[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by Boston_Burbs

When the kids are grown we are out of VT for April and May, Maybe November too.

I hate the spring/mud and to a lesser extent stick season. I want to go from Skiing to at least trying to swim in the lake.

I agree with you. I'm not in VT but NH. November and April in particular are my least favorite months. This year was a nice surprise with some early season skiing at Okemo and Sunapee.

I enjoy northern New England but escape to Florida in November, end of Jan/beginning of Feb and April. This allows me to escape the ugly shoulder seasons (and lack of sun) and the bitter cold of winter while allowing me to enjoy the best skiing of the season in March! From Memorial Day to Columbus Day the weather in VT, NH and ME can't be beat.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Paul E Wannacracker

Curiously, why do you see a system that taxes vacation property owners at a higher rate than residents as a good thing? Is it some "well if you own a vacation property you must be rich, and rich people are evil" sort of thing? To me, logic would dictate charging a LOWER rate for vacation property on the notion that someone who's only there part time would be using fewer town services, not have children in schools, etc.
Not everyone who owns a hunting camp or something similar has "deep pockets".

The way Act 60 worked and the updated Act 68, the state school property tax is means tested for your primary residence. The commercial rate vacation homes pay isn’t much different from the residential rate but it’s not means tested. I know higher income residents in the Killington-Woodstock region who pay a higher rate than the commercial rate. The towns are “fined” because Woodstock pays “too much” per pupil for their middle and high school.

Vermont had to do something. The state Supreme Court ruled school funding by individual towns to be unconstitutional. Their choice was a state school property tax or to fund schools through a big state income tax and/or sales tax hike. The state school property tax was the best of a number of unpleasant options. You have to tax someone. They chose to hike taxes on wealthy residents, commercial property owners, and vacation home owners. The majority of Vermont homeowners didn’t see a tax hike.

[46H]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

The way Act 60 worked and the updated Act 68, the state school property tax is means tested for your primary residence. The commercial rate vacation homes pay isn’t much different from the residential rate but it’s not means tested. I know higher income residents in the Killington-Woodstock region who pay a higher rate than the commercial rate. The towns are “fined” because Woodstock pays “too much” per pupil for their middle and high school.

Vermont had to do something. The state Supreme Court ruled school funding by individual towns to be unconstitutional. Their choice was a state school property tax or to fund schools through a big state income tax and/or sales tax hike. The state school property tax was the best of a number of unpleasant options. You have to tax someone. They chose to hike taxes on wealthy residents, commercial property owners, and vacation home owners. The majority of Vermont homeowners didn’t see a tax hike.

It is always best to tax those who cannot vote.

I know a handful of families who were long time 2nd homeowners in VT ski towns who sold when Act 60 was ramping up. It was one thing to pay a reasonable amount for local property taxes to fund the local school system that you never used, but it is quite another thing to pay 5 times higher taxes to fund the rest of VT while still not using any VT school systems. Clearly, VT did the right thing as the new owners are now paying the insane property tax amounts.

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by 46H

It is always best to tax those who cannot vote.

I know a handful of families who were long time 2nd homeowners in VT ski towns who sold when Act 60 was ramping up. It was one thing to pay a reasonable amount for local property taxes to fund the local school system that you never used, but it is quite another thing to pay 5 times higher taxes to fund the rest of VT while still not using any VT school systems. Clearly, VT did the right thing as the new owners are now paying the insane property tax amounts.

Vermont suffers from a form of gentrification. When second and third homes are what drive the property market, the $12/hr people who actually work in the state get pushed out. Something similar happened in Key West, with workers having to be bussed in.

Back when the numbers of ski lodge second homes were only a tiny portion of the real estate market, nobody gave it much thought. I do think that Vermont did the proper thing to keep balance in the state.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Vermont suffers from a form of gentrification. When second and third homes are what drive the property market, the $12/hr people who actually work in the state get pushed out. Something similar happened in Key West, with workers having to be bussed in.

Back when the numbers of ski lodge second homes were only a tiny portion of the real estate market, nobody gave it much thought. I do think that Vermont did the proper thing to keep balance in the state.

I think you have this totally wrong. The vast majority of second home buyers are at the resorts. They’re not buying in Chittenden County, Montpelier, or most of the Connecticut River Valley. It’s not like a minimum wage Vermonter could afford Stowe in the 1970s. Or Woodstock. Killington has bussed in workers from Rutland since forever. I go back to the early 1980s and that’s how it worked in the Preston Smith boom years.

[atypicalLIer]

Originally Posted by 46H

It is always best to tax those who cannot vote.

I know a handful of families who were long time 2nd homeowners in VT ski towns who sold when Act 60 was ramping up. It was one thing to pay a reasonable amount for local property taxes to fund the local school system that you never used, but it is quite another thing to pay 5 times higher taxes to fund the rest of VT while still not using any VT school systems. Clearly, VT did the right thing as the new owners are now paying the insane property tax amounts.

Those from out of state who are buying up houses and converting homes to AirBnbs (while reducing available homes and rentals) should be taxed at a much higher commercial rate. Also, Vermont residents who are operating Airbnbs (or other short term rentals) on their property should be charged a commercial rate.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by atypicalLIer

Those from out of state who are buying up houses and converting homes to AirBnbs (while reducing available homes and rentals) should be taxed at a much higher commercial rate. Also, Vermont residents who are operating Airbnbs (or other short term rentals) on their property should be charged a commercial rate.

I know a number of residents in resort towns who rent basement suites to offset some of their housing costs. Most are working a couple of jobs where one doesn’t pay very well but has health insurance with a weekend/holiday-oriented second job that pays a lot better. For someone like that, where do you draw the line? They’re not high income so they’re not paying much of the Act 68 state school tax. Taxing them at the commercial rate would be a hardship. Where do you draw the line?

[46H]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Vermont suffers from a form of gentrification. When second and third homes are what drive the property market, the $12/hr people who actually work in the state get pushed out. Something similar happened in Key West, with workers having to be bussed in.

Back when the numbers of ski lodge second homes were only a tiny portion of the real estate market, nobody gave it much thought. I do think that Vermont did the proper thing to keep balance in the state.

This "gentrification" of RE has been going on near resorts since resorts existed. The difference now is the huge property tax bill on homes in proximity to resorts has pushed rental housing rates near resorts beyond resort employees. It has made the situation worse for locals who work in the resorts and need housing.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by 46H

This "gentrification" of RE has been going on near resorts since resorts existed. The difference now is the huge property tax bill on homes in proximity to resorts has pushed rental housing rates near resorts beyond resort employees. It has made the situation worse for locals who work in the resorts and need housing.

That’s a problem statewide for rental property. IMO, there should be an Act 68 tax break for renting to Vermont residents. The state has a huge housing shortage and nobody is going to build affordable rental housing outside Chittenden County. You’ll only build rental properties targeted at affluent people.

[46H]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

That’s a problem statewide for rental property. IMO, there should be an Act 68 tax break for renting to Vermont residents. The state has a huge housing shortage and nobody is going to build affordable rental housing outside Chittenden County. You’ll only build rental properties targeted at affluent people.

Absolutely true.

All those walkout apartments that you mentioned above are now in a rental rotation for a lot more money or, the now wealthier buyers have taken that space into the primary unit for their own use. Either way, there is less housing for local workers.

A classic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.