said:


> Ya it leveled out into my friends pocket.  To the tune of 75 grand.  In 30 years at Sugarbush the real-estate has been basically flat and now is going up.  I doubt it will go back down to the levels pre covid.   So if you are looking at trends why would you not know what is going on this year?  Isn't this year part of the trend?


Just my opinion. It’s free, so take it for what it’s worth . To your point, VT real estate was flat for 30 years and is now going up in view of a once a century type event. My point is that one, or even a few years, do not make a long term trend. Hell, house prices in my very nice suburb are going up. Not complaining about the equity bump, but nor am i counting on it long term.  A lot of houses are flat from early 2000s after losing 25%+ in 2007.


----------



## machski (Mar 1, 2021)

parahelia said:


> I think it's happening in ski towns everywhere, too.  We have a 2BR condo at Sunday River, bought in 2016 - one of the many built in the Les Otten days.  Cheap construction, no frills, but super convenient.  Similar condos are now being listed for over 300K which seems just bananas for old buildings with deferred maintenance galore (more than double what we paid!)  I guess the smart move is to cash in on the fever and sell, but we like the place and didn't buy it as an investment in anything other than easier weekend trips.  In this context, it's not surprising that Sunday River accelerated the fancy new Merrill Hill development, lots of buyers these days.


We own at SR too.  Bought small to afford it outright and not have to consider renting it out.  We "loan" it out to friends/family when we aren't using it if any are interested or ask.  

A two bed unit in our complex just went on market with an ask of $319K!  Zero upgrades since the original LBO days build in the 80's, even the furniture looks original!!  But then again, SR has sold out positions in the new Dreamaker Lodge, the first new two bed (and 3/4 bed penthouses) condos in decades on hill.  Of course, it upped the bar on pricing, with 2 beds priced above half a million to start.


----------



## Hawk (Mar 1, 2021)

We almost bought a small A frame in Viking village before we opted to move to Sugarbush.  It was going for 250K at the time.  If we bought that things might have turned out entirely different.  I bet it is worth 500K now.


----------



## 2Planker (Mar 1, 2021)

The MWV Real Estate scene is on Fire.  People are outbidding each other, and going 10%-15% over asking price.


----------



## raisingarizona (Mar 1, 2021)

Covid has brought in the ultimate sh$t storm to the housing crisis in ski towns. Short term rentals are a part of the equation. 









						Ski communities are ‘getting crunched on all sides’
					

The pandemic has heightened cost-of-living issues in resort towns.




					www.hcn.org


----------



## kingslug (Mar 1, 2021)

142 Red Sled Dr #308, Stowe, VT 05672 | Zillow
					

Zestimate® Home Value: $1,375,000. 142 Red Sled Dr #308, Stowe, VT is a condo home that contains 1,324 sq ft and was built in 2016. It contains 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.    The Zestimate for this house is $1,486,700, which has increased by $16,871 in the last 30 days. The Rent Zestimate for...




					www.zillow.com
				



$1132.00  a sq ft...holy canoli.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 1, 2021)

kingslug said:


> 142 Red Sled Dr #308, Stowe, VT 05672 | Zillow
> 
> 
> Zestimate® Home Value: $1,375,000. 142 Red Sled Dr #308, Stowe, VT is a condo home that contains 1,324 sq ft and was built in 2016. It contains 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.    The Zestimate for this house is $1,486,700, which has increased by $16,871 in the last 30 days. The Rent Zestimate for...
> ...


Don't forget the $1000+ monthly HOA fees (although that does include a lot you might pay separately or extra for elsewhere)!

Basically brand new, Spruce Peak, heated parking garage, Fitness center, high end everything inside...what did you expect? That place was never built with the intention of being bought by common-folk...


----------



## Hawk (Mar 1, 2021)

I have a friend that bought one of those units on Spruce Peak.  Those were obscenely expensive even prior to covid.  Her unit is next to a partner of a large venture capitol company and down the road from Abigail Johnson of Fidelity.  These are people at top of the food chain, 10 levels above most of our pay grades.  Certainly not something to compare to other VT real estate.   Really nice place though.  I think for the money I would rather have a place on mountain at Whistler or some other place out west.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 1, 2021)

Hawk said:


> I have a friend that bought one of those units on Spruce Peak.  Those were obscenely expensive even prior to covid.  Her unit is next to a partner of a large venture capitol company and down the road from Abigail Johnson of Fidelity.  These are people at top of the food chain, 10 levels above most of our pay grades.  Certainly not something to compare to other VT real estate.   Really nice place though.  I think for the money I would rather have a place on mountain at Whistler or some other place out west.



The people who can afford Spruce likely have one or five places out West as well.  

But the current trends in Stowe really date back to 9/11.  

I got there in 95 and stayed through actually 9/12/01 and then moved out of the Northeast.  Back in the 90s the town was filled with multi generation locals and ski bums.  Most popular cars driving around town were old Saabs and Subarus.  It was pretty easy to find a reasonably affordable year round apartment or ski bum house for the winter.

Moved back in 2004 and it was all Range Rovers and Audi's.  Tons of locals had moved off to Morrisville, Johnson, Wolcott etc.  Some did so opportunistically by selling, others due to skyrocketing taxes and rents.  Seasonal ski bum scene rapidly fading and being replaced with Visa workers.  There was only a minor correction in 2009. 

The difference now is that the technology is so much better for WFH.  

Such a bad mix when the primary opportunities outside of WFH are low wage service jobs.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 1, 2021)

Wonder how they like the 1/2 hour liftlines. 
We looked at a studio there. If you rent it they get half. Then you get to pay for cleaning everytime its used, you or a renter. And it was pretty expensive for a 500 sq ft room. I like our better. The times..they are a changing..


