[GypsySoul22]

Thank you, Flu.
You said it very well.

"Real estate, credit, fuel, food, and insurance costs have destroyed what once was a reliable source of discretionary income to be able to afford the extras which were realistic and obtainable for the average middle class family."

I totally agree. Both my husband and myself have good credit, don't squander of things, try to save what we can...It's not as easy as some would make it seem.

Lilly, I am from Long Island originally, and yes, you can say the same for there...or any nice place...people want to be there because of the weather or the fishing or views. It's just frustrating to be the 'working poor' and deal with many who have no clue what it is like to be 'hard working' and still not able to get things in life others take for granted.

[flu189]

The term "working poor" really says it all. In just the past several months seven out of the ten colleagues at work have had to effect some major changes to try and rebalance their lives to be able to deal with the fiscal reality we face now. For some it meant selling off personal property, cutting back on recreation and family entertainment, and most definately putting off purchases. The true problem in understanding the impact of all this is lost on those who have enough money to absorb the increases in staples of daily life. I don't mean to say that they feel no impact, but it just is not of the same magnatude to raise worry and anxiety to the level that now even what was considered the comfortable middle class feels. On the news tonight the US Secretary of the Treasury visited a Burlington school today to promote awareness of money and the importance of saving. The statistic quoted was sombering that the savings rate has now dropped to a level of .3% which translates into just $3.00 of every $1000.00 of income. The frivilous spenders and gross mismanagers of money are at the bottom already, but now with the rapid rise in expenses even those who have had a good track record of saving will fall behind. For us in Vermont energy will become the 800 pound gorilla. Conservation and cutting back can only go so far. Alternative sources which could hopefully be viable on a mass scale is not only expensive now, but well off into the distant future. I sure hope that we can get the current energy prices under control and not let wishful thinking destroy the economy even further. We seem to be on a course of burning our bridges before we can build new ones. I guess it is just kind of strange to be facing a future where potentially the anticipated betterment of life in general will contrast sharply with the experience that many of us have been able to enjoy in our lives.

[Lilybeans]

Originally Posted by flu189

The term "working poor" really says it all. In just the past several months seven out of the ten colleagues at work have had to effect some major changes to try and rebalance their lives to be able to deal with the fiscal reality we face now. For some it meant selling off personal property, cutting back on recreation and family entertainment, and most definately putting off purchases.

I don't want to minimize peoples troubles, but how many of these people have big screen tv's or fancy video games, or fancy cars. I know some don't, but I see a lot of folks -just starting out- who have to have it all right away. That is always a recipe for disaster.

Putting off purchases isn't suffering. It's acting responsibly. People speak of putting off purchases likes it's a sacrifice. That is what people used to do. They put off buying things until they could afford it. That was normal. Now we see it as a bad thing.

There is no doubt energy costs will be a problem.

[greenmountaingirl]

Sigh.

It's really amusing to read posts, all over this forum, about how truly affordable Vermont is. You're coming from California? Oh, this place is SO cheap!!! You have $300k available? You'll find a glorious 3 bedroom in the idealized pastoral country.

What people fail to realize is that the lack of affordable housing in this state WILL be its' demise. Coupled with the lack of viable employment, affordable housing is our most desperate problem. We have forums, panels, lectures...all to address the "where are our young people going" issue. Are you KIDDING ME? We're leaving in droves because we can't find a job that will pay us enough to afford to rent here. The "real" jobs that exist are being monopolized by older, more experienced adults (note: I am 30. Not exactly a just out of college kid) who just got canned from THEIR companies (downsizing? In VERMONT? Why I NEVER!), so we bust our rear ends to make $10 an hour if we're lucky while we wait for our real lives to begin. Most one bedrooms are $775-$1200 in Burlington, and NO you cannot "just" go 15 minutes out of town to find something. You can't even go 45 minutes. And with gas prices as appalling as they are, who can afford to live that far from their job anyway? Those days are long, long gone. Don't believe me? Go peruse craigslist. So find a roomie, right? Suck it up, youngin', and locate someone to live with. Walk up hill both ways in the snow and then we'll talk. Fine, to rent a decent two bedroom, we will STILL be paying $600 plus utilities AND have to live with a stranger (unless we're really, really lucky to have friends in the same position who have the same timing of need as we do). Sure, there are $1000 rentals, but they go fast and are usually tiny---too tiny for strangers to dwell together without discomfort.

Now, I'm no math major. I only have an MSW and a BSW (both of which I subsidized myself---not exactly a "big screen TV" but I suppose it's excusable). But let's give this a whirl: Jobs that pay $10 an hour + oh, we'll say $700 a month rent/utilities for giggles= $1200 a month (BEFORE taxes)-$700 a month=$500 "disposable income". Disposed right into student loan payments. Car payments. Food. Living. Saving money for the future? To buy an overpriced house of our own? Never going to happen.

