Last weekend, the Herald ran a deplorable op-ed, the likes of which I’ve never seen in the four decades I’ve been a Rutland homeowner.
The epitome of enmity, the piece denounces Vermont homeowners that the “realish” author classifies as “second,” claiming such Vermonters are responsible for the state’s housing crisis. Rendering meaningless the notion “all are welcome here,” the author also invalidates the Vermont organizations, referenced below, that are working on real solutions to the housing crisis.
The entire column is disgusting also for its data-devoid drivel, clichés about “tony” city dwellings, and other hostile verbiage too amateurish to repeat. But its most revolting aspect is an unambiguous dog-whistle that smacks of “go back where you came from, privileged city dwellers.” The author does this even while acknowledging such individuals “serve on nonprofit boards and give a bundle to charities,” admitting it’s “more than (the author) can say or do.”
You don’t say, or do, do you. What the author does say, with no uncertain rancor, is “Vermont is only for me; certainly not for thee.”
If the author had even done a quick Google search — say, of “Vermont housing organizations,” — perhaps they might have hesitated. If they had taken a moment to read factual reports, they would have given a second thought, perhaps, before spewing slander that their Vermont neighbors who own more than one dwelling are the cause of all of society’s ills.
For example, nowhere in a Vermont League of Cities and Towns 2022 report, is there a single condemnation of second-home owners. Instead, it cites numerous causes of Vermont’s housing crisis, and details about proposed solutions.
In the 2020-24 Consolidated Plan within the 2021 Vermont Housing Budget and Investment Report, the goals are: 1) increase the supply and quality of affordable housing; and 2) decrease the number of people experiencing homelessness. If the term “second-home owner” appears in any negative way in the 40 pages I reviewed, then perhaps someone could show me.
Another eye-opener, from the nonpartisan Vermont Joint Legislative Fiscal Office, demonstrates how difficult it is to define a “second” home in Vermont. Excerpts:
“(The term) ‘second home’ has many definitions … seasonal, temporary, occasional, recreational … detached homes, condos, apartments, camps, lake houses, cottages, … also commercial, industrial, business, farms; 18 different property categorizations. There are few to no provisions in either Vermont or Federal tax code that benefit second homes versus primary homes. In general, Vermont does not provide any specific tax benefits to second homeowners that don’t apply to primary homeowners.”
One of the most authoritative articles about the housing crisis appeared in the Dec. 23 edition of The Atlantic, “The Obvious Answer to Homelessness.” Its author, Jerusalem Demsas, points out that the U.S. does not have a housing stock issue, per se, but one of “flow.”
Demsas is referring to the unpredictable tide of people who become houseless or are otherwise relegated to dwellings not of their preference, because of countless threats out of their control. They include sudden job loss without any immediate income, health crises insurance won’t cover, loss of a main breadwinner and persistent mental health issues.
Most of us know people who are facing those threats — some of them, repeatedly. For anyone to assert there are easy solutions, or such variable and volatile crises are the “fault” of certain homeowners, is not only ill-informed but also irresponsible.
The Vermont dwelling my husband and I now consider our forever home is one we had admired longingly but could never imagine we’d own when we bought our first condo here in 1983. Since then, we have built fulfilling careers in New York and Washington, D.C. When our current home came on the market in 2001, we quickly made an offer.
In this home, we host people of diverse backgrounds and philosophies. Our meals at such gatherings are substantial, but not lavish. And there isn’t a single person we know — anywhere — who would be so uncouth as to denigrate us for our ability to share such meals.
No one who loves Vermont can allow to stand unchallenged a fractious fiction like the column in last weekend’s Herald. Such rude rhetoric miscommunicates the promise of “all are welcome here” is only for the chosen few, i.e., “Unless we say it’s true, then Vermont is not for you.”
The writer’s tirade last weekend ends with a meek concession: “(C)an’t just go around blaming everything on second-home owners.” Right. Especially not while you’re stuffing yourself with their shrimp. And definitely not when you’ve stuffed yourself umpteen times with, you know, “seconds.”
Liz DiMarco Weinmann lives in Rutland.
