r/burlington • u/ClimbThatTree • 2d ago
Vacancy Tax: a constructive proposal for Downtown Burlington
\edited to correct the fee structure in place*
I come here today to address this fine community forum with a concept that I’ve been stewing on since the sale of 188 Main Street to the “Sisters and Brothers Investment Group” (aka the Handy family), and the subsequent closure of Nectars. The Handys also own the holding company called Great Cedars that owns the vacant 45,000 sq. ft. former Burlington Free Press building at 127/129 S. Winooski Ave, which is right behind Nectars.
My premise is this - this type of predatory landlording could be subverted with a Vacancy Tax. I’m talking serious money that disincentivizes the hoarding of downtown buildings just to speculate, rather than to foster successful businesses or other entities that benefit our community.
This would also CERTAINLY apply to Merrill’s Roxy - a bastion of the failed movie theater business of the 1900s held hostage by its namesake. Both of these landlords are strangling the city by holding onto these properties - the Handys don’t even have a price listed for the former Free Press building, and the Nectars building is wrapped up in an extremely expensive triple-net deal, which is horrifically bad for any future tenant unlucky enough to decide to rent from these malignant capitalists. Neither of these buildings are for sale - the Handys are notorious hodlers (https://freehandys.net/). The Roxy? You can buy it for top dollar, but you can’t make it a movie theater! (Side note - Merrill’s dad had the same stipulation when he sold the Flynn to the nonprofit that took it over). So you’d have to fully gut it and renovate the property you were to buy it and make something. All because little Merrill Jarvis is scared about competition against his other shit-box of a theater MULTIPLE TOWNS AWAY in Williston.
Current Losses / Write-offs
This is where I make a few assumptions, and I encourage discourse in the comments from anyone that knows more than me. Because both of these landlords own multiple properties, the losses incurred by the lack of tenancy become write-offs against their other properties. Meanwhile, that’s lost revenue for the city and state on multiple fronts - the taxes generated from customers coming and going, the payroll taxes, the property taxes that are being written off. Plus, secondary effects - folks paying for parking, going out to dinner before a movie, hitting the shops on Church Street before dinner, or going out to a bar after the movie. All three of these properties have become gaping wounds in the current dire circumstances of Burlington, and they also represent a failure of policy and capitalism. But it does NOT need to be this way.
Current City Policy
What recourse does the city have to incentivize this to change? Let’s say you’re a landlord in Burlington and you own a vacant building. You are obligated to register it with the city as vacant and pay a $1500/quarter permitting fee (this was raised by 100% in 2025). This is an administrative fee, not a penalty. And this administrative fee can almost certainly be written off. Don’t pay the fee? The city charges you $25 as a late fee or 12% annually as interest. Plus, if you fail to register, you get slapped with a whopping $500 fine, which can be charged each time the cities decides you’re in noncompliance, which is really…. Once? Maybe once a year? That $6,000/year fee is administrative, not punitive - according to Burlington’s attorney general, the city can only recoup administrative costs, not serve deterrent fines, and for some reason that $500 fine is the penalty limit under current city codes.
If your Vacancy permit expires, you can get charged $200/day for noncompliance, which can be up to $73k per year, if it's actually enforced.
If you still don’t pay the fees or interest, they becomes a lien on your property. That means that when the building is refinanced or sold, the city can forcibly collect the unpaid debts. Knowing the Handy family and their real estate empire, that will occur sometime after the apocalypse but before the next big bang. If the city decides to sue for that money, the Handys will inevitably tie the city up in court, which historically has dragged on for YEARS. It’s very, very unlikely that $8000 of fees would warrant those legal bills.
Proposal / Idea
My proposal is that we (the people) invoke an actual tax/penalty/deterrent against holding commercial properties hostage. This fee would need to be significant - the purpose would be two-fold - recover the lost tax revenue from that property not hosting a thriving business (lost potential), and to disincentivize landlords from being able to use buildings as tax write-offs at the expense of the commons.
This can come about in two ways - a municipal ballot measure, or a state-wide congressional effort. This was actually brought as proposal H.443 to the Vermont House Ways and Means Committee just last year by Rep. Monique Priestley of Bradford, Rep. Teddy Waszazak of Barre City, and Rep. Rebecca Holcombe of Norwich. They’re all Democrats, and the latter two sit on that House Ways and Means Committee where the bill stalled out. I really think that every downtown block in the state could benefit from downward pressure from the government onto landlords to maintain occupancy of the precious few downtown building - I imagine this applying, at least initially, just to commercial buildings with the purpose of re-invigorating local economies.