----------



## O09 (Mar 1, 2021)

kingslug said:


> Theyre building places all over VT..to rent out. So its ok for company XYZ to build lets say 4 townhomes..like they are doing next to the Edelwiese deli, but its not ok for the average person to buy a place and rent it out? This is BS and will never pass.


I agree.  At one point in time, Mt Snow was going to build ~150 2,3,and 4 bedroom condos at the base of Carinthia for use exclusively as short term rentals.  How would that be okay and not a regular person renting out their house?  

This bill would take away revenue from the State of Vermont and cost money to implement. Short term rentals have become something that is beyond the power of the inns/chamber of commerce to push their regulation.  They will run up against other entities that are way more invested than some inn owner chipping in $500 to the chamber to lobby their cause.


----------



## mbedle (Mar 2, 2021)

Does this apply to condo hotels and timeshares?


O09 said:


> I agree.  At one point in time, Mt Snow was going to build ~150 2,3,and 4 bedroom condos at the base of Carinthia for use exclusively as short term rentals.  How would that be okay and not a regular person renting out their house?
> 
> This bill would take away revenue from the State of Vermont and cost money to implement. Short term rentals have become something that is beyond the power of the inns/chamber of commerce to push their regulation.  They will run up against other entities that are way more invested than some inn owner chipping in $500 to the chamber to lobby their cause.


I believe that the Carinthia build out are going to be privately owned (through the EB-5 program). I also believe that the business model for them is short term rentals. Since none are going to be occupied by the owners for the required timeframe (that is prohibited), they would not be allowed to rent them out under the new regulations. If that regulation passes, you are going to see a massive sell off of these standalone condos at ski resorts and the adjacent resorts. Look at all the condo resorts along Mountain Road in Stowe, pretty much every one of them is marketed for sale as a short term rental unit and not for any type of full time occupancy. Hence the reason the average HOA fee in Stowe is around $1,000 per month. Maybe these resort condos would be exempt from the regulations??? Maybe you will see a lot of owners eat the 12K a year for the couple of trips they plan to visit Stowe??? Its not like you are going to see any of the owners say or be allowed to start renting them out full-time. Can't imagine the monthly rent is going to be to low when you have to cover such a high HOA fee.


----------



## abc (Mar 2, 2021)

On the other hand, all the current 2nd home owners can get together and demanded existing property to be grandfathered.

That would limits new construction and competition. Best of both world.


----------



## Smellytele (Mar 2, 2021)

abc said:


> On the other hand, all the current 2nd home owners can get together and demanded existing property to be grandfathered.
> 
> That would limits new construction and competition. Best of both world.


Not a good world for the vt construction world though.


----------



## skiur (Mar 2, 2021)

abc said:


> On the other hand, all the current 2nd home owners can get together and demanded existing property to be grandfathered.
> 
> That would limits new construction and competition. Best of both world.



Vermont doesn't even let 2nd home owners vote in the town they own their house in. They can get together all they want, the state doesn't care.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 2, 2021)

This is all just...joy. If I can't rent mine out..I wont.


----------



## Smellytele (Mar 2, 2021)

skiur said:


> Vermont doesn't even let 2nd home owners vote in the town they own their house in. They can get together all they want, the state doesn't care.


Does any state?


----------



## mbedle (Mar 2, 2021)

Smellytele said:


> Does any state?


From what I found, Delaware, Connecticut and New Mexico are the only states that allow non-residents to vote in municipal or town elections. However, there are a lot of other states there select counties and towns allow non-residences to vote on certain issues. The article I read listed Mountain Village (Town made at base of Telluride Ski Resort) in Colorado as one that non-residence sued for the right to vote on local issues.


----------



## djd66 (Mar 2, 2021)

Smellytele said:


> Does any state?


Delaware, Connecticut, and New Mexico are the only three states in the country that allow non-residents to vote in municipal or town elections.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 2, 2021)

Smellytele said:


> Does any state?


I was wondering that as well.


mbedle said:


> From what I found, Delaware, Connecticut and New Mexico are the only states that allow non-residents to vote in municipal or town elections. However, there are a lot of other states there select counties and towns allow non-residences to vote on certain issues. The article I read listed Mountain Village (Town made at base of Telluride Ski Resort) in Colorado as one that non-residence sued for the right to vote on local issues.


Interesting info. It certainly is an interesting idea to allow non-resident property owners to vote in local elections or at least on certain issues.


----------



## machski (Mar 2, 2021)

Hawk said:


> We almost bought a small A frame in Viking village before we opted to move to Sugarbush.  It was going for 250K at the time.  If we bought that things might have turned out entirely different.  I bet it is worth 500K now.


Does that A-Frame still exist as such?  I can only think of maybe 2 left in Viking.  Seems full rebuilds have been all the rage in there lately.


----------



## icecoast1 (Mar 3, 2021)

mbedle said:


> Does this apply to condo hotels and timeshares?
> 
> I believe that the Carinthia build out are going to be privately owned (through the EB-5 program). I also believe that the business model for them is short term rentals. Since none are going to be occupied by the owners for the required timeframe (that is prohibited), they would not be allowed to rent them out under the new regulations. If that regulation passes, you are going to see a massive sell off of these standalone condos at ski resorts and the adjacent resorts. Look at all the condo resorts along Mountain Road in Stowe, pretty much every one of them is marketed for sale as a short term rental unit and not for any type of full time occupancy. Hence the reason the average HOA fee in Stowe is around $1,000 per month. Maybe these resort condos would be exempt from the regulations??? Maybe you will see a lot of owners eat the 12K a year for the couple of trips they plan to visit Stowe??? Its not like you are going to see any of the owners say or be allowed to start renting them out full-time. Can't imagine the monthly rent is going to be to low when you have to cover such a high HOA fee.



are those condos at Carinthia still happening?  The Eb-5 program is basically dead, seems like that basically killed that project under Peak's ownership.   Vail would need to come up with different funding methods at a time when cash is tight


----------



## drjeff (Mar 3, 2021)

icecoast1 said:


> are those condos at Carinthia still happening?  The Eb-5 program is basically dead, seems like that basically killed that project under Peak's ownership.   Vail would need to come up with different funding methods at a time when cash is tight


While not dead completely,  as I understand it Vail is/will be doing an entire reassessment of the 20ish year master plan that had the Carinthia base area development in it.

