More money needed to solve affordable housing crisis, advocates say

Watersong

Auburn Watersong and Gilan Merwanji of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence speak at the Vermont Child Poverty Council on Thursday. Photo by Elizabeth Hewitt/VTDigger

Advocates are backing a hotel occupancy fee to help the state tackle homelessness and affordable housing issues.

In the Pathways from Poverty Council’s annual report to the governor, delivered Thursday, advocates recommended imposing a $2 per night fee on hotel rooms that would go to supporting efforts to reduce homelessness.

The report highlighted affordable housing as “key to the well-being of Vermonters.” It was one of the four major focuses for the 30-member council’s report, along with education, administrative systems and economic security.

The council proposes that the state curb the housing affordability crisis by making new investments in permanent low-cost housing, providing more rental assistance and increasing supportive services.

“One of the challenges for advocates historically has been pointing out where there are problems and not always coming up with a funding solutions,” Chris Curtis, co-chair of the council, said Thursday.

The state has “an affordable housing crisis on its hands,” Curtis said, and the fee could make a big difference for the state in addressing that, including by moving away from the emergency housing motel voucher program.

Meanwhile, the fee would largely be shouldered by tourists, and is “less than the cost of a cup of coffee at many of these establishments,” he said.

Pathways member Erhard Mahnke, of the Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition, emphasized the report’s call for investment in constructing affordable housing. The Vermont Housing and Conservation Board has been underfunded in recent years, and “the chickens are coming home to roost,” he said. “We have a protracted affordable housing crisis.”

Linda Ryan, co-chair council and executive director of Samaritan House, a shelter in St. Albans, said Thursday that funding is critical to efforts to end family homelessness, and other major anti-poverty goals of the administration.

“We’re not going to do that unless we can raise some revenue,” she said.

Housing affordability is a major barrier to low-income Vermonters, she said. “As everyone knows, the wages are low and the rents are high,” Ryan said.

The proposal riffs on two bills introduced during the first half of the legislative biennium, both of which would use the hotel room fee to fund higher education.

A Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Anthony Pollina, P/D-Washington, would put half the money raised toward the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund, and the other half toward the state colleges.

A similar bill, from Rep. Susan Hatch Davis, P-West Topsham, would have put half of the revenue from the fee to the same higher education initiatives, but put the other half to fund low-income weatherization.

The nonpartisan legislative Joint Fiscal Office projected that the occupancy fee would raise $12 million annually. However, neither bill made it past committee.

Broad support

The proposal to use a $2 occupancy fee to counter homelessness is gaining support from groups that are not solely focused on housing.

Thursday morning, advocates from the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence encouraged members of the poverty council to consider that proposal to fund housing assistance.

“We need to start talking about revenue,” Watersong, a member of the Pathways From Poverty Council, said after the meeting.

Low vacancy rates and high rents can make it very difficult for victims who are parents to move away from their abuser while keeping their children enrolled in the same school, according to Gilan Merwanji of the network.

“Too often a victim is forced to make the untenable choice between violence or homelessness,” Merwanji told the committee.

Meanwhile, the length of time that victims stay in shelters associated with the network is increasing, as many families struggle to find an affordable place to live.

Already, the shelters are operating at capacity, Merwanji said.

Some 7,251 adults and 1,348 children were sheltered in the nine emergency shelters associated with the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence in 2014.

The flow of Vermonters to emergency shelters for sexual and domestic violence victims was so significant in 2014 that the Network couldn’t meet the need, turning away 346 people. Those people would then get support from the state, likely through the emergency housing assistance motel vouchers.

It was not the first time that the Vermont Child Poverty Council heard about lack of housing as a critical issue in the state, Rep. Jill Krowinski, D-Burlington, chair of the council, said Thursday.

“The theme around housing really being the basis is, I think, really starting to show through for us,” Krowinski said.

Krowinski said that the occupancy fee is “an interesting proposal to put on the table.” The council will also be looking at other ways to fund initiatives related to homelessness and children, such as maximizing federal funds.

Recommendations in the Pathways from Poverty report

Curtis acknowledged that many initiatives spearheaded by the Shumlin administration have made real strides in supporting low-income households in Vermont.