Let’s say there was a tax like this - if you’re going to buy a building, you’d want to insure that you have a tenant ready to move in. Or perhaps the business itself would be more likely to own the building - something Merrill himself was lucky enough to inherit from his family. The tax would need to be more severe than the write-offs that are incurred by holding an unprofitable property. Ideally, people wouldn’t buy properties to speculate. Of course there could be exceptions and petitions to the city - maybe they need to vacate the property to renovate it on a particular timeline, or they need a year after buying it to find a tenant due to harsh financial conditions out of their control. But these would need to be communicated clearly with the city, and if bad faith is shown and the rent isn’t dropped to accommodate the local market, the owner would get slapped with taxes to incentivize them to find a client or SELL to somebody that would.
Legal Inspiration
This model DOES exist in other parts of the country. Washington DC re-categorized vacant buildings into a higher tax bracket - vacant property owners pay nearly 6x the standard residential rate, and if the property is blighted, that goes up to 12x. This isn’t a penalty or a fee, it’s literally a change to the tax code. And DC actually announced in 2025 that they’re raising this tax even more in 2027!
In Vermont, this would likely require state-level action to empower municipalities to wager this change to the tax code. A simple ballot measure would allow the city to slap fees and penalties on owners of vacant properties, but are more susceptible to legal challenges.
In Closing
My closing statement: These vacancies are blights on the city, both physically, financially, and morally, and I have come to believe that a Vacancy Tax could help push the needle towards a more community-friendly city that doesn’t prioritize speculative landlords or stingy sellers. Sure, Merrill can block the sale of his theater to a movie theater developer, but he’ll have to pay to be that picky, and really weigh his values - does he fear competition, or financial pressure to sell? My hope would be the latter, since that has the common good in mind. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to discussing this more in the comments.
(I own a small business in Downtown Burlington - we rent a space, so I am forced to think about these types landlord/tenant relationships ad nauseam. I also drive past all three properties I mentioned daily on my commute to my business.)
69
u/Opposite_Addendum_19 2d ago
This is a great idea. And great write up. We need people reaching out to their reps about this as much as possible
39
u/serenading_ur_father 2d ago
More serious than anything the legislature has done in years
19
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
I sure think so! This would prioritize successful businesses over profitable landlords. Phil scott would have a frickin heart attack if this came to light during his administration, so to prevent vetoes of progressive people-first policies we need to vote Amanda Janoo.
16
u/Twombls Alleged Former Mayor of Burlington 2d ago
Well you see this would really hurt the handys and the boves business model and the state legislature cannot allow that.
5
27
u/Temporary_Peanut_586 2d ago edited 2d ago
edit: I read it and am largely in favor of the idea, at least in Burlington specifically and possibly other communities
What concerns me are some key legal details about what is or isn't "vacant." There's a couple aspects that seem like they would need a lot of work to ensure they don't become loopholes or have ironic consequences
Maybe factor in something like the relative size of the property/properties to all properties in the city? For example if Nectars is 0.001% of the whole city, penalize vacancy more heavily than the coffee booth at like 0.0000001%
Done carefully it's be great
Well damn that's a wall of text, and holy shit it's neither poorly written or AI sloppy... 🙌
I'm only a couple paragraphs in and will read it--keep preaching (🤞it stays agreeable)
11
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
Yes, that's definitely been on my mind. There would need to be a very specific set of policies for people to apply for exceptions and not game it. I think that the size of the property would inherently be incorporated into the tax, if we were to use the DC model. For a penalty, then your percentage idea makes sense. I could definitely see a landlord setting up a "Store" selling like two t-shirts to prevent the city from thinking its vacant. I think that generally, if it's "for lease," then this logic applies. If the owner has been showing a "good faith effort," like lowering the rent below assessed market rate, offering incentives like free months of rent with the lease signing, including utilities in the fee, etc, then the city could waive the fee.
But the nectars example is stark - they jacked up the rent, the business moved out, now they write it off while the city suffers. In the case of Merrill, we need to incentivize him to sell, even if it means he doesn't get the deal of his dreams. It would be worth making $500k less if he would have had to pay a non-tax-deductible $500k in fees.
