U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-08-2007, 11:16 AM
 
Location: on a dirt road in Waitsfield,Vermont
2,186 posts, read 5,979,896 times
Reputation: 1125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
Another question. We have always been interested in Shelburne, but Burlington is growing so quickly, is Shelburne going to be swallowed up and lose it's identity? Thanks.
I think that ship has already left. The cute village is traffic gridlock as is Rt 7. They recently did some road improvements on Rt 7 just north of the village but the last time I was thru it didn't seem to me to help much. Rt 7 is a nightmare during rush hour and I try to avoid it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2007, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Vermont
3,328 posts, read 8,763,998 times
Reputation: 1991
Shelburne has what one would call "snob" zoning. Big lot acerage minimums. Thats what makes it so expensive.
I drive up Route 7 in the morning occassionally and don't find the traffic bad at all. You have to wait through maybe 2 or 3 light cycles in the village. No biggie. The improvements north of the Village on Route 7 were a huge improvement traffic wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 12:19 PM
 
Location: on a dirt road in Waitsfield,Vermont
2,186 posts, read 5,979,896 times
Reputation: 1125
I was thru there about 2 weeks ago but it was in the afternoon. Hit gridlock just south of the museum, crept along at about 20mph, it did open up abit on the improved section but still took 45min to get into Btown. About 12 miles.

The traffic is bad enough that a few years ago the powers-that-be proposed a new Amtrak commuter rail line at a cost of many millions just for that Rt 7 corridor to alleviate the traffic problems. Needless to say for several reasons it didn't fly.

Many years ago they proposed a divided highway around Btown because they could see that traffic movement was going to be a problem. They did build a part of it, the northeast part, but other parts that were built just sit there not open for traffic, gathering weeds. You can see one part looking west from where Rt 7 and I89 intersect. Recently, it's on the table again, some want to finish it, some do not.

I have used the part in Essex and to be honest works great but people in the Burlington area have alot of strong opinions about it.

I guess it depends on your perspective. The roads are busy cause Chittenden
County is a growing vibrant area. Its the economic engine of Vermont.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Vermont
3,328 posts, read 8,763,998 times
Reputation: 1991
True...Shelburne Rd north at the evening commute, especially by IDX/Ge in S.B. can get pretty darn backed up. I'm just always going in the other direction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 01:38 PM
 
122 posts, read 414,514 times
Reputation: 33
Back to taxes Essex and Essex Junction were just reassessed~first time since 1990 so vaulations have more than doubled (unless you built since then, we are in a 1974 built house) BUT tax rates should be going down, thanks to new and bigger business, IBM included. That's the word on the street as I understand it. You're right, MRV, towns do vary tremendously. Towns even I thought would have high taxes don't come close to where I live. For example, a house is FSBO right now, same style and era as mine, 1.1 acres taxes are just over $3000, next town over, another house same era on .3 acres taxes are just over $4000. Anyway, just proving a point that taxes vary quite a bit from town to town. But they do everywhere, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 04:13 PM
 
Location: on a dirt road in Waitsfield,Vermont
2,186 posts, read 5,979,896 times
Reputation: 1125
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTeratheart View Post
Back to taxes Essex and Essex Junction were just reassessed~first time since 1990 so vaulations have more than doubled (unless you built since then, we are in a 1974 built house) BUT tax rates should be going down, thanks to new and bigger business, IBM included. That's the word on the street as I understand it. You're right, MRV, towns do vary tremendously. Towns even I thought would have high taxes don't come close to where I live. For example, a house is FSBO right now, same style and era as mine, 1.1 acres taxes are just over $3000, next town over, another house same era on .3 acres taxes are just over $4000. Anyway, just proving a point that taxes vary quite a bit from town to town. But they do everywhere, right?
I assume so but really only know Vermont, Maine and Wyoming. The Vermont system, I have read is pretty unique in that rich(sending towns) have to pay more if they want to spend above the per student rate set by Act 60/65 and a chunk of the money goes to poorer(receiving towns).

As I mentioned in an earlier post Act 60 was inacted to level the amount of money spent for schools from rich towns or poor towns. While the Stowe's and Dorset's are still sceaming bloody murder, the towns that got more are, of course, thrilled.

My town Waitsfield is a sending town but since I don't own a mansion my taxes are pretty fair and I think every kid should have access to things like computers and band equipment so I have no problems with it. Alot of people do however and I understand that and hope like everyone else that the legislature will tweak it to make it work better for everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Western views of Mansfield/Camels Hump!
1,941 posts, read 3,227,139 times
Reputation: 1085
The problem in Stowe (and I would imagine in other sending towns), from what I've heard and read, is that folks who have lived there their whole lives were priced out because of Act 68...farmers and anyone who had property with a view were all of a sudden facing taxes that were double and triple what they normally pay.