However, he said, there is still work to be done.

“What the report shows, year in and year out, is that while we’ve made some progress in some areas, we have a very long way to go before we solve the problems of poverty in Vermont,” Curtis said.

The 23-page report includes dozens of recommendations pertaining to policy initiatives and investments in new or existing programs. Recommendations include:

• establish a statewide driver restoration program;

• pass “ban the box” legislation that would forbid private sector employers from asking about criminal convictions on the first round of job applications;

• finding a revenue stream that would support Medicaid and close the budget gap;

• carry out a comprehensive study on transportation barriers for elders, people with disabilities and low-income Vermonters.

Elizabeth Hewitt

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Dave Bellini

    We have a budget crisis.
    We have an opiate crises.
    We have a water quality crisis.
    We have a Medicaid crisis.
    We have a higher ed. crisis.
    We have a community mental health crisis.
    We have a climate change crisis.
    We have an affordable housing crisis.
    Everybody’s in crisis…….

  • Ed Letourneau

    Instead of asking people to pay more in taxes for Medicaid how about someone explaining why 1/3 of the population is on Medicaid?

    Then they can keep going and explain why the high taxes here are not responsible for high rents that make people homeless.

    • Walter Carpenter

      “Instead of asking people to pay more in taxes for Medicaid how about someone explaining why 1/3 of the population is on Medicaid?”

      Probably because they cannot afford private insurance, even with the subsidies which are not adequate. And a better question is why cannot we put all Vermonters on medicaid or medicare, thereby having the state in one insurance program instead of a dozen? It would be much less expensive.

      • Glenn Thompson

        What happened to the “Affordable Care Act” that was suppose to eliminate that problem?

        Actually Walter, states that have multiple plans to choose from have cheaper insurance rates than Vermont! Just what did that $200 million to set up Vermont Health Connect really accomplish?

      • Neil Johnson

        Hospitals and insurance companies can not afford to operate on what medicare/aid pays. The rest of us pay higher premiums to support the system, which consists of 3 monopolies assisting each other.

        And this results in health care cost that are 2x any industrial nation, when in fact we could probably do it for 1/4 of what we currently pay.

        But, when you have monopolies right the ACA….. this is what you get.

  • Jamie Carter

    Why do we have an affordable housing crisis?

    Well it may have to do with the $300 / month people have to pay in property taxes. Oh wait, we can’t talk about that because the education fund needs more money not less.

  • Lea Terhune

    Re: wages low and rents high

    Instead of subsidizing low wages, raise the minimum wage!

    • Neil Johnson

      How about supply and demand. Allow more small homes to be built.

      Government clearly isn’t able to solve the problem they created.

    • Glenn Thompson

      “Instead of subsidizing low wages, raise the minimum wage!”

      Raise it to what?

  • IRENE Stewart

    Chris Curtis, in the column above, states there is a lot more to be done to solve the issues of poverty in Vermont. This past week, Chris Curtis, was quoted in the Times Argus arguing for much higher school taxes for the City of Montpelier, to exceed the 2% threshold for budget increases. His stance each year places more and more Vermont property owners into poverty. On the other hand, he fought to save cuts in disability payments to Vermonters, because they would not be able to afford to live with lower monthly checks which would be about $125.00 less.
    Higher school taxes? No cuts to benefits for disabled.? More property taxpayers into poverty? Which is it going to be? Of course, high taxes, like Montpelier, do contribute to making people homeless and driven to a life of poverty.

    • Phyllis North

      Curtis and other advocates always want more: more taxes, more spending, more taxes, more spending. It never ends.

  • Neil Johnson

    The real problem is you CAN’T build affordable house because of ZONING!!!!!!

    And subsidized rent properties is not the answer….small homes, 5-6 per acre on their own water and sewer.

    Non-profits, lobbyists and insider deals is the death of our small state.

    How about allowing boarding houses? Simple solution. Our government is completely off their rocker.

    Don’t these people have any friends that can help them out for a couple of days?

    It’s just like our town, we spend grant money on studies every 5 years and do nothing. It’s amazing Vermont government can do anything.

    We need to be better neighbors, we need to show a little responsibility for our own lives. Just a minor shift in attitude and the problem is solved, with no money involved.