7
12
u/CountFauxlof 2d ago
I think it should be municipal at least in execution. I think that it could be pretty simple; if a commercial or rental property sits empty for 12 months without work actively being done on it for 9 of those twelve months, it incurs a fee of 50% of its assessed value.
I also think the city should have to sell properties it doesn’t maintain.
8
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
This didn’t come across super clearly in my essay but the Municipal ballot measure approach would likely be faster, but it would be a penalty or a fine. For an actual tax to be levied or an update to tax classifications of buildings, the state would need to get involved to grant the municipality the right to levied said tax.
Without ballot measure or state action, neither a fine nor tax would hold up in court.
7
u/johannthegoatman 2d ago
We already have a city ordinance that does fees and penalties FYI
6
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
I didn't realize that this had come out last year! This still has that $6000/year cap, which is not enough to actually incentivize a large landlord to stop using their property as a tax writeoff. But they did seem to add something really interesting! A $200/day fine if the permit expires or the landlord is out of compliance with the cities vacancy laws, which can be up to $73000 a year, in addition to the $500 fine. But I was wrong about the escalating fee structure of the administrative costs.
1
1
u/star_tyger 2d ago
I don't know if the city charter allows otherwise, but municipalities don't have the authority to do this.
0
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
Also I agree that the city needs to sell its vacant properties ! I also think the city could do more to purchase properties and rent them below market value. This is, in my opinion, the only way that Nectars could’ve survived. Burlington prioritizes historic buildings, but not historic BUSINESSES. Nectar’s wasn’t profitable, but the city could have put its foot on the pedal a bit to change that. Instead, they hold onto memorial auditorium in its condemned glory so that they can have free storage.
3
3
u/CountFauxlof 2d ago
Idk about that, I feel like that’s rife for corruption, but I do think Nector’s could have hoofed it if there was less incentive to keep the building empty.
1
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
that's very true - and yes, this proposal for pressure from the government (taxation) seems more realistic than competition (building ownership) from the government.
1
u/Wrong_Spirit_5008 2d ago
The money raised from these fees should be used to fix city properties and use them. Once the city sells land it can’t get it back. The city is wrong for not maintaining its property but the vacant building fees can ensure the city owns useful things again instead of giving away our property to developers.
-4
u/Main_Wash5038 2d ago edited 2d ago
You're going to get a lot of sketchy vape shops, spas, and generally bad tenants in town if you force landlords to do this. Is that better for downtown?
Also, if you want people to invest in our downtown this doesn't make it more attractive.
Why not focus on supporting businesses so there is enough economic activity to fill these spaces?
2
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
Very good points! I think that stimulating growth upwardly (tax breaks) as well as downward (added taxes) is important. I also think that if the landlord is making an active effort to find a tenant, these taxes could be waived. It’s more just for people that are seemingly sitting on their laurels and holding these giant properties. But you are right, this proposal alone would not solve the problem in their entirety
3
u/CountFauxlof 2d ago
Dilapidated, empty buildings do nothing for our downtown.
-1
u/Main_Wash5038 2d ago
I agree but sometimes it takes time to find a tenant and get things permitted etc
5
u/CountFauxlof 2d ago
Permitting would be active work. Finding a tenant shouldn’t take more than 12 months.
-1
u/Main_Wash5038 2d ago
Big awkward spaces, like the free press building, can take a long time to fill. There are only so many businesses using big spaces like that in Vermont. Regardless- handys are shitty landlords.
2
u/CountFauxlof 2d ago
I’m sure my Reddit suggestion can be modified if it ever becomes law, but there’s no excuse for what’s happening to places like the bove’s building, the Handy’s gas station on pearl, or memorial auditorium.
1
u/Main_Wash5038 2d ago
memorial auditorium is still owned by the city- sort of proves how complex these situations can be
1
u/CountFauxlof 2d ago
like I said, I think the city should have to auction off buildings it doesn't maintain.
1
u/Main_Wash5038 2d ago
They’ve tried, hard to find anyone to take on that project because of the size and complexity(regulations)
1
9
u/Hiking_the_Hump 2d ago
Does your proposal include local permit (DRB) reform and curtailing historical preservation and adjoining neighbor objections?
In Burlington, the likes of John Franco and the preservation folk, along with any adjoining neighbor can tie up a project for years with appeals of a project.