The EB-5 money that they had raised was a "phase 1" kind of thing that covered the new Carinthia Base Lodge as well as all of the snowmaking upgrades.

Phase 2, which essentially hadn't started when the entire Vail purchase of Peak happened which put a pause on things. 

So I do not believe as I understand things, that there's any liability issues for EB-5 funds and the Carinthia development, and the phase 1 EB-5 part apparently met the criteria it had to, so that part is OK in the eyes of those who oversee/over saw the program


----------



## abc (Mar 3, 2021)

cdskier said:


> Interesting info. It certainly is an interesting idea to allow non-resident property owners to vote in local elections or at least on certain issues.


Yep, interesting idea. Doesn't non-resident property owners includes commercial owners like hotels?

On the other hand, there's nothing to stop a 2nd home owner to make their second home their primary residents. Plenty of small landlords even turn their rental property into "primary" resident to avoid paying capital gain tax on the sale of the property.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 3, 2021)

abc said:


> Yep, interesting idea. Doesn't non-resident property owners includes commercial owners like hotels?
> 
> On the other hand, there's nothing to stop a 2nd home owner to make their second home their primary residents. Plenty of small landlords even turn their rental property into "primary" resident to avoid paying capital gain tax on the sale of the property.


You can't have 2 primary residences...so if you make your 2nd home your primary one, then you no longer would have a say/vote over things in the town/state for your first home.


----------



## NYDB (Mar 3, 2021)

If you are married you can do it no prob.  One spouse each has a different primary residence.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 3, 2021)

NY DirtBag said:


> If you are married you can do it no prob.  One spouse each has a different primary residence.


That takes the concept of separate bedrooms to a bigtime level!


----------



## NYDB (Mar 3, 2021)

abc said:


> Yep, interesting idea. Doesn't non-resident property owners includes commercial owners like hotels?
> 
> On the other hand, there's nothing to stop a 2nd home owner to make their second home their primary residents. Plenty of small landlords even turn their rental property into "primary" resident to avoid paying capital gain tax on the sale of the property.


there are a few reasons why this doesn't workout well. Please consult your tax advisor.


----------



## Hawk (Mar 3, 2021)

Please explain.  I do not see how your taxes will change.  What am I missing.


----------



## SnowRock (Mar 3, 2021)

Stowe is insane right now... There is just no inventory available in the 2/3 BR condo range. We had started looking semi-seriously before COVID with plans to buy in the spring. Then with COVID, we were uncertain with what the future would hold and didn't move forward on a unit we were close on. I wish we had... similar units have already sold for 40-50K above the price we were at.

We have put in a few offers during this time and have been outbid or lost to all cash offers on each... last one we lost to was all cash and no contingency which seemed insane given build date. 

Now if you want to buy above 1M... it is more a buyers market. Lots of inventory that seems to linger, lot of price drops.  Don't like the idea of this bill... while we wouldn't really be planning on renting I'd want the option but part of me hopes it may scare some folks and help normalize the market. 

There was a pretty big battle in Jersey City in 2019 with AirBnB... the most money ever spent on a local referendum. Hotel lobby on one side and AirBnB on the other who have very sophisticated lobbying and grassroots operations in their own right. In JC something like 80% of "owners"  had 2 or more listings (and a high percentage had 3 or more). In fact, there were some buildings that were supposed to be rentals that had essentially been turned into AirBnB hotels. And a lot of the rental stock in JC is owned by REIT's who prevent tenants from sub-leasing and using AirBnB, but would themselves do that with vacant apartments. Those types of things can have an impact on housing/rental price IMO.... but it is also different than what I would expect in a ski or beach location with more individual owners.


----------



## abc (Mar 3, 2021)

NY DirtBag said:


> there are a few reasons why this doesn't workout well. Please consult your tax advisor.


There're a few more reasons why it would work out well.

Those who did it had consulted their tax advisors.


----------



## 2Planker (Mar 3, 2021)

NY DirtBag said:


> If you are married you can do it no prob.  One spouse each has a different primary residence.





> Exactly. That's what we have.   A "Commuter Marriage"


Our houses are in different states, so it was our Tax Attorney that suggested each can be sold as a Primary Residence when the time comes.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 4, 2021)

Glad we bought when we did.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 4, 2021)

kingslug said:


> Glad we bought when we did.



My wife and I were talking about this very topic last night, not necessarily about when we bought  our place in VT 14 yrs ago, but that one of the local Mount Snow real estate agents just listed a unit about 10 down from our place, and my wife, who to her credit does a great job with visualizing new design concepts and then making them happen, after looking at the pictures the agent posted, started to think about buying it and flipping it.  

The biggest issue would be the current price point it is at (which is a solid 50-60k above where similar units were listing a year ago), renovation costs, and could/would the market be supporting what the post flip sale price would have to be?  And the reality is that that is very doubtful, as it would be about a 25-30% premium over what the list price currently is, and that list price is close to what the highest listed same sized unit in our complex has sold for in the last 6 months and as which is at a point that we can't ever remember since we've own there.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some continued appreciation in listing/sale prices over the next few months, however I am guessing that we're nearing the top sooner than later, especially given for what we'd have to sell a flipped unit for, is getting into the price point range ($400K and above) where potential buyers are looking at a real estate pool currently in that Mount Snow area where it switches over from more of a sellers market to more of a buyers market......