  • Scott Woodward

    The issue of affordable housing is much broader than the issue presented in this article, but that’s not to diminish the issue of housing for low-income Vermonters. Vermont has a rendezvous with its land use policies.

    In my experience as a planning commission member, when faced with the choice of building housing for people of more modest means vs. bigger and fancier homes, developers (and towns) are almost always going to favor development that will bring a higher profit/higher taxes. This perpetuates higher land values which impacts not only the availability of lower income housing, but also Vermont’s attractiveness to young newcomers. Of the New England states, Vermont’s housing costs/indexes are on par with Massachusetts and Connecticut ([email protected], [email protected], and [email protected], see link below), but it’s a sure bet that we don’t compare to those two states in terms of wages. Our NH neighbor across the Connecticut River (index of 121.0) is substantially more affordable which is probably why younger people are choosing to live on the NH side in the Upper Valley (I’ve even heard some young couples in the Hartford/White River Junction area talking about moving from VT to the NH side).

    https://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm

    • Doug Hoffer

      The source of the data you cited is not official and has a flawed methodology. Of many concerns is the fact that the only housing data reported (by volunteer participants) is for Chittenden County. They completely ignore the rest of the state.

      See The Council for Community and Economic Research.

      • Scott Woodward

        Thanks for pointing that out. Would like to see better data if you know of any and whether better data would yield different inferences.

      • Scott Woodward

        The Census housing index tells the same story, at least according to Art Woolf: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/money/2015/06/11/home-prices-vermont-affordable-today/71021954/

        • Doug Hoffer

          Lots of issues with Art’s formula. First, he refers to the median priced home. First time homebuyers rarely buy the median priced home. Second, Vermont has a range of excellent programs to help low- and moderate-income homebuyers that are not available in many other states. Third, he assumes a 20% down payment, which is not required for most homes (only condos).

          Moreover, Census data from 2000 (latest I could find in a hurry – headed for dinner) showed 23 states with a higher median than Vermont, including every New England state except Maine.

          In any case, there’s no question housing is expensive in the northeast, including Vermont. The real problem is wages, which has nothing to do with state policy. Jobs in NYC and Boston pay 20% – 50% more than in Vermont.

          • Glenn Thompson

            Doug Hoffer,

            “Second, Vermont has a range of excellent programs to help low- and moderate-income homebuyers that are not available in many other states. Third, he assumes a 20% down payment, which is not required for most homes”

            You really need to be more specific with your remarks and/or at least link to a site to support your claim?

            I know a young Vermont family that are Lower Middle Income who want to purchase a home in Chittenden county. A down payment is still required and attempt to find a decent home in Chittenden County for under $200,000. Just pull up any real estate site and try to find one? Those that are out there priced under $200,000 require $thousands to remodel to make them livable!

            I agree on the wage issue, but I can find states where wages are similar and in many cases wages are higher but yet housing prices along with property taxes are considerably lower!

          • Neil Johnson

            Hi Doug,

            Would care to disagree, housing is the problem not the wages.

            We can build homes for less than $1ook all day long. We can do it for less and have them environmentally friendly and efficient. 80% of the world lives on income below our poverty level, they are not out in the cold. State and local regulations are a problem. But we can get grants to do studies, we’ve probably spent millions in the past few decades, studying affordable housing.

            The zoning and Act 250 are specifically designed to keep modest housing at bay. Our zoning adopted from NJ and Agenda 21 at the United Nations has a utopian everyone earns 50k per year mentality and the rest should just be financial slaves to section 8 housing and tenants.

            We built our nation by living within our means, we built a modest log cabin and built up from their. We no longer allow that, the first rung on the ladder is higher and higher. Our septic approval system has little do to with management of wastes, there are so many systems that could be used, probably hundreds of designs. Our state accepts 3 designs.

            Homes have become a status symbol, more than I care to admit.

            When our health care costs for a small family is $1200 per month, we have a problem. That would buy a $335,000 home.

            Monopolies are sucking the life out of our middle class. Look at the increase in cost for the following?