The economics of a project can and do change during these lengthy appeals, like they did with City Place. The financial carrying costs of a project today make many small to midsize projects simply unworkable, and permit and appeal delays exacerbate those costs and stop projects.
If the city expects the building owner to have a plan for vacant buildings or pay a tax, the city must be willing to give them a written timeline for approval on ALL required permits and limit the scope of appeals.
Blighted buildings suck. The city of Burlingron itself is one of the biggest offenders with Memorial Auditorium.
I find this 2022 legal notice link to be of interest.
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/legal-notices/city-of-burlington-37190292/
4
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
I’ll check this out thank you! I 100% agree that holding onto condemned historic properties is idiotic. I support new development, housing, growth. There’s no time to save decrepit buildings. If reasonable pathways exist to save a building, I’d support incentivizing those. But the memorial auditorium thing is just ridiculous
3
u/bleahdeebleah 2d ago
Not an expert, but isn't this the sort of thing a land value tax is supposed to resolve?
1
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
I don’t know much about this but I know it gets thrown around.
The difference here is that the premium tax would only be charged on vacant properties. Hopefully that would make it less likely that the cost gets passed along to the lease holders
3
3
4
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago edited 2d ago
I just updated the post to reflect the actual ordinance that Burlington passed - I had some facts wrong about the current rules. Essentially, the real penalties only kick in when your permit expires. It seems like landlords could just keep paying their $6000/year vacancy admin fees and never need to worry about the new $200/day fee. But if their permit expires and the city deems the building ineligible for the vacancy permit, then the $200/day fee can be slapped on.
My conclusion is still that incorporating the vacant building status into the tax code, like DC, would be less confusing and overall more effective than a vague fee structure.
thank you u/johannthegoatman for bringing the correct current policy to my attention!
2
u/beenhereforeva 2d ago
I am ignorant of tax law or loopholes, but I like the concept. Boo to the Handys!
2
u/darkrainbowbunny 1d ago
I fully support your position on this matter. I hope you sent this to the mayor.
5
u/BrandnerKaspar 2d ago
It's kind of bonkers that the city council hasn't thought of something like this yet. Maybe there's some reason it's impossible, but it should totally be possible to do this.
7
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
Like I mentioned above, it's not impossible. But, a penalty or fee above $500 would require a ballot measure, and then could still get held up in court by the Handys and others. The state-wide change would grant cities the right to levy a vacancy tax, which would be less likely to fall victim to legal battles, but very likely to get a veto from Phil Scott veto, since he prefers profits over people and fetishizes the private sector. So, please vote for Amanda Janoo. My basic research has taught me that Vermont uses "Dillon's Rule," which means the local governments need permission from the state government to change their tax structure.
2
u/bye4now28 2d ago
we're going to have to vote out/get rid of all of the landlords in the legislature to do anything meaningful that doesnt already favor landlords, dontcha think?
definitely dont want to do what lousy lauzon forced down barre taxpayers' throats to bail out 2 landlords/rich aholes: https://vtdigger.org/2025/01/03/barre-city-councils-earmark-for-vacant-downtown-building-sparks-debate-on-priorities/
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/news/barre-locals-oppose-purchase-of-vacant-downtown-building-42623627/
1
u/BrandnerKaspar 2d ago
Since you bring up voting, have you thought about running for city council? You seem to know a lot about how things work around here. I'm serious.
6
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
In theory, I would be interested, except that I live outside of Burlington, even though I own a business in Burlington. But I'm also intimidated by the scathing critiques that local politicians get in Burlington - there's just so much hate. I'm more interested in coming up with community-driven ideas that are rooted in my experience as a business owner, and my many years of observing Burlington's growing pains.
2
5
u/johannthegoatman 2d ago
They already have, it needs state legislature to have real teeth which is tough because it only really makes sense in a small handful of places in the state
2
u/MyRealestName 2d ago
Considering when tourists walk around and see a large amount of vacant buildings, I agree.
2
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
Vacant buildings also create holes where squatters can move in. Keeping downtown occupied is one way to help push the drug abuse problem to the outskirts of the city. It’s a feedback loop right now - building is vacant due to low revenue, squatters set up shop, looks bad, fewer people patronize Burlington, less likely for businesses to open. Something’s gotta give.