----------



## kingslug (Mar 4, 2021)

We looked at another one at SB last month. 3rd floor walkup (uhg)...it was nice but selling for at least 20% higher than normal. Plus over there you don't get any summer rental. So it was just not worth it. I think in a few years when this all dies down it will come back to normal when a lot of people realize they really didn't want one but bought in the frenzy.


----------



## abc (Mar 4, 2021)

kingslug said:


> I think in a few years when this all dies down it will come back to normal when a lot of people realize they really didn't want one but bought in the frenzy.


Real estate is one of the few (or only?) investment that has dual functions. It's also a place to live! 

People tend to mix up the two function. They justify the price because they can see some use for it. So it's not easy to figure out what's the real "worth" of a house/condo. It has a lot to do with how the buyer visualize their personal view of the usage. Plenty of people buy at the top of the market, get plenty of enjoyment out of it, and couldn't care less if they don't make money 10 years down the line. They may come to grieve if they had to sell for a lose though. 

Real estate had gone steadily up for so long many people lost their perspective. They just buy when they feel like it (and could afford the mortgage) believing they can always sell it for at least what they pay for it. This is why all the recent frenzy. A lot of people need extra space during the lockdown. So they bought even knowing they're paying an inflated price.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 4, 2021)

And when they go to sell..maybe at a loss. I'm pretty sure ours will keep its value and go up.  Stowe is always a hot market. Having a cool town helps.


----------



## Killingtime (Mar 4, 2021)

abc said:


> Real estate is one of the few (or only?) investment that has dual functions. It's also a place to live!
> 
> People tend to mix up the two function. They justify the price because they can see some use for it. So it's not easy to figure out what's the real "worth" of a house/condo. It has a lot to do with how the buyer visualize their personal view of the usage. Plenty of people buy at the top of the market, get plenty of enjoyment out of it, and couldn't care less if they don't make money 10 years down the line. They may come to grieve if they had to sell for a lose though.
> 
> Real estate had gone steadily up for so long many people lost their perspective. They just buy when they feel like it (and could afford the mortgage) believing they can always sell it for at least what they pay for it. This is why all the recent frenzy. A lot of people need extra space during the lockdown. So they bought even knowing they're paying an inflated price.


Been there done that. Also, first whiff of the word "recession" and these vacation properties lose value faster than anyone could imagine. I had a great 14 year run with a home in Vt and saw all the ups and downs. At the lowest point around 2010 there were foreclosures all over the place and I could have bought bank owned condos dirt cheap. I always rationalized that I could turn it into a rental if something happened like job loss or illness where I couldn't work. Anyway, I think the current high prices will continue as long as banks keep giving mortgages. When that ends, look out below.


----------



## icecoast1 (Mar 4, 2021)

Killingtime said:


> I always rationalized that I could turn it into a rental if something happened like job loss or illness where I couldn't work. Anyway, I think the current high prices will continue as long as banks keep giving mortgages. When that ends, look out below.


I saw an interesting documentary a couple months back that mentioned banks are back to giving out sub prime mortgages again, although they call them something else for obvious reasons.   Will be interesting to see how that ends up, probably not good for many


----------



## tumbler (Mar 4, 2021)

I think this market will keep going for a while for a few reasons.  As long as borrowing money is cheap which will be TBD with the new administration but I can't see interest rates skyrocketing.  I think that people's mentality has changed with a year+ in this situation and want/value having a second home or condo.  More quality time will be valued over the insane drive to have kids doing 14 different sports and activities.  Also the old way of working in an office 5 days a week is done (unless you are a dentist ) and people will be using their second home for longer periods of time and not just the weekends.  I also agree with abc that you cannot put a dollar amount on your enjoyment of using a second home.  If you are that worried about the value going down from what you purchased it at, you probably should not have bought it.


----------



## 1dog (Mar 4, 2021)

icecoast1 said:


> I saw an interesting documentary a couple months back that mentioned banks are back to giving out sub prime mortgages again, although they call them something else for obvious reasons.   Will be interesting to see how that ends up, probably not good for many


Just good to recall that it was the government that started that whole mess. In the 80's they started with the ' You must have at least 20% of your loan portfolio loaned out to minorities and it was they, thru GSE's of Fannie and Freddie that mandated super low ( or no) down payments and favorable rates, below market ( that ostensibly you and I funded)


----------



## SnowRock (Mar 4, 2021)

1dog said:


> Just good to recall that it was the government that started that whole mess. In the 80's they started with the ' You must have at least 20% of your loan portfolio loaned out to minorities and it was they, thru GSE's of Fannie and Freddie that mandated super low ( or no) down payments and favorable rates, below market ( that ostensibly you and I funded)


Yes sure... but what would have happened if people defaulted on those loans?

The securitization and creation of synthetic products that no one really understood which the ratings agencies then somehow slapped investment grade ratings... which then lead to those MBS and CDOs being bundled in everything may have had an impact on things. I don’t think that was the “government”.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 4, 2021)

1dog said:


> Just good to recall that it was the government that started that whole mess. In the 80's they started with the ' You must have at least 20% of your loan portfolio loaned out to minorities and it was they, thru GSE's of Fannie and Freddie that mandated super low ( or no) down payments and favorable rates, below market ( that ostensibly you and I funded)



Well considering that the banks had been screwing minority communities for decades through redlining and that really didn't stop with the fair housing act of 1968, the portfolio mandates of the 1980s were warranted.


----------



## abc (Mar 4, 2021)

deadheadskier said:


> Well considering that the banks had been screwing minority communities for decades through redlining and that really didn't stop with the fair housing act of 1968, the portfolio mandates of the 1980s were warranted.