            Primary Education
            Secondary Education
            Heating Fuel,
            Transportation Fuel
            Health Care
            Health Insurance
            Medical Centers
            Automobiles (regulations prevent cheap 5ompg cars from being in VT)

            These are all controlled monopolies, vast increases in expense and has sucked the life out of the Middle class and poor.

            Don’t allow monopolies and voila…..we could go so much further on our paychecks.

            Healthcare has been taking away the raises from any employee for the last 15 years.

  • Peter Chick

    Without good jobs affordable housing will remain out of reach. There are a lot of vacant homes but prices have been driven up artificially. Seasonal tourism based jobs do not pay enough to buy a home. Now they want more money.

  • John Grady

    The housing advocates should get together and design a few basic model houses so everyone isn’t paying over and over to redesign the next house.
    It’s how chains keep costs down, they have standardized their buildings.

    Small 2 bed 1 bath houses
    and 3 bed 2 bath houses.

    with or without basements depending on location.

    4 floor plans and pay once to design housing that is easy to build so the cost is kept down and also efficient to own.

    Insulated foundations and thick walls, good windows and easy on the window size and number of windows.

    • Neil Johnson

      We are starting a group to see how close we can get to $50,000 homes.

      We believe it can be done.

      Neil Johnson,
      802-583-9400

      • John Grady

        Adjusted for inflation a small 1950’s house would cost about $100,000 in today’s dollars.

        Factor in advances in construction, tons of labor can be saved compared to over 50 years ago so it’s highly possible better houses could be built a lot cheaper and a 1950’s subdivision developer had to build roads and install utilities which was passed onto the buyers.

        A lot of people think 2500 square feet and high household income is a birth right in this country. It was a fluke and not paid for over the last 45 years as we went from $1 trillion of debt in 1970 to $60 trillion in debt today. The yuppie castles where not earned.

      • Jan van Eck

        I would wish to congratulate Neil Johnson for having the personal initiative and sense of moral purpose in stepping up to the plate and getting his demonstration construction project going. I am humbled by Neil’s courage and fortitude.

        There is nothing more powerful than citizens banding together. Just do it!

      • Randy Jorgensen

        Neil, I live in a small home that I built, Family of 5 in 1140 sq/ft. It can be done, but it is certainly tight. I don’t think I could of built it for anywhere near 50k though, even just the house. Concrete is silly expensive up here.

        • Randy Jorgensen

          Neil.

          So I was thinking about your 50k ball pack.

          Here are some off the top of me head prices.

          Well: ~$10/ft Plus at least 20ft casing by law. My well is 350ft, plus 40ft of casing. All said and done I think it was about $7k.

          Spetic: Variable. Mound system ~$15k+, standard $8-10k.

          Those are two big ones that CAN set you back $20k before you even break ground. As I noted, concrete is sill expensive up here compared to other parts of the country. Not sure why. You could do a slab, but not sure how much that really saves as you still need to put a 4ft frost wall down. Granted not as much excavation work.

          Impact fees in my town are out of control. Pretty much $5k per dwelling just to get your C/O.

          Wish you the best, and stick with it.

          • Neil Johnson

            Randy ….all true costs. Looking to do 6 on an acre, about 800 to 1100 sq. ft. Share well, share septic (would have to be in ground) Over head electric. $50k lot price. Concrete is the killer. We are looking into straw bail, modular and other foundation materials. We should reach the goal with non traditional (by us standards) but probably closer to 100k, more traditional

          • Glenn Thompson

            Neil,

            How much extra to super insulate for energy efficiency and what would you use as a heating source?

            No doubt, environmental laws, building regulations and permits are expensive. So isn’t water and sewer. Site excavation including concrete foundations, slabs are expensive. That adds up to a great deal of money…and that is excluding the actual construction of the home.

            In 1977, I designed, and built my own 1300 Sq ft home for under $50K. but that was back in 1977. Given the price of materials and labor now, I’d be shocked if you could build a 800 to 1100 sq. ft home for $50k even by sharing water and sewer.

            If you can pull this one off, more power to you. And if you do, everyone will need to learn how you accomplished it?

          • Randy Jorgensen

            Neil, You would need to share many things like you said, sewer, water, etc.