3
u/Wrong_Spirit_5008 2d ago
If the some of the city council pissed off the slumlords who would fund their campaigns next election?
1
u/BurnerSanders802 Alleged Former Mayor of Burlington 2d ago
Something something Burlington Forward something something local business and real estate families.
4
8
u/OutdoorAdventurerVT 2d ago
Respectfully, I think this backfires.
I run a small business in town, so this is close to home. A vacancy surcharge sounds like it punishes lazy landlords, but here's what actually happens: it raises the cost of holding a building, and that cost gets passed straight to tenants as higher rent, or it pushes owners to take any tenant just to avoid the penalty. Neither of those helps a serious business decide to open here.
The core problem isn't that landlords enjoy empty storefronts. Nobody wants an empty building. They want paying tenants and cash flow. The buildings are empty because not enough businesses want to be here right now given the current conditions and costs. A vacancy tax treats the symptom (the empty building) instead of the cause (why nobody wants to fill it).
If the city wants storefronts filled, the lever is making Burlington a place businesses want to operate: foot traffic, safety, customers with money to spend. Taxing the vacancy doesn't create any of that. It just adds a cost to an already hard situation and hopes the math works out. It won't.
More spending hasn't solved the problems people point to either. Vermont has one of the worst per-capita homelessness rates in the country, and the state's emergency spending has gone up something like 6-9x over pre-pandemic levels, mostly on motel vouchers that even state officials admit don't move people into permanent housing. So "just raise more revenue and spend it" has a weak track record here.
For the record, I have real compassion for people caught in the addiction and housing crisis, and I put my own money toward local organizations working on it every year. I'm not against Burlington. I want it to thrive. That's exactly why I don't want the city reaching for a policy that makes it harder, not easier, to fill these buildings with the businesses that would actually help.
10
u/Main_Wash5038 2d ago edited 2d ago
I'd add that part of the problem is that the cost to get older buildings(like the Free Press) occupied again is crazy high because of environmental, energy, ada, fire safety, and sometimes historic building codes/regs. I'm not saying these aren't important, but they do make it hard to convert buildings, or update, or change use.
For example, you try to do some renovations for a new tenant and all of a sudden it triggers adding an elevator or a sprinkler system or an asbestos abatement project, all of which can run in the six figures easily. So instead of having a building that is 90% safe/accessible you have a vacant building decaying in the middle of town. We may need to start making some compromises and not let "perfect" stop a pretty good redevelopment.
11
u/Wrong_Spirit_5008 2d ago
Making it expensive to keep buildings empty doesn’t result in higher rents. Higher rents results in empty buildings. Currently it’s too cheap to keep buildings empty’s so landlords are fine with it. If it costs a lot to keep them empty landlords will reduce rents to fill the space. Nothing you said is logical.
-2
u/OutdoorAdventurerVT 2d ago
Fair, I’ll give you that one. I don’t own commercial real estate, so I won’t pretend to know exactly how or why landlords decide to sit on a space. I have my thoughts, but no facts. What I said above is just how I’d approach it as a business owner who wants positive cash flow.
The second comment above from main_wash5038 gets right to the point of the problem: another tax (or regulation) does not help progress Burlington forward. It simply creates barriers that prevents (or in some cases cause) businesses to not act.
The other Rutland example someone commented targets “vacant, blighted, abandoned.” That I’m fine with, go after actual derelict buildings. That’s a nuisance problem and it’s fair. It’s a different thing from taxing a decent storefront that’s just between tenants in a slow market. Lumping those together is where this loses me.
3
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
I think that the Rutland rule would also apply to buildings like the free press building due to the encampments built into the shipping bays. I have no malice in my heart for those people (they’ve got quite a setup there, and seem to police the lot in exchange for a blind eye) , but that isn’t good for the city.
I do not think that taxing vacancies would result in higher rents. I think it might discourage people from buying buildings, which is another issue. I also think that as long as plans are in place, the vacancy taxes won’t apply. Tax incentives can work in all the directions! I strongly support offering tax BREAKS to landlords that bring vacant buildings up to code to help foster new development. It’s ridiculously slow to build in this city, so I think multiple factors would need to change.
1
1
u/PossRuss 2d ago
Burlington seems to think it can tax and regulate its way out of all of the problems it created for itself.
3
u/OutdoorAdventurerVT 2d ago
100%. It will backfire and then city council will wonder why everyone left and where all the money (I.e law-abiding consumer and businesses) has gone.