Has that mandate outlived its usefulness?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 5, 2021)

abc said:


> Has that mandate outlived its usefulness?


If audits reveal racial discrimination in lending practices still, then yes.  I don't know the answer to that question, I was just pointing out why those mandates came about. 

Mind you the last housing crash was at least partially caused by predatory lending; often to low income minorities by shady mortgage companies.  They didn't so much care what would happen if the borrowers defaulted when introductory rates reset as values were increasing at a fast enough rate to make up for any losses.  I at least listened to a job offer from one such company in Florida in 2004 that would literally go door to door and convince people to refinance for home improvements or to buy toys like boats.  I asked the question about ability to repay and the guy just laughed.  He said usually they would have sold off the mortgage before that happened making it someone else's problem or simply foreclose and sell the property at a higher price to cover any losses.  I knew right then and there we were on an unsustainable path that would lead to ruin


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 5, 2021)

it will be curious to see what happens.  I just refi'd for 2.5% for a 15 year.   that is a whole point lower than the 30 year that I started in summer of 2016.  Nothing like buying 10.5 years and dropping a point.   Im sure lots of people are leveraging another 30 year and either renovating or buying toys...


----------



## kingslug (Mar 5, 2021)

Lot of people lost a lot of money this year.
Lot of people made a lot of money this year.


----------



## tumbler (Mar 11, 2021)

Vt. lawmakers set sights on short-term rental market
					

Tourism is a $3 billion industry in Vermont and a lot of that money is spent on lodging.  While hotels and many bed and breakfasts are regulated by the state, there are also many private, short-term rentals that are not. Now, some lawmakers say it’s time to get everyone on the same page.




					www.wcax.com


----------



## slatham (Mar 11, 2021)

After looking into this more and hearing some of the horror stories I think some form of regulation would be good, and is unavoidable. I am against the requirement of having to be a VT resident to rent out short term, but think the rental registry can work and is a good idea. I say this as I have first hand experience with a family beach home where the village recently required identification of renters with contact details etc. This allows the local authorities to know who is in the house at any particular time should issues arise. It also helps to ID and better manage "party" houses (and party renters). It hasn't been a burden on our family to provide the information needed. And by better managing (if not preventing) renters who violate local rules it increases the quality of life and hence property values. 

The worry with VT of course is they will go overboard with regulation.......


----------



## kingslug (Mar 11, 2021)

And kill the market


----------



## JimG. (Mar 11, 2021)

kingslug said:


> And kill the market


So just another reason for me to not buy in VT.

After a killer spring day at Gore yesterday I realize that owning a place near Lake George is most likely in my future now. The added plus is that NY does not tax social security income like VT does.


----------



## AdironRider (Mar 11, 2021)

slatham said:


> This allows the local authorities to know who is in the house at any particular time should issues arise.



This is America last I checked and this kind of bullshit doesn't fly here.


----------



## 2Planker (Mar 11, 2021)

JimG. said:


> So just another reason for me to not buy in VT.
> 
> After a killer spring day at Gore yesterday I realize that owning a place near Lake George is most likely in my future now. The added plus is that NY does not tax social security income like VT does.


$$$$$   Huge factor for us is Taxing Retirement income, so NH it is !


----------



## JimG. (Mar 11, 2021)

2Planker said:


> $$$$$   Huge factor for us is Taxing Retirement income, so NH it is !


Your issue in NH will be property taxes.


----------



## 2Planker (Mar 11, 2021)

JimG. said:


> Your issue in NH will be property taxes.


Not really.   We've had the house for 20 years and taxes are less than 1/2 what we pay in MA & RI.


----------



## djd66 (Mar 11, 2021)

It is complete BS that they are trying to get this legislation through.  Seems completely illegal and unconstitutional to me.  Ski areas would be completely screwed as there simply are not enough hotel beds to satisfy the demand.


----------



## njdiver85 (Mar 11, 2021)

Instead of the Vermont hotel owners pushing this stupid bill, perhaps they need to up their game.  Just about all Vermont hotels are pretty bad - dated and run down, and that was the case before AirBnB became popular.


----------



## abc (Mar 11, 2021)

djd66 said:


> It is complete BS that they are trying to get this legislation through.  Seems completely illegal and unconstitutional to me.  Ski areas would be completely screwed as there simply are not enough hotel beds to satisfy the demand.


I doubt the ski area would be affected all that much. People have been skiing in VT before AirBnB came along. 

Whether VT residents wants to limit visitors to the state by limiting lodging capacity is a valid question for the "locals" to decide. 

Probably quieter slopes if there're less lodging. There's always a silver lining.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 11, 2021)

oh..things will be quieter all right...


----------



## djd66 (Mar 11, 2021)

abc said:


> I doubt the ski area would be affected all that much. People have been skiing in VT before AirBnB came along.
> 
> Whether VT residents wants to limit visitors to the state by limiting lodging capacity is a valid question for the "locals" to decide.
> 
> Probably quieter slopes if there're less lodging. There's always a silver lining.


Not true,... Before Air B&B/ VRBO people rented condos and houses - it was just more difficult to find the rentals.  You had to either go through a real estate agent or through the mountain - but plenty of people rent their condos. If all those beds come off the market, it will be very difficult for a family to book a February vacation week. If I were a ski area owner - I would be concerned.

As far as the slopes being quieter, the selfish side of me would be very happy. I just question how they are going to pay for snow making if all of a sudden there is a significant drop in business.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 11, 2021)

Just think of how many of these places are at Killington...thousands. It defines that place.