            Concrete. Can you build them on Sona Tubes? Much like they do in parts of Alaska? That reduce a lot of concrete. I have built barns that way and built ones about the size you mention. Doing it this way I see no reason you couldn’t have a sticked in home with a roof for ~$10k-$12k.

            Then it’s just drywall, electrical, etc…

  • Keith Stern

    Rents are higher because of the cost and time of evicting deadbeats and destructive tenants. That has to be factored into the rental price. Streamline the process and then ask landlords to reduce their rents. Even $50/mo. would mean $600 in the tenants’ pockets. Honest, upstanding people shouldn’t be penalized because of the people who abuse landlords.

    • David Dempsey

      Well put Keith. I know a few people who own rental properties who are fed up with the regulations you mentioned. Landlords are not in the charity business.

  • Peter Everett

    Just tax everyone at 100%, that should take care of the problem. People will leave in droves, many leaving their homes vacant. Thus, plenty of homes for those foolish enough to stay.
    There is not enough money in the entire state to take care of every problem the special interest groups want done.
    Time to realize that government can’t do it all. Sometime, somewhere, somehow, the people are going to have to step up and take responsibility for themselves. People have to realize that free isn’t really free. Someone is footing the bill for those that receive entitlements.
    Should a person receive the funds for a new big screen tv because they “want” one, while someone else works and saves for the same one?
    Basic needs…to survive are what they should expect when living off the labor of others, not gold star benefits.
    Time for government to wake up, let people fend for themselves. They’ll be better off for it. They’ll appreciate what they have instead of wanting more. Hell, I would love a larger home, a newer car and other luxuries. Problem is I can’t afford them, so I live within my means, not complaining or expecting “freebies”. I believe that those who earn the money should have first choice on what to do with it, not that government taking it from the earner and giving it to others.
    That said, there are many, many who need to be aided, financially. Those are the truly disabled, children, and many elderly. There are far too many who abusing the system. Time for government to step up and take action to weed out the abusers. If government truly worked at this, maybe the funds we give would be enough. When living off the back of others, what is wrong with certain requirements? Random drug testing, proof of residency, couples cohabiting (one working, one collecting to abuse the system). There are many things government can do, but, won’t. Time we, as taxpayers, tell government to reign in the waste and make those they suspect prove their need, rather than just holding out their hand asking for more.
    Sorry, some may say I’m cruel, I think I’m being rational. Government can’t do it all.

    • Irene Stewart

      Peter, you have written a comment that encompasses the thoughts and ideas that 90% of Vermonters believe. The other 10% wants everything for free and live a wonderful life on the backs of everyone that works hard everyday. Yesterday, in one of the columns in VtDigger, a lady wrote in that she was all in favor of Zuckerman for Lt Gov because he will raise taxes on the well to do in Vermont. The lady lives in subsidized housing. The lady has Social Security. The lady has Medicare. She is a retired Social Worker, maybe possibly has a pension. Now she is applying for food stamps. (all this info comes from her previous comments). She maybe is one of those that wants the big screen TV paid by the taxpayers. Maybe next week she will want a new car, paid by taxpayers. She is asking that more and more taxes be robbed from the well to do that work, and work long hours, well into their retirements.
      Take for example, Medicaid. Lawyers in VT have presentations to tell those nearing retirement, how to hide all their money, securities, assets, so that Medicaid will pay for their nursing home care. Really? What a way to take money away from those that really need care. So, another way that this system in VT is terribly abused. It really has to stop, but I know, deep down, it won’t. But the wealthy are truly moving out of here, so VT is losing a lot of revenue, and those that don’t move, live 6 months and 1 day in Florida, for example, and do not have to pay VT income taxes. This is what the State of Vermont has done to long time residents – driven them right out of here and they will never pay in VT again. The more people like you, write into VT Digger, and bring attention to these issues, the better it will be for everyone. The State of VT needs to be “taken back” by taxpayers, not by those that demand everything for free, because they are “entitled”. A saturation point has been reached. No carbon tax, no income tax increase, no sales tax increase. no more taxes on businesses. They too, are leaving for more friendly towns and cities. What is left?
      The give me generation that does not pay into the system.

      • Doug Hoffer

        That’s both incorrect and offensive. Anyone receiving Social Security and/or Medicare has paid into the system for decades. Nothing for “free.”