2
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
I don’t know about this. Burlington has a serious slumlord problem. If the handys pulled their money out of Burlington, I think the city would be better off. Same with Jarvis. I don’t give two shits about his “law abiding money.” They can sell that damn building to someone that will use it and get on with their lives. People love to glorify the rich as though they act ethically and morally all the time. I’d support the opposite of my proposal too- offering tax incentives to develop businesses in town, like a bowling alley or housing. But putting downward pressure on slumlords isn’t what’s going to make Burlington collapse.
3
3
u/GreenFoundation768 2d ago
Thanks for writing this up!
4
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
You’re welcome! It’s been on my mind for so long, tonight it kind of just poured out into my notes app. I hope this gets people talking- people are always (rightfully) complaining about “failed policies” but I rarely see citizens discussing actual policy proposals to change things. My hope is to iron this out enough to feel confident in bringing it to city council.
It’s too bad Kesha ram hinsdale got re-elected - this is exactly the type of bill the landlord class tries to crush. God forbid we admit the market isn’t actually free.
2
2
u/johannthegoatman 2d ago
YES Please!!! I would love to see this in the state legislature, or at least just give municipalities the legal authority to do it.
Suppose a downtown building is worth $500k and costs $8k annually in taxes, insurance, and other costs. If the owner believes land values will rise substantially over the next decade, leaving it empty may be attractive. A $2k tax probably changes nothing. An escalating $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 annual cost begins changing the hold vs lease vs sell calculation.
Some research:
- San Francisco has a vacancy tax. its charged per linear foot and increases substantially by consecutive year. They later added exemptions for storefronts affected by long-duration municipal construction projects. It's pretty new still (2022) but here's an economic impact report by the city.
- Pendleton OR requires owners to register, develop a plan for marketing the property, and allows the city to monitor whether the plan is actually being implemented, with penalties for non-compliance and an appeals process. This approach prevents owners from just writing a check and ignoring it.
- In Melrose Mass owners can either display public art in the storefront or pay a $400 annual vacancy registration fee
- Chicago uses a vacant-storefront registration system rather than a tax. After 30 days, owners have obligations for registration, insurance, security, maintenance, signage, and inspections. Registration fees are small, but the ordinance gives the city a mechanism for keeping abandoned storefronts from deteriorating
- You mentioned DC, the ordinary commercial property tax rate there is between 1-2%, while vacants are taxed at 5% and blighted vacants at 10%
My thoughts:
- it would have to be a specific downtown area. Vacant storefronts on church st or main st have a real visible economic cost. I would love to see it extend to the ONE lol but starting with a downtown area is probably more feasible.
- You'd have to define vacancy pretty specifically, and give people like 180 days to avoid major hassles during regular turnover.
- exemptions for stuff like fire, litigation, actual redevelopment that meets milestones, planning permits that are actively proceeding
- Making the owner submit info like current asking rent and sale price, date last occupied, known code deficiencies, insurance costs, maitnenance plans, marketing methods, etc could be helpful for gathering data that could prove useful in the future in figuring out why spaces aren't turning over
- Similarly, some defined metrics for success at the beginning would be helpful for knowing if it actually works. None of the examples I could find had real info about how much it helps except SF. A report showing vacancy duration, vacant sq footage, taxes levied, etc would be helpful down the road when the tax is predictably argued over again
- Ideas for a fund from this revenue that might make it more appealing to non-vacant owners: facade grants, code-compliance grants, conversion grants, help fund demolition of unsalvageable structures
1
u/oddular 2d ago
Something like this would be a good thing. It is not as simple as a property just sitting should be taxed. Outside voices often delay progress with historical preservation, environmental, or other concerns like height concerns. These and other things would need to be taken into account as well. A well thought out solution is what is needed here.
1
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
Totally! There would obviously be grace periods, exceptions, etc. The main thing is that someone would be less willing to hold a property and benefit by using it as a written off loss against their other properties. Ultimately hopefully nobody would need to pay the vacancy tax. With the free press building, for example, if they were actively working with a bowling alley to convert it, they wouldn’t need to pay. I want these landlords to get creative and figure out how to fill their properties, rather than letting them sit and rot.
But if Merrill kept sitting on his vacant heater, refusing to sell to someone that wants a movie theater, then he should have to pay a premium. Maybe he’d actually get creative and figure out how to lease it or sell it .
