Editor’s note: This commentary is by Fred Baser, of Bristol, a Republican who represents Addison-4 (Bristol, Lincoln, Monkton and Starksboro) in the Vermont House of Representatives. He is a certified financial planner who founded Bristol Financial Services.
[T]he availability of good housing for middle-income Vermonters near their place of work is a problem in Vermont. Contractors struggle to build homes priced for this market.
In Chittenden County, a consortium of community leaders dramatically made that point with the establishment of a campaign, “Building Houses Together,” to build 3,500 housing units over the next five years. Both rental housing, with 2 percent vacancy rate, and owner-occupied homes for middle-income Vermonters is in short supply in Burlington, as it is in other areas of the state. Twenty percent of the 3,500 unit total is to be built by nonprofit housing organizations that depend upon state financing. While additional governmental involvement was deemed as desirable, there were no specifics mentioned by the group.
The housing crunch is not a new issue. The House Economic Development Committee has taken testimony from employers over the last several years that quality housing for middle-income Vermonters is in short supply and is affecting their recruitment efforts. In the last legislative session there was a housing initiative, H.702. House bill 702 was a “workforce housing” bill that substantially addressed all the major issues raised by the Chittenden County consortium.
Why is a healthy stock of median priced and affordable rental units and owner-occupied homes important to a community? For starters new housing construction means more jobs, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc. It also means greater housing opportunities for potential new hires at area employers. This can lead to breaking down barriers in employer thinking about whether to expand in Vermont or elsewhere. More housing means community tax base growth. More jobs mean state income and sales tax revenue. The momentum created by housing construction can also lead to rising income for many Vermonters as well as shorter commute times. Plus a few more millennials might be able to move out of their parents’ home. When we grow the inventory of median priced housing it has a trickle-down effect and benefits the “affordable” housing market as well. A healthy housing inventory translates to healthy communities.
A healthy housing inventory translates to healthy communities.
So what did H.702 propose and what happened to the legislation? H.702, which later became H.865, was designed to establish a minimum of two pilot projects for the construction of housing that would be affordable for households with incomes up to 120 percent of their county’s median. Area builders say that they cannot reach this market’s needs due to several factors. The bill addressed three of those factors cited by developers and builders.
First, it streamlined the permitting process by targeting three prime housing development locales, Neighborhood Development Areas, Community Growth Zones, and Downtown Designation Zones. These zones enjoy special treatment when it comes to most permits. Development in these designated zones also protects against undue stress on land and water resources, traffic congestion, and pollution. Second, the high cost of land was addressed by requiring a minimum of four single family detached units per acre, in other words, the bill sought to maximize investments through high density construction. Each project was to have a minimum of 12 housing units. Larger projects reduce the per unit building costs. Finally, we funded H.702 with $1 million. This money was to be used on the infrastructure needed in at least two projects, infrastructure like roads, sewer and sidewalks. The House Appropriations and Government Operations committees worked hard to find the funding without forcing additional taxation. The bill required at least one project be in a community of 10,000 people or less. The idea here was to have some geographic diversification
As a Republican, and a first-term legislator, I realized support from House leadership and committee chairs was critical in moving the bill. My effort in working with members of the House paid off as the bill passed unanimously in the House General and Military Affairs Committee, and then on the floor, it was voted out 139 to 4. This points out a valuable lesson, that with good communication, effort and conviction, a minority party member can get tri-partisan support for major legislation.
The bill then went to the Senate where, unfortunately, the good news ended. With state dollars in short supply the Senate money committees choose other ways to spend the allocated $1 million, and the bill that had tri-partisan support in the House did not emerge to become law. Lesson No. 2, tough fiscal times can lead to a promising bill’s downfall. H.702 would have advanced economic development and have made Vermont a more affordable place to live for many. When push came to shove, other spending priorities took precedence.
As a member of the minority party, I recognize legislative victories are not easy. While I am disappointed that this workforce housing didn’t make it to the finish line, I am heartened to learn that leaders in Chittenden County share my commitment toward solving this issue of public concern and, with the continued support of my district, I look forward to working with them and my colleagues in Montpelier to pass this initiative next legislative session.