        In any case, they are federal programs having nothing to do with state policies.

        BTW – There is no evidence that a higher percentage of seniors are leaving VT than NH. It’s simply not true. If you have data to the contrary, please provide it.

        • Peter Everett

          Mr Hoffer,
          I agree with you, VT seniors aren’t leaving at a greater rate than those from NH….WE CAN’T afford to!!!
          Our homes can’t be sold for their true value. If we get someone willing to purchase a home, they back out because of the Property Taxes they will be forced to pay.
          So, yes, Mr Hoffer, although I wish to leave, I’m unable to. Thus, making your statement true.
          By the way, I’m installing solar panels, hoping this will add incentive for someone to look into the feasibility of purchasing my, over taxed, home. I hold little hope that it will happen.
          By the way, 4 out of 8 pieces of property on my road are for sale…nothing happening with them, even though prices have dropped on some of them. So, my statement must be somewhat accurate.

          • Doug Hoffer

            Although I don’t doubt your own experience, you did not answer the question. Here are the facts.

            According to the IRS migration data (much better than Census sample data), twice as many people moved into Vermont as moved out in the last two years (30,000 in vs. 20,000 out).

            In contrast, our neighbor to the east with no personal income tax (NH) had about the same number move in and out (77,000 in vs. 74,000 out).

            In addition, during that period, more people moved from NH to VT than went the other way.

            Times are tough. But there is simply no compelling evidence that Vermont is worse off than most other states.

            National and international forces are driving the changes we’re experiencing and states have very limited tools available to affect short-term outcomes. The sooner we acknowledge that, the sooner we can start a serious conversation about how to address our problems.

          • Randy Jorgensen

            That’s for returns non population, correct? A return could include a family of 10 or a family of 1.

            It also does not include folks that don’t file.

          • Randy Jorgensen

            Looking into this from the IRS site, and perhaps Doug could offer clarification. For tax years 2012-13 (latest ones I could seem to get to work)

            VT:

            Outflow: 10,213 AGI(x1000) $533,481
            Inflow: 9,670 AGI(x1000) $539,766

            NH

            Outflow: 22,896 AGI(x1000) $1,298,190
            Inflow: 23,869 AGI(x1000) $1,535,083

            Data from here:

            https://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Migration-Data-2012-2013

            FWIW NY has the highest out migration in the country.

          • Randy Jorgensen

            Peter, solar won’t help your resale value. I have looked into it, and that is exactly why I won’t do it. It locks you into your home. Every solar installer I have talked to, including appraisers have told me it adds zero actual value. It’s a lot like adding a pool. It limits your pool of potential buyers.

      • Peter Everett

        Irene,
        Thank you for the kind comment. I, do, have to disagree with your comment on the percentage. If that were truly the case, we would not be in the financial mess we’re now in.
        See, I am really a believer that we should do the best we can to aid those who are in need. Both my wife and I give to various charities every month with left over funds from my monthly retirement payment. Some months we’re able to do more than others.
        The important aspect is we choose who we give to. Criteria is important. How much of what we give goes to where it is supposed vs waste (salaries, etc).
        In many cases, those who receive aid must meet certain standards to be eligible. This is where I have developed a problem with government “safety nets”. All to often it’s just too Damn easy for people to get on government programs. Criteria, standards, etc really don’t exist. Many times people receive aid from both government and private organizations, you know, Double Dipping. Some have no shame taking from others, and, more and more are doing it all the time. The attitude of “I want all I can get” is growing rapidly.
        Those who are paying for the “free” stuff are overall pretty content with what they’ve earned. Yes, most would like more, but, we appreciate the thing’s we’ve earned. They actually have value to us. We take care of them because it took real effort to get them.
        Those who receive the “freebies” never had to put the blood, sweat and tears into receiving. Many don’t give a damn about replacing them, they just call and ask for more and more.
        Hell, I’m retired and can only afford a “dumb” phone. I can’t afford to go out and buy a new “smart” phone every couple of months. I’m writing this from a $75 tablet that I saved up for two years ago. It works fine, I don’t need a new, powerful one. I’m happy with the cheap…it does what I need it to. I could care less about what others think of what I have.
        Somehow, somewhere, sometime ago, many have lost personal pride (responsibility). Being able to take the hard road used to be the key to success. Now it seems like it’s just the opposite for far too many. It’s easier to ask others to do it for you than doing it yourself.
        I blame, not only government, but, families as well. Far too much is given to children at an early age by their parents. Does a 6 year old need an I Phone, an I Pad? I don’t think so, but, far too many receive them. My granddaughter, in 9th grade, still doesn’t have a cell phone. If needed, she takes my “dumb” phone with her.
        I think it’s time to “toughen” up today’s people. Time to bring back pride in one’s self. Time to make earning something instead of receiving something. You earn it, you tend to respect whatever it is.
        There really is a word in the dictionary..”NO”. It should be used far more than it is. Once people understand what that word means, then, and only then, can we bring some sense back into society.
        I know that many will disagree with me and say I’m a very cruel person. I don’t really care. That’s the way I was brought up…earn what you want, don’t expect others to do for you. For seven decades that philosophy has served me well. I’ve always had what I need, not what I have wanted. The benefit of this has been I’ve always been able to aid those that truly need the aid. I am able to feel good about this.
        Irene, so I disagree with your percentage. I wish I were wrong.