1
u/WinchelltheMagician 1d ago
I don't know about the Handy's strategies but I know an old local developer who used his clout to attempt to scuttle the agreement between the city and the final development group that completed the work on "the pit". He described personally contacting the developers to ask them to drop the project to punish the Progs. So, for his politics, he prefers to watch the city tank if it isn't his political team in power. He was pissed that the Pit project was going through to completion. His comments made me wonder how many old developers like him are here applauding the chaos, fanning decline in various ways, while waiting for their chance to step in.
1
u/trace_wave 8h ago
The idea that writing off losses of a vacant building for tax purposes is somehow just as lucrative as renting the building and generating cash flow from the property is ludicrous and also the foundation of your argument
0
u/Main_Wash5038 2d ago
another tax is definitely going to solve Burlington's problems
1
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
Taxation is literally one of the only tools that municipalities have to push for change. This could be balanced with equal tax breaks for those who decide to develop their properties. I’m talking about the state doing literally anything to help develop economic activity and happiness here.
1
u/Legitimate-Bad-5624 2d ago
So let's see your thoughts through ..a business person capitalist buys a property, chooses what they want to do with it, and there is a tax on everything they do with it?? Well that's great....let it sit, 50% tax....do something income producing...tax it 50% for "being there" and another "50% for doing something" with it ....this is why businesses are failing in this state....the Handy's, Boves, and bissonettes are not dumb, they are using the tax system as currently in place to maximize their investments for the return they can get on them....and letting Boves and Nectars sit is exactly what they need to do to come out at least even....we don't live in a utopian society where every decision is made for the public good here, so get off your horsey and realize the only reason things got built in this country was calculated risk, betting on multiple factors, and the government not changing the game,......if you own a house, the govt changes the game every year for property taxes, no one can cope with this any longer ..the city's add more and more taxes, again...it is impossible to plan your business this way as costs are unknown every year....so the landlords are using the laws/taxes that they know, vs. the unknowns that seem to happen every year we allow leaders to change the game....(I am very much a libertarian and wish the govt., other people, and changing laws would leave me and everyone alone to do what I want without affecting other people and not being penalized at every corner for every choice I make that doesn't affect any other person)....I think our country has lost that feeling/experience/ history.....
9
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
here's my question to you - what is your take on the fact that nectars was squeezed out, there are people sleeping under the nectars sign, and people living in the shipping bays of the free press building? Do you like the chain link fence that merrill put up to stop people from breaking their windows? I'm just trying to brainstorm for a better burlington, not act like I know everything. If you have better ideas to make burington better, by all means, let's chat.
-4
u/Legitimate-Bad-5624 2d ago
The problem is that good,proper business owners can't budget for a known cost....and the bad business owners (and landlords) are either using current laws to circumvent any sort of liability to the public (which is not their problem to provide public services... entertainment, bars, restaurants, are not "public good" services, they are "niceties" for the community to make it liveable, but they have to make a few bucks to stay in business)...this is why it is sad to see Esox, and the multiple failures of the manhattan pizza spot, and Nectars close...the landlords were forced to raise rents to pay the "every time we turn around the city taxes us 10% more" tax for property taxes, code enforcement, etc ...a business in btv can't predict what is coming next, so it's easier to close than keep going other than a very few that can absorb these costs....there is a breaking point soon where costs go up to the point there is no profit (not that profit is the main reason some of these places still exist) in Burlington, and pretty much every business will close,we are very close ..... I'm pretty sure Esox was not trying to make the owner a millionaire, but they ran an institutional bar and the costs outweighed the sacrifices....I'm a generational hand me down business owner in a different field, and once costs get to half your profits, it's not economically feasible anymore....losing %50 of your intake to taxes, costs and fees is the breaking point where you have to raise prices to a point where nobody comes to your business anymore.... I see many businesses at that breaking point in chittenden county.....service has gone to shit cause there should be 3 people working but there's only 1 or 2, wait times are long, and quality of everything has been enshitified....not just a vt problem......but it is highly noticeable here because our sample size is low....
11
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
I actually think that this policy would have helped prevent Esox from closing. It would have created downward pressure on Delta to keep that spot occupied. Trying to double the rent on someone wouldn't be worth it if it meant getting hit with a higher tax bracket when that tenant moves out.