Sorry, but I'm with Gypsy. Tourism doesn't bother me at all, we need the money in this state. But I can recall waiting on a second home owner a few years back who gave me a rash of sh*t about how he "paid" for our "rural idiot children" to go to school just for the pleasure of owning his 2nd home on Lake Champlain. That it was SO cheap to live here that every hippie in the world could just land here and make communes (don't even get me started on THAT stupid stereotype---this state hasn't been "hippie" in many years. And there's a hell of a lot more conservatives than liberals here. Just because you've spent 2 days in Burlington or Bennington, don't assume you know everything about Vermont. Seriously.). He seemed to take great pride in the fact that he could own a huge house here while we "local yokels" lived in "squalor". It was disgusting, and it IS a prevailing attitude from many second home owners here. Not all, mind you. But many.

Needless to say, I'm sick and tired of affordable housing being so out of reach. I used to work in housing, and I remember when people would call me to rent homes before they even moved here. No job lined up. Just wanted to escape the city and live the good life. I had to laugh. Doesn't much matter how much you have on your resume here, if there are 200 people in line for the job, best of luck to you. My mother was hiring a p/t admin...PART TIME, and got 350 resumes.

Much of this state is desperate. In real trouble. Yet no one in the government, liberal or conservative seems to care. While I understand that property taxes are high and they do go up annually, not one owner should use that excuse to raise rents $100 a year. You own 6 apartments in 2 buildings? So you're telling me your taxes went up $7200 a year??? Bull. As for utilities, when I'm paying the heat and electric myself, that adds another $125-$150 a month IF I have a roomie. And if I hear one more owner say "try moving to Boston. Your rent is CHEAP." I will scream. A) Our rents are getting to be on par with Boston via one bedroom. Many of the 2+ bedrooms are already there. and 2) Boston has a much more reasonable cost of living to income rate. Get a grip. I also realize you have to maintain your property. Lovely. I didn't tell you to invest in apartments. You made that choice, hopefully an informed one, all on your own. Why exactly am I paying for you to upkeep them all??? I'm so sorry your tenant in apartment #4 turned out to be a deadbeat, I really am. I've been there. Why exactly am I paying for you to re-do the apartment? You made the choice to rent that apartment to said deadbeat, not me. Deadbeat put the hole in the door, not me. If you checked deadbeat's references and this still happened, well....that sucks. If you took the easy way out and took the first person with a ton of cash, that would be your problem.

If we don't get some regulation on these landlords, the only people who will be able to rent in this state will be college kids who get money from Mom and Dad. The rest of us will be forced to leave the Vermont we love in order to survive. I know it's rough all over, I get that. That said, from a local perspective, it is far behind time to demand that someone in this state put a stop to this insanity. Rents are appalling and getting more so every day. When I was paying $500, heat included, 3 years ago...come on. $350 increase in rent alone in 3 years with no corresponding increase in state wages? Pretty much guaranteeing that none of us will be able to own our own homes for a very long time, if ever. Time for some action.

/rant

[Lilybeans]

Originally Posted by greenmountaingirl

Sigh.

Yet no one in the government, liberal or conservative seems to care. .....

If we don't get some regulation on these landlords, the only people who will be able to rent in this state will be college kids who get money from Mom and Dad.

Understandable. Have you personally spoken with your representative? Do you really think more government regulation is the answer?

The government is us. The people. Maybe you should run for office and change things. Your arguments are good, but landlords are in business to make a profit. Landlords are regulated to death as it is. Vermont puts more regulation on landlords every year, and these costs get passed on to the tenants. If rent gets too high, then people shouldn't rent there. .

Social work is a low paying job everywhere, unfortunately.

[greenmountaingirl]

I don't work in clinical Social Work, Lily. See the above about 300 people for the same job.

I'm sorry, but as a former property manager, I am well versed in the "regulations" on landlords (reasonable for the most part---just like any business owner, they are required to follow certain statutes. Should they not be?). They are actually relatively few and far between AND they are rarely followed because there is no one following up on the action. Do you have any idea how many landlords skate by their annual fees? Don't have annual inspections? Refuse to make required improvements on their apartments UNLESS they have a savvy enough tenant---one who calls Vermont Tenants and gets their rights validated? Landlords who hook up outside lights to a tenant's powerbox so they don't have to pay the bill? There are perhaps 3 city inspectors for how many thousands of units in Burlington? Many, many things fall through the cracks, and many owners are well aware of that. I have had some of the greatest landlords and some of the most vile. I realize everyone is different in behavior---but they're all still taking advantage of the situation monetarily.

I haven't a problem with anyone being in this ownership thing to make a profit. None. It's a business, after all. What I have a problem with is owners gouging renters because they KNOW we have no other choice. Pure and simple. Shouldn't rent there? Either we find a way to pay these atrocious rents or we're out on the street. It's sort of sick when you think about it. Would we be as permissive if gas station owners were allowed to charge whatever they wanted? Would we just give grocery stores a "gimme" if they decided they could charge extreme amounts for food? Shelter is as basic a need as food.