----------



## kbroderick (Mar 11, 2021)

abc said:


> I doubt the ski area would be affected all that much. People have been skiing in VT before AirBnB came along.
> 
> Whether VT residents wants to limit visitors to the state by limiting lodging capacity is a valid question for the "locals" to decide.
> 
> Probably quieter slopes if there're less lodging. There's always a silver lining.


Doesn't the bill as written also affect condos, though? The text seems to include them in the "dwelling unit" definition, and not allowing condo (or other "dwelling unit") owners to offer them for short-term rental—whether via a mountain rental pool, AirBNB, Craigslist, or whatever other means—seems like it would put a significant crimp into available ski-area bed base (plus completely change the economics for folks who are using their condos a few weeks a year and renting them out the rest of the time).

I think that workforce housing in tourist towns is an old problem that has gotten worse with the increasing number of folks who can work remotely and shop online for all the stuff you can't get in small towns, but this bill is decidedly not the answer.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 11, 2021)

Thats the problem..2nd homes that you rent out. For us its once in a while and only for 1 week or longer..so no party house. This bill would encompass everything..so you would have to either live there 270 days a year or run your place like a hotel...with all those guidelines and codes to deal with. 
We changed our windows to make them code compliant..you can get out through them..cost a lot but they are better overall. Also put in new smoke/co sensors.
If you had to go full bore like a hotel..good luck..it may be possible but I doubt a lot of people would want to go that far.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 11, 2021)

abc said:


> I doubt the ski area would be affected all that much. People have been skiing in VT before AirBnB came along.
> 
> Whether VT residents wants to limit visitors to the state by limiting lodging capacity is a valid question for the "locals" to decide.
> 
> Probably quieter slopes if there're less lodging. There's always a silver lining.



Not sure I understand exactly how the ski areas wouldn't be affected much, but at the same time the slopes would probably be quieter if there's less lodging. Less people on the slopes means less money for the ski areas. That's an impact. It is either no impact and slopes aren't quieter, or quieter slopes with an impact. You can't have both (unless ski areas raise prices to offset the loss of skier visits).


----------



## kingslug (Mar 11, 2021)

Can't see how filling the hotels to capacity and having no other option will help..anything. Oh well I can't go to ....... no place to stay..


----------



## kingslug (Mar 11, 2021)

After getting beat up by Covid..now they need this?


----------



## abc (Mar 11, 2021)

kingslug said:


> After getting beat up by Covid..now they need this?


But perhaps Vermonters like what Covid shutdown brings them? Quieter slopes and few out of state visitors...


----------



## cdskier (Mar 11, 2021)

kingslug said:


> Can't see how filling the hotels to capacity and having no other option will help..anything. Oh well I can't go to ....... no place to stay..



Don't forget, not every area around a ski resort is filled with hotels. The amount of "motel/lodge/inn" type beds in an area like the Mad River Valley is substantially less than an area like Killington or some of the Southern VT areas.


----------



## abc (Mar 11, 2021)

cdskier said:


> Not sure I understand exactly how the ski areas wouldn't be affected much, but at the same time the slopes would probably be quieter if there's less lodging. Less people on the slopes means less money for the ski areas. That's an impact. It is either no impact and slopes aren't quieter, or quieter slopes with an impact. You can't have both (unless ski areas raise prices to offset the loss of skier visits).


There's a balance. Quieter slopes and a relatively mild effect to the profit. Maybe that's what the locals want.

With Epic and Ikon pass, it's not even clear all the crowd actually brings in the kind of money as before. I bet the $$/head drop at the mountain are lower as so many of them are skiing "free" on their pass.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 11, 2021)

abc said:


> But perhaps Vermonters like what Covid shutdown brings them? Quieter slopes and few out of state visitors...



As someone that has been living in VT since early January, I really can't agree that there are "few out of state visitors" here. I even question whether the slopes themselves are that much quieter.


----------



## abc (Mar 11, 2021)

cdskier said:


> As someone that has been living in VT since early January, I really can't agree that there are "few out of state visitors" here. I even question whether the slopes themselves are that much quieter.


I haven't skied at Mount Snow much before the pandemic. So I don't know what it was like during "normal" years. I can only compare it to K, which I skied more often. The few days I skied at MS this year, it was quieter for sure. No one breathing down my neck. No idiots passing too close. Even far fewer clumps of people standing in choke points blocking people from getting through. 

The lift lines were at times long. But the slopes were definitely WAY quieter. And at North Peak, not even the lifts were crowded. I had the trail all to myself most of the time. I definitely like it that way. But obviously it "can't be" because Vail would probably lose too much money.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 11, 2021)

abc said:


> I haven't skied at Mount Snow much before the pandemic. So I don't know what it was like during "normal" years. I can only compare it to K, which I skied more often. The few days I skied at MS this year, it was quieter for sure. No one breathing down my neck. No idiots passing too close. Even far fewer clumps of people standing in choke points blocking people from getting through.
> 
> The lift lines were at times long. But the slopes were definitely WAY quieter. And at North Peak, not even the lifts were crowded. I had the trail all to myself most of the time. I definitely like it that way. But obviously it "can't be" because Vail would probably lose too much money.


Are you skiing mid-week or weekends? Or both?

Also not exactly sure how you can make a comparison involving MS when you admit you didn't ski much at MS previously. Comparing crowds from 1 resort 1 year to another resort another year is kind of irrelevant.