It's a double edge sword for resort towns...you have so many second home owners, many of whom can afford to pay the taxes, but then you have the year-round community who have built the foundation of the town the second homeowners love. We have owned a small condo in Stowe for several years and while my taxes aren't crazy, they doubled when they had the assessment two years ago.

I don't know what the answer is, but I certainly don't think that folks who have lived in the same town/house for generations should be penalized because the town was popularized by out of staters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 07:23 PM
 
Location: hinesburg, vt
1,574 posts, read 4,414,706 times
Reputation: 395
The direction of property taxes in Vermont. If the current legislature continues it's tenure with its agenda or as some may argue the lack of one, taxes will continue to rise. We may actually be approaching a crossroads where more and more Vermonters who wish to stay in state are getting tired of the deep pockets syndrome and vote to end the terms of those who are masters of frivolity. I sure hope the very issues that affect the majority of folks in this state will be directly dealt with and affordability is a major one which will ultimately decide how many more decide to fold up their tents and head out. We all have to live within our means and therefore the state must as well. A bit of positive news for homeowners in Vermont is the latest OFHEO release for the 1st Qtr 2007 which showed an increase in value above all other New England states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 07:47 PM
 
Location: on a dirt road in Waitsfield,Vermont
2,186 posts, read 5,979,896 times
Reputation: 1125
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkln View Post
The problem in Stowe (and I would imagine in other sending towns), from what I've heard and read, is that folks who have lived there their whole lives were priced out because of Act 68...farmers and anyone who had property with a view were all of a sudden facing taxes that were double and triple what they normally pay.

It's a double edge sword for resort towns...you have so many second home owners, many of whom can afford to pay the taxes, but then you have the year-round community who have built the foundation of the town the second homeowners love. We have owned a small condo in Stowe for several years and while my taxes aren't crazy, they doubled when they had the assessment two years ago.

I don't know what the answer is, but I certainly don't think that folks who have lived in the same town/house for generations should be penalized because the town was popularized by out of staters.
Your analogy of a double edge sword is a good one. The longtime familes are paying more cause their property values have increased so much. Same thing in Maine. You have familes who own a cottage on an island for 100 years now their places are worth $500,000 and they are paying property taxes like $2,000 a month.

The good news in Vermont is that there is a cap based on income. This is for Vermonter not out of state property owners. There are tools in the system that helps the folks we are talking about. In addition Vermonters can get a prebate check which also is designed to help.

In Stowe they were so upset that they partnered with a private foundation, the Freeman Foundation that allowed them to spend more on their schools without going thru the state system. I believe that situation has ended.

Killington has been making national news the last few years regarding their desire and positive town vote to secede to NH cause they are so upset. To be honest, with the cap for Vermonters, it's the out of state second home owners who are getting creamed the most and are complaining the most.

The Vermont legislature session is a short one and they promised last fall that fixing Act 60/68 was a top priority but they got sucked up into the Bush impeachment thing and never got around it.

This fact sheet does a nice job of explaining it in one page, actually the first few paragraphs give a nice overview.
Laws & Regulations : Act 60 Fact Sheet

Act 68 which was inacted in 2003 does tweak it but did not change it all that much IMHO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2007, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Apex, NC
1,341 posts, read 5,632,907 times
Reputation: 577
The direction of property taxes in Vermont as a whole is UP. And then UP some more. And then a little more UP. Oh yeah, and then some UP.

I no longer have the link to the document on a VT gov't web site, but if you find the document, it's an eye opener. I stumbled over it googling for vermont property tax related terms. The findings in the document were that Vermont should become more reliant on property taxes as a source of funding. The reasoning is that Vermont is highly dependant on capital gains taxes paid by the wealthy; and when the stock market growth isn't sufficient, it pinches gov't funding. Property taxes are not as reactive. In other words, even if a persons investment wealth declines, their property value and tax rates remain the same and the tax revenue keeps flowing in. And Vermont's anemic growth rate (+/- 2.5% in 6 years, only 39% of the national average) is going to pressure property taxes up even more as the cost of doing gov't business increases. This is because the gov't can't rely on private business investment in the state as much as, say, Virginia (where I now live) does to fund gov't.

I won't argue the pros and cons of this tax structure. It's just something to keep in mind when looking to relocate to Vermont, particularly if you're retiring and want to stretch your wealth out as far as you can. The reality is your nest egg will shrink faster in Vermont than it would in virtually any other state. If you have a large enough nest egg, or little interest in passing wealth down to your children, then it's not an issue.

Sean
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:40 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top