|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Russell Flannery
When I was an UVM economics major more than four decades ago, then-Professor Art Woolf was one of my favorite teachers. Beyond the classroom, he later made a big mark as a long-time state budget and education expert. We recently caught up in Burlington at “Tech Jam,” talked about state’s challenges in attracting start-ups and the damage to Vermont’s economy from high taxes and excessive government regulations. One way he mentioned to both attract talent and ease property prices: reduce burdens on homebuilders in order to boost supplies.
“The problem when you talk about housing affordability is an immediate assumption is that the state’s got to spend more money to create affordable housing and low-income housing,” the now-retired economist said. “That’s not the answer because the middle-income people you want to attract to the state aren’t going to be eligible for it.” Interview excerpts follow.
Flannery: How do you size up efforts to attract start-up talent here at Tech Jam?
Woolf: Every state is going to have something similar to this and is going to try to market itself for entrepreneurs and remote workers. But what do we have that others don’t have? Why live in rural Vermont, which includes Burlington, compared to rural New Hampshire, upstate New York, the middle of Iowa, or the middle of Georgia? If you don’t like cold weather – that’s probably 99% of Americans, you have that big, big liability. There are people that like to ski and like winter but it’s a small number.
You don’t need a lot people to affect the economy, but, still, you really have an uphill battle against people’s preferences. They want to be near a big city. They want nice weather. They want good schools. They want low taxes, unless they think they’re really getting something for those high taxes. If you live in Manhattan, you know your taxes are going to be high but presumably that’s outweighed by all of the benefits of living in New York City.
Flannery: What can Vermont do to improve its appeal?
Woolf: Capitalize on its assets; don’t create more liabilities. Don’t raise taxes – a first step. Housing could be a lot cheaper than it is if we relaxed regulatory burdens. Why are you going to move to the middle of Iowa? Because houses are cheap and they’re not cheap here. It’s not like we don’t have the land or the ability to build houses. It’s appalling that our houses are as expensive as they are; they don’t need to be.
There are a lot of local problems, not just Act 250 – local zoning and planning makes it difficult and costly. There’s also education. The problem when you talk about housing affordability is an immediate assumption is that the state’s got to spend more money to create affordable housing and low-income housing.
That’s not the answer because the middle-income people you want to attract to the state aren’t going to be eligible for it. And the state doesn’t have enough resources to create enough housing to really make a dent, even though it looks nice on paper and you can take a picture of someone cutting a ribbon with scissors. After World War II, housing was affordable because it was easy to build.
Flannery: What can be done?
Woolf: Don’t make things worse! There are significant members of the chattering class who think we should get rid of the property tax to fund education and use the income tax. That’d be a really bad move for a number of reasons. First, the income tax is very volatile. No. 2 is that the property tax doesn’t send a lot of disincentives. The tax will get capitalized in the value of the house whereas high income taxes don’t. They discourage earning income. The only thing a high property tax does is lower the price of (existing) housing or discourage people from building housing – probably more the former than the latter.
There are a lot of things that the legislature could do that would not be good. Unfortunately, a lot of people in the legislative don’t even want to talk about that.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Housing
Can’t eliminate property taxes to fund schools because that would put an end to the collusion and conspiracies to commit fraud with inflated housing valuations within appraisal districts. If all assets and resources are leveraged – which they are – the paper tiger tower of Babylon is all there is – liquidity crisis, what liquidity crisis? A court case in Texas exposes the nuts and bolts behind the scam. Of course, the courts are doing all they can to throttle the process on procedural shenanigans and delays. The “technocracy” is getting a closer look under the hood of late – even Elon can’t convince a Norweign whale to give him a trillion dollar blank check – gee, I wonder why? Bubbles about to pop or print more paper? Stablecoins? Digital reset? The deal done in backdoor agreements, they just can’t figure out how to break the news without exposing what they have done – just yet.
Vermont dosen’t have a housing shortage as much as it has an income shortage. The cost of housing reflects the cost of living in Vermont which is high. Wages do not reflect the cost of living, they are severly anemic based on the modern cost of goods and services while peoples wages remain in the dark ages. It’s a disaster and I have no idea how to change it based on the underlying conditions that cause it.