You also have a reduction in uphill capacity on lifts due to COVID. So even if there's less people skiing down the slopes at one time due to more people waiting in line, it doesn't mean the resorts are that much quieter overall. And that uphill capacity restriction will disappear eventually.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 11, 2021)

skiing mid-week is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and i think she skis mid-week.

skiing weekends has been as busy as ever, if not busier, this year, at least in my perception. that perception is informed by a lot of sundays at magic (clearly busier than in the past), a powder day and a saturday at Stratton (unbearably busy), many weekend days at sugarbush (equally busy with a normal year weekend), two weekend days at Bolton (busier than I've ever seen bolton), and two weekend days at Jay (surprisingly busy given the border closure).

while the travel restrictions may have stopped some people from going to Vermont, they clearly didn't stop most people, and i think skiing in general has seen a major bump this year because its a relatively safe thing you are allowed to do outside. whether skiing remains this popular when other indoor winter activities return (no going to the mall, movies, concerts, etc this season) remains to be seen.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 11, 2021)

KustyTheKlown said:


> skiing mid-week is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and i think she skis mid-week.



I'd largely agree and thought I remembered her saying in the past she skis primarily mid-week as well which is why I asked the question. And if she's skiing mid-week and still saw long lift lines at times on some lifts, then that to me doesn't imply things are "quieter" than other years. Although maybe some long lift lines are normal for MS mid-week even in a normal year. I don't know. At Sugarbush mid-week lines would be absolutely unheard of unless it was a big powder day.

The one caveat I would say is that I have heard some normal mid-week skiers say they're seeing MORE people mid-week than other years due to some people living in VT and working remotely in the winter, etc this year. So from that perspective, those local people aren't necessarily happy that they don't have the slopes entirely to themselves like other years. (Good for the mountains though to see more mid-week business as really that's a key way to drive some growth without creating "crowds").


----------



## abc (Mar 11, 2021)

KustyTheKlown said:


> skiing mid-week is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and i think she skis mid-week.


I normally only ski mid-week (or spring weekends). But this year, I "accidentally" found myself skiing on a Friday, which was like night and day compare to Thursday.

I also drove by on Saturday specifically to check out the parking and lift line. It looked to me Friday was "close to" as busy on that one late January weekend (after the 2-3" every day during the week).


----------



## kingslug (Mar 11, 2021)

The 7;30 chair at Stowe went from a few to very crowded.. Stowe is way more crowded than ever.


----------



## dblskifanatic (Mar 11, 2021)

Mount Snow seems to be busy as well!


----------



## icecoast1 (Mar 11, 2021)

JimG. said:


> The added plus is that NY does not tax social security income like VT does.


Don't say that out loud, someone in Albany may get an idea.....


----------



## JimG. (Mar 11, 2021)

icecoast1 said:


> Don't say that out loud, someone in Albany may get an idea.....


That would be a first.


----------



## 1dog (Mar 11, 2021)

icecoast1 said:


> Don't say that out loud, someone in Albany may get an idea.....


More regs and less freedom - that's a strategy. What country are we living in?

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

and my favorite:
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan


----------



## Breeze (Mar 11, 2021)

Hardly seems  worth it to get into the discussion of STR in tourist  locations.   Either you own property you want  to consider income property, or your neighbor wants you  to  accept the fact that 4  more cars on the street  and 8 more people in the  upstairs unit  are  what you can expect every week during the winter.  

Don't be surprised when your local businesses can't find help.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 11, 2021)

abc said:


> I haven't skied at Mount Snow much before the pandemic. So I don't know what it was like during "normal" years. I can only compare it to K, which I skied more often. The few days I skied at MS this year, it was quieter for sure. No one breathing down my neck. No idiots passing too close. Even far fewer clumps of people standing in choke points blocking people from getting through.
> 
> The lift lines were at times long. But the slopes were definitely WAY quieter. And at North Peak, not even the lifts were crowded. I had the trail all to myself most of the time. I definitely like it that way. But obviously it "can't be" because Vail would probably lose too much money.



Personally it has seemed to myself and many of my Mount Snow regular friends, that the downhill volume has been noticeably less this year, especially on the weekends.

The wait time in the majority of lines, while long, generally speaking haven't been much longer of a wait than we used to have the last couple of "normal" seasons


----------



## Zermatt (Mar 11, 2021)

The issue at the heart of this thread is dead on arrival. The US constitution prevents states from regulating interstate commerce. Which means, you can't treat a resident different from a non resident (this was the heart of many discussions this summer about travel restrictions...which are legal so long as everyone is treated equally).

You can close the thread now. Resident homeowners of Vermont cannot be treated more favorably than non resident homeowners.


----------



## 1dog (Mar 12, 2021)

Zermatt said:


> The issue at the heart of this thread is dead on arrival. The US constitution prevents states from regulating interstate commerce. Which means, you can't treat a resident different from a non resident (this was the heart of many discussions this summer about travel restrictions...which are legal so long as everyone is treated equally).
> 
> You can close the thread now. Resident homeowners of Vermont cannot be treated more favorably than non resident homeowners.


Agree - but they are treated differently. Higher tax rate than residents ( a town issue - at least in Fayston). Lobbyists are now more prevalent that ever - exploding in the last 25 years. Those with the most dough, generally win the game.

Here's a 7 yr old piece that illustrates why most in Congress' real goal is the 7 figure one after their term is up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/shadow-lobbying-complex/
That wonderful piece of paper ( US Constitution) gets ignored more frequently than ever these days . .


----------



## kbroderick (Mar 12, 2021)

1dog said:


> Agree - but they are treated differently. Higher tax rate than residents ( a town issue - at least in Fayston). Lobbyists are now more prevalent that ever - exploding in the last 25 years. Those with the most dough, generally win the game.


The tax rate is tied to the property use, not to by whom it is owned. A second home (or rental property) owned by the sixth-generation-local down the street gets the same tax rate as a similar property owned by someone from Boston or NYC.

Maine offers a property tax offset for owner-occupied homes ($20k homestead credit against property value), which is nice, except that at this point, $20k anywhere near a ski resort doesn't offset a whole lot of home value. I guess it makes a difference until the next assessment comes around...