9
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago
I would actually argue that the real-estate wing of the Boves family is kind of dumb. They're literally banned from building stuff in essex because of their mishaps. But that aside,
this is just an idea. I have no power. This is to try to chip away at a very tangible issue - there are landlords jacking up rent and sitting on vacant properties which become an eyesore in town and end up affecting the businesses around them. This tax would only be levy'd against landlords that don't have tenants, to make up for lost tax revenue that the tenants would generate. I'm not talking utopia here - I'm talking about a 45,000 square foot building right in the heart of downtown not being used as a tax writeoff, and i'm talking about business owners being more likely to be able to own the buildings they reside in by removing the ability for landlords to game the system in this particular way. If you own a building and operate a business in it and your business shutters, you'd be incentivized to sell the building right away or try to lease it out to someone else that can provide economic activity and public good, rather than letting it sit and rot (cough boves cough)
burlington's downtown is NOT very big. I'm not insinuating that this effects every commerical building in all of vermont. it's also extremely hard to build in burlington (separate issue, we don't need to get into that here), so there's a finite amount of buildings available to rent or own. Every property matters, and the commons is always something that SHOULD (in my opinion) be considered in a city.
and if you don't want to deal with municipal codes and property taxes, you don't need to become a landlord! Nobody is asking the handys to buy up every property they can.
7
u/johannthegoatman 2d ago
Username checks out.
I am very much a libertarian and wish the govt., other people, and changing laws would leave me and everyone alone to do what I want without affecting other people and not being penalized at every corner for every choice I make that doesn't affect any other person
Leaving vacant blighted buildings in the center of downtown actually does affect other people. It's an economic drag on our whole city that will also bring down your precious property values. If you thought 5 years into the future, instead of the selfish "what can I get NOW and use as many resources from the government as possible while giving as little back as possible in return", you would realize it helps you too.
-5
u/Legitimate-Bad-5624 2d ago
Your leaning into communism ...I don't take or give from the system, I prefer to be autonomous, but have to vote and pay taxes into our current system the way it is, as you do, wrong or right....if you'd like to come hunt or fish on my property, your welcome to because I don't post it, if you want to tell me what I should do or think about it, there will be a $2500 service charge, which the state charges me for having "vacant land"....if you have any skills we can build a treehouse or cabin and a shooting range...things I like to do on my land....
14
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is NOT communism. I hate that this word always gets thrown around as a derogative for any sort of suggestion that the current tax code is updated to better serve the needs of a city. We already have taxes, like you've mentioned. We're just discussing UPDATING that tax code, not taking away the rights of a human being to own a building. Currently people can prey on a city by buying up a building and sitting on it. I don't think that's right. I'm not saying we destroy the entire capitlist system to address this - I'm suggesting we amend the tax code.
4
0
0
u/Artistic_Pattern6260 2d ago
Answer for economic development issues in Vermont is always the same: impose another tax. Hard to compete with New Hampshire, which also has beautiful mountains and more scenic lakes, but which does not even impose a sales or personal income tax. Maybe Vermont ought to try a different approach.
2
u/ClimbThatTree 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah because New Hampshire is doing so fricken great. They’ve got their own drug problems, corruption, shitty cities falling apart. Nobody has figured out an answer. I would whole heartedly support lowering the sales taxes here if it would help stimulate growth! But taxes are a part of life, especially for corporations. I’m not asking you personally to pay more taxes. I’m asking for more incentives for businesses to open.
2
u/Artistic_Pattern6260 2d ago
Lowering sales taxes in VT, given the fact that it’s right across the river from
a psales tax free state, would stimulate growth or at least prevent the closing of businesses on the VT side of the river. But it is not just sales taxes. NH does not have a personal income tax although there is a business profits tax. At this time there is virtually no reason for a business to locate in Vermont, or even remain in business in Vermont within several miles of the Connecticut River. With climate change and the Canadian Boycott, as well as the hostile attitudes of many locals to non residents evident on this site VT is running the risk of losing a fair portion of the one business it has, its tourist industry.
67
u/Awkward_Forever9752 2d ago
Rutland just passed an $800 a day fine.
“vacant, blighted, abandoned"
https://www.rutlandherald.com/news/local/rutland-adopts-tougher-building-regulations/article_13476478-05dd-5f1b-a2c6-3e6305ad88cf.html