My arguments are more than good. They come from someone who has been privy to both sides of the coin. I shouldn't have to "run for office". I do what I can. I show up to affordable housing day at the statehouse every year. I have no desire to be a politician, and I sort of resent the notion that in order to affect change I have to. Affordable housing and a livable wage is something we have to beg for???

Why does the general public have to be the ones to adjust to the whims of those in power?

Dunno. I suspect that unless you live it, you'll never understand. Seems to be the way of the world these days.

[Lilybeans]

Originally Posted by greenmountaingirl

I haven't a problem with anyone being in this ownership thing to make a profit. None. It's a business, after all. What I have a problem with is owners gouging renters because they KNOW we have no other choice. Pure and simple. Shouldn't rent there? Either we find a way to pay these atrocious rents or we're out on the street. It's sort of sick when you think about it. Would we be as permissive if gas station owners were allowed to charge whatever they wanted? Would we just give grocery stores a "gimme" if they decided they could charge extreme amounts for food? Shelter is as basic a need as food.

If a gas station charges too much, we don't buy gas there. If groceries cost too much, we don't shop there. If rent is too high, don't sign a lease. It is not up to the state to provide food and shelter.

My arguments are more than good. They come from someone who has been privy to both sides of the coin. I shouldn't have to "run for office". I do what I can. I show up to affordable housing day at the statehouse every year.

Showing up in a crowd one day a year is nice, but not really effective. You need to have face to face meetings (not only you, but other people, of course) and get other constituents to do the same. Counting on other people to accomplish your goals gets you nowhere.

I have no desire to be a politician, and I sort of resent the notion that in order to affect change I have to. Affordable housing and a livable wage is something we have to beg for???

I don't think becoming politically active is begging. I think it is working for what you want. No one is entitled to anything.

Why does the general public have to be the ones to adjust to the whims of those in power?

Those in power are us. We are the government.

Dunno. I suspect that unless you live it, you'll never understand. Seems to be the way of the world these days.

I deal with it every day. I see what the insurance companies require of landlords and the crazy state regulations and requirements. Add to that all of the overhead and costs to maintain and you are looking at some pretty slim margins.

[greenmountaingirl]

As for politically active, I used the affordable housing day as an example. I'm sorry I didn't detail my daily work, both as employment and personally, around activism to be proven more "valid" in your eyes. You have no idea of my scope of political activism (on many more causes outside of housing, thanks---I only have 24 hours in a day), and I take offense at your scolding tone. I make damn sure I get face to face meetings on the one day of the year our legislators care about affordable housing and I go with a collective of other constituents who do the same. We encourage as many to join as possible. Should I go door to door and force renters to come with me...as "the people"?? The theory that "we" are the government is lovely, but factually inappropriate. We the people have spent decades, centuries, stating our needs and opinions...we can only do what we can. In the end, the politicos make the decisions. We hope they hear us, we vote accordingly, but we do not pass or fail the final bill (unless we're a corporate special interest, but that's a whole nuther story). To think otherwise is naive.

If insurance is a crazy regulation to you...well, wow. Again, overhead costs are the choice of the owner to make. If you buy a property for the sole purpose of making money, you better be prepared to maintain it. If you expect to buy, install a tenant, and start rolling in the dough, that would be your poorly researched hope. It doesn't work that way. You own a building with human beings living there. Should renters cover owner's insurance as well? Should we have an additional fee? What exactly SHOULD the owners be responsible for, then? Seems like you feel owners should just have the freeforall to do as they please and collect the rent.

If the rent is too high, don't sign a lease???? You truly are ignoring the point here. Do you understand that many, many people don't have a choice? This isn't as simple as driving to the next gas station, Lily. If I have to be out of my apartment by the end of May, I have exactly and ONLY the available apartments for June 1 to choose from. I am forced to make a choice, and when all the choices look pretty much the same---the competition for the minimal amount of affordable housing is cut throat. Do I hold out for a cardboard box? Couch surf???

Mostly, I'm sorry you see affordable housing and livable wage as an "entitlement" issue. Sorry, but in the good old USA, every human being, especially those who work and pay taxes, should be "entitled" to basic needs like food and shelter in one way or the other.

It's not up to the state to provide food and shelter, no. But it IS up to the state to assure its citizens that they are not being gouged in a way that makes them unable to obtain their OWN food and shelter. Free market is one thing. Intentionally jacking up prices because you're the only game in town is appalling.

[Lilybeans]

Originally Posted by greenmountaingirl

. Should renters cover owner's insurance as well? Should we have an additional fee? What exactly SHOULD the owners be responsible for, then? Seems like you feel owners should just have the freeforall to do as they please and collect the rent.

Yes, of course. Rents are supposed to cover all of the owners expenses and then leave enough for a profit.

[mustmove]

greenmountaingirl the state needs prosperity not regulation. I would argue less regulation less taxes and crapload less social agencies. Anyway its prosperity first and all else would work out. Too bad Montpelier doesn't like prosperity they like VTers staying serfs.