----------



## O09 (Mar 12, 2021)

kbroderick said:


> The tax rate is tied to the property use, not to by whom it is owned. A second home (or rental property) owned by the sixth-generation-local down the street gets the same tax rate as a similar property owned by someone from Boston or NYC.
> 
> Maine offers a property tax offset for owner-occupied homes ($20k homestead credit against property value), which is nice, except that at this point, $20k anywhere near a ski resort doesn't offset a whole lot of home value. I guess it makes a difference until the next assessment comes around...


In Vermont, there is a non-residential tax rate and a residential tax rate, which are different rates.  

Then there is homestead tax abatement for which there is income sensitivity for the first $400k value of the home (capped at 5%of income under 47k) along with other income sensitivity up to 139k income (don't know that calculation).  So if yo earn 40k a year and your home is worth 400k, then your tax bill would be $2000.

In order to qualify for the tax abatement and for the home to be your primary residence, you need to have occupied your home on April 1st and you need to have rented it for fewer than 183 days in the year.  So this bill with the residency requirement saying that the home needs to be occupied for 270 days is already flawed as it would require changes to current property tax residency rules for the homestead credit.


----------



## flakeydog (Mar 12, 2021)

Couple of things that don't fit the narrative but are important:

Resident vs non-resident really is Homestead vs non-homestead.  Basically either you live in the house or you don't.  I think there are a variety of laws out there that define what that means but generally you can only have one primary residence.  It is not a scheme to screw the out-of-staters who so generously their wealth upon us.  It applies equally to Vermonters that may own multiple properties (as if any of us "poor-folk" here can actually afford that) as it does to anyone else.  I suppose the philosophy here is that the state wishes to incent residential home ownership through tax policy but once you get to your second home it is not in the state's interest to subsidize that.

Second, a quick look at the property tax rates for the towns of Waitsfield, Warren , and Fayston shows that the tax rates are essentially equal for Resident/Non-Resident.  Other towns may be different but the outrage over this issue is a bit overplayed.  

People really hate paying taxes, I get it, but we also tend to be a bit self-serving when we discuss such topics.  I have seen cases where someone claims residency elsewhere to avoid income taxes but then complains that they are now paying higher taxes on their now non-resident property.  I have also seen people fight tooth and nail to lower their property assessment to pay less in tax and turn around and sell it for twice the tax value.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## boston_e (Mar 12, 2021)

kbroderick said:


> The tax rate is tied to the property use, not to by whom it is owned. A second home (or rental property) owned by the sixth-generation-local down the street gets the same tax rate as a similar property owned by someone from Boston or NYC.



Not true in Vermont (at least not in the town where we own).  There is specifically a resident and non resident tax rate on the tax bill.

Edit: Check out: Understanding Your Property Tax Bill | Department of Taxes (vermont.gov)


----------



## cdskier (Mar 12, 2021)

boston_e said:


> Not true in Vermont (at least not in the town where we own).  There is specifically a resident and non resident tax rate on the tax bill.
> 
> Edit: Check out: Understanding Your Property Tax Bill | Department of Taxes (vermont.gov)


You misunderstood what kbroderick said. He said the rate is tied to the property use, which is true. It isn't a resident vs non-resident rate. It is a homestead vs non-homestead rate (usage meaning living there vs not living there). Not a "VT Resident" vs "Out of stater" rate. You can be a VT resident and still pay the non-homestead rate on a property in VT if that isn't your primary home (for example you could have a homestead property in Burlington that you live in and a condo at Killington that is a 2nd home. Even though you live in VT, you'd still pay the non-homestead rate on the Killington condo because you're living in your Burlington property).


----------



## boston_e (Mar 12, 2021)

cdskier said:


> You misunderstood what kbroderick said. He said the rate is tied to the property use, which is true. It isn't a resident vs non-resident rate. It is a homestead vs non-homestead rate (usage meaning living there vs not living there). Not a "VT Resident" vs "Out of stater" rate. You can be a VT resident and still pay the non-homestead rate on a property in VT if that isn't your primary home (for example you could have a homestead property in Burlington that you live in and a condo at Killington that is a 2nd home. Even though you live in VT, you'd still pay the non-homestead rate on the Killington condo because you're living in your Burlington property).



This is correct.  When I referred to "resident" vs "non-resident" i was meaning the house use (not if your primary residence is in another state).   I probably did mis-read what he was saying.


----------



## flakeydog (Mar 12, 2021)

Link to the actual tax rates by town for VT

There is even a spreadsheet you can download if you are into that sort of thing...

Of 259 towns listed, 87 had higher Homestead Rates (aka resident) than non-resident vs 172 higher.  Better said, 141 out of 259 towns had non-homestead rates that were more than 1.02x (or 2% higher) than the homestead rates, or about 54%

Interestingly the worst offenders were not necessarily ski towns but very rural, very small towns with very few residents.  Towns like Killington, Waitsfield, Warren, Fayston, Ludlow, Manchester, Woodstock, Wilmington, Londonderry, Jamaica were all either lower or less than 2% higher.  Stowe was most significant outlier I saw at 1.097x the resident rate.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 14, 2021)

Bill is dead for now










						Bill threatening short-term rentals in Vermont is dead for now
					

MONTPELIER, Vt. - A proposed bill in the Vermont Legislature, known as H.200, that would have virtually ended the short-term rental industry in Vermont is on hold.




					www.compassvermont.com


----------



## abc (Mar 15, 2021)

not surprising


----------



## slatham (Mar 15, 2021)

It was expected that H200, which would limit short term rentals to VT residents, would not go anywhere. There are 2 other bills that, amoung other things, propose a registry for short term rentals. These have significantly higher odds of moving forward.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 18, 2021)

As expected..someone..woke up


----------