  • John Grady

    http://digital.vpr.net/post/rutland-nonprofit-turns-community-buildings-senior-housing#stream/0

    $285,000 per unit ?

    Nothing affordable about the apartments. They are massively subsidized as are other projects I’ve scene in the news recently.

    Nobody is auditing the efficiency of the not for profits and the bulk of the funding comes from ?

    Running a not-for-profit beats being a landlord. Use grant money to fund your real estate empire and pay yourself a good salary while asking for donations to help support your real estate empire ?

    If lots of government grant money is being poured into not-for-profit housing the efficiency of the system should be questioned.
    It’s been going on for decades and there is still tons of need ?

    Maybe time for a new system of county housing authorities run using state guidelines because by the cost of the housing being created it doesn’t look efficient too me and that doesn’t even account for the over head costs of the not-for-profits.

    If they want more money it should be determined if they are an efficient way to provide housing in the first place.

    My guess is there is tons of money being spent on social services in this state but too many sticky fingers skimming off the fragmented system which probably should be consolidated into county run social services not buried in state red tape so they can provide the services needed in their county.

    The not for profits and state agencies employee how many people ? Most of them are one trick ponies, not my department so some people are dealing with multiple agencies and not-for-profits just to get the basics in life or some help ?

    A place of our own isn’t an new entitlement. People should be encouraged to have room mates and house mates.

    • Neil Johnson

      oh John….you’re on to what so many don’t know about. There is a big scam going on, funded by all us tax payers….

      People need to dig deeper….Grants…Non Profits…oh yes the grease of the insider track to Montpelier money (and feds)….

      We’re entering the age of new math, materialism and entitlement…

      We need to get back to the roots of Western Civilization, we’re losing our way.

  • Doug Hoffer

    Mr. Jorgensen

    First, you’re looking at totals (which include those moving internationally) rather than domestic.

    Second, you’re looking at returns instead of exemptions. The former is households, the latter is people.

    Finally, it’s clear that those moving in have more income than those moving out.

    What’s your point?

    • Ed Letourneau

      If people are moving in, why is school enrollment going down? People are not retiring here. Thus, there is something wrong with your data.

      • Doug Hoffer

        There is nothing wrong with the data from the IRS. You’re assuming that all people moving in have kids. Clearly not. You must also account for birth rates, which contribute to the changing demographic.

        As for retirement, lots of people retire here. Otherwise, how could our population of those over 65 be growing so quickly?

      • Joyce Wilson

        Ed, With the recent Kiplinger release of Vermont as the number one worst state for taxes for retirees, you will see many of the middle class and upper middle class choosing other states to retire. My family is middle class and we will not retire in Vermont. Not sure if we will even make it to retirement in Vermont. Of course, if you are a low-income retiree then Vermont is not so bad, but you need enough Vermonters left paying the taxes and with 30% of Vermonters on Medicaid for some a red flag is being raised!

        “The Green Mountain State doesn’t coddle retirees. It has a steep top income tax rate, and most retirement income is taxed. Vermont treats Social Security benefits the same way the federal government does, which means as much as 85% of your benefits could be taxed.