Or nothing more than landlord greed and the Airbnb business.
Air b&bs have become very popular because of other state policies and programs that have made staying at a motel downright scary.
Then someone should fix those motel policies and programs. Vermont has plenty of houses just very few (family) homes.
There are many ways that digits have been added to the price of even a simple home. Many towns have zoning in their more remote areas that require minimum lot sizes of dozens of acres. If you were handy, you could build a basic house for $30,000, but now state wastewater rules might require you spend that just on a septic system. Sometimes the state requires expenditures on elaborate landscaping to minimize “stormwater” runoff, something we used to just refer to as “rain”. Towns have minimum driveway specifications, minimum opening dimensions for windows, and sometimes sprinkler systems to satisfy fire safety regulations, even in a single-family home. All due respect to firefighters, but I dont remember voting for any of them or for all the new rules they enforce. It all adds up. And then, once you satisfy all the experts and obtain your “occupancy permit”, the tax bills come in, and the day you are late with payment, the wheels start turning to take it all away from you.
ALLODIAL TITLE
Here’s a thought. Vermont law now requires electricity to be 100% renewable by 2035. This law is causing permits to be issued for atrocious mega solar projects like the one recently approved for Shaftsbury, projects that nobody wants, but the law requires it.
Why not pass a law requiring X numbers of houses to be built by 2035, creating a mandate that will force regulatory agencies to approve permit applications regardless of what nonsensical rules might be in effect. Simply insert, “Any other provisions of the law notwithstanding”, a common term found throughout Vermont statutes, into the new law requiring houses to be built, and let the building frenzy begin.
So much truth n this article.
Vermont has created its own problems.
We are pawns of agenda 2030. You know, you will own nothing and be happy.
Shut up serf, be happy. That is the command from Montpelier.
And that, boys and girls, is still another reason I’m glad we moved to South Carolina 11 years ago!
Careful about boasting being in South Carolina – Lindsay Graham and Nikki Haley are not exactly the most outstanding defenders of the Republic – they do make big bank and big headlines off your wallet and ours just the same.
What is it with all these old white guys looking like Bernie ? Is that my future ? Do we really all look the same ? Comb your hair for cryin’ out loud ! 🙂
Moved from NJ back in the ’70’s, could not afford to live there and all the rules and regulations on building were insurmountable. Vt had only a few common sense zoning ideas and I was able to build and do much of the work myself. Good thing because jobs were few and far and low paying. Vt was a paradise but it now costs too much to stay and there are too many laws taking the fun out. Too bad. Now my income comes from out of state, no kids in school, I pay property taxes, and I am a consumer. However, I am close to NH and I have found shopping there is so much more to my advantage than shopping VT.
I wish I had as good of luck predicting stock picks as I did predicting Vermonts future 25 years ago. The difference was the stock market was run by capitalists, Vermont was run by socialists. Needless to say I’m poorer today than I was 25 years ago. That’s what you get for being a working class person in Vermont.
People wake up and don’t be suckered in with all this garbage which is thrown around the all the Communist/Socialist Colleges and Universities together with all the criminal Legislators who are backed up by the Lying news papers and the lying main Stream Media which by the way can lie to Americans legally with a law legalizing the lying by Traitor Obama in 2012. He was just making it look legal because the Main Stream Media has been constantly since the 50’s. The Root cause for just about everything in Vermont are 1. The legislators don’t follow the Constitution of the Republic 2. which make all of those in the House and Senate illegal 3. Socialistic Laws 4. 90% of the Government in Vermont should be fired 5.And Fascism be outlawed. (if you don’t know what Fascism is look it up).
This is a dead state now and will always be one unless these deadbeats are removed. and collages closed and the Left public wake up and smell the Roses nothing will change.
Unfortunately I live in this beautiful State and it’s run by Communist and Nazi’s of the 4th Reich and all the LEFT people who flock to be with the Socialist Party.