        In an effort to close the state’s $100 million budget gap, Vermont now limits deductions to $15,750 for single residents and $31,500 for married couples. With that in mind, Vermont moves up to the unenviable top spot on our list of least tax-friendly states for retirees.”

        http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T055-S001-top-10-least-tax-friendly-states-for-retirees/index.html

    • Randy Jorgensen

      Doug, I can see that the people moving in have increased AGI by ~10m. That wasn’t my point, nor something I was disputing. I was looking for your input on the data collections and how to utilize it, thank you for the clarification. International Migration seem to be a pretty small portion for both states.

      By using exemptions for 2012 from above link.

      We see VT:

      Outflow 16,155
      Inflow 15,405

      Net gain of $10m AGI

      NH:

      Outflow 37,551
      Inflow 40,484

      Net gain of $245m AGI

      Is your data from a later year? It appears that 2013-14 data isn’t available. To me at least. The 2012 data certainly isn’t anywhere close to what you have presented. NH with twice the population of VT saw a $245m increase in AGI while VT saw a $10m increase. Why would NH see a much larger jump when we wold expect something in the neighborhood of ~20m increase?

      Perhaps I’m missing something, and for that I appreciate your patients.

      Regards.

      • Doug Hoffer

        I did the work at home and don’t have the file. I’ll get back to you later.

        However, I looked at the AGI data and NH’s net gain in the prior year was almost nothing ($1.3m) so the difference is curious. I don’t know which of those two years is more typical and which is the anomaly. I will look at the earlier years later.

        • Randy Jorgensen

          Doug,

          First. Thank you. Perhaps that is the case. As I said, I can’t get the most recent data, 2011-12 can be found here:

          https://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Migration-Data-2011-2012

          VT:

          Outflow: 16,032 (AGI (x1000) $532,540))
          Inflow: 14,857 (AGI (X1000) $446,445))

          AGI -$86m

          NH:

          Outflow: 36,137 (AGI (X1000) $1,323,140))
          Inflow: 36,481 (AGI (x1000) $1,324,516))

          AGI ~ + 1.3M

          So it looks like your $1.3m number matches with the data from the above site. Disturbing though are the number from VT in 2011-12. It would be interesting to see a long term trend for say the past 15 years, Pre/Post recession to what the impacts have been.

          Again, thank you for helping me understand the information.

          • Doug Hoffer

            OK. Here are the facts.

            I looked at ten years of data. The key is not the nominal amounts, but the net income gained or lost as a percent of total AGI. I wish I could embed a table but I’ll do the best I can (I hope this doesn’t get all garbled).
            VT NH
            ’12 – 13 0.06% 0.62%
            ’11 – 12 -0.58% 0.00%
            ’10 – 11 0.02% 0.11%
            ’09 – 10 -0.02% -0.06%
            ’08 – 09 0.07% 0.14%
            ’07 – 08 0.14% 0.07%
            ’06 – 07 0.02% 0.39%
            ’05 – 06 0.51% 0.70%
            ’04 – 05 0.42% 0.78%
            ’03 – 04 0.31% 1.02%

            The most important takeaway is that only once in ten years did the net AGI from migration in either state exceed 1% of total AGI.

            In addition, while we often compare the two states, we all know they are not apples to apples because southern NH is basically a suburb/exurb of Boston. Vermont has nothing comparable. If I had the time and could do this for all 50 states, I expect VT would end up in the middle of the pack.

            Note also that notwithstanding annual variances, there is always a significant movement in both directions. That is, there are lots of people who find VT sufficiently appealing to move here from a state with no personal income or sales tax (I haven’t presented those figures but it’s true).

            In any case, I will think more about this but I’m hungry and need some chow. I hope this is helpful.

          • Randy Jorgensen

            Doug,

            Thank you for doing this. I’ll put it into my excel sheet. I’ve been busy all day today so I haven’t had a chance to look into the numbers. Once again, thank you for helping me understand the data.

            The IRS information is very helpful in understanding trends, as it appears to be the most comprehensive in regards to movement.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "More money needed to solve affordable housing crisis, advocates say"