Share Email 789 Shares

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Alfonso Villegas, a graduate of Dartmouth College in 2014, with a degree in classics, and of Vermont Law School in 2017. A state employee, he and his wife live in South Burlington, with two cats and a roommate.

In Gov. Phil Scott’s State of the State address he proposed targeted advertisements to attract young people and families to Vermont — “a bold, sophisticated campaign to identify and persuade working age individuals, families and entrepreneurs to relocate to Vermont.”

Get all of VTDigger's daily news. You'll never miss a story with our daily headlines in your inbox.

Concerned that Vermont is graying, both because present populations are getting older and because Vermont is hemorrhaging young families, Scott hopes that by attracting younger people to Vermont it will help increase the work force and thus contribute to revitalizing Vermont’s economy. Scott’s proposal ignores the real problem: housing.

Scott’s proposed solution will not solve our affordability crisis. Sure, a young population is key to a sustainable and vibrant economy. But why move here when 50 percent or more of your income is consumed by rent. The 2010 Vermont Housing Needs Assessment determined that about 62 percent of lower income renters — 27,000 people — lack housing they can afford, and spend more than 30 percent of their income. Of these, 13,000 households pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing!

I could be one of those “young” people he means to attract, and Scott’s proposal is a hard sell. I am 28, I have an Ivy League education, a law degree, a salaried state job, I speak multiple languages, and I am married.

But I seriously struggle financially here, despite having a second job on the weekend to help ends meet. Attracting more young people is not what we need. Focusing efforts on attracting younger families to Vermont is a waste of time, money, and effort. Mr. Scott is focusing on a symptom.

Vermont is unaffordable. Rents all over the state are well above what a working class person, let alone a family, can afford. The most attractive city for young people – Burlington – is a housing nightmare. Land use restrictions and community groups oppose any new construction that could help alleviate the housing crisis. Thousands of homes were built each year between the 1960s and 1990s. Residential building permits dropped to 1,546 by 2014 – half of Vermont’s 2005 levels. Vermont’s Housing Needs Assessment determined that we need about 5,000 new rental units and 8,000 new owner homes per year to accommodate Vermont’s current growth. Food is expensive and so are utilities. Therefore, why would young folks move to Vermont where they will struggle to survive financially? Moreover, why would young working families move to Vermont and have children when they can barely afford to survive themselves?

Take my wife and me for example. I moved to Vermont to study law, graduated, and got a job. Yet my financial prospects are bleak at best. I have over $200,000 in federal student loans alone. Even though I paid down credit cards while in school, moving, living, and licensing expenses ballooned my credit card debt to $15,000. My wife and I would not have been able to find housing, buy food, and pay expenses (including studying for the Bar) but for a one-time $15,000 personal bar study loan. My rent is $1,550 — not including utilities. After paying rent and bills I have $187 left for food and gas. My wife, who is finishing her degree at UVM, and I need to live with a roommate because we could not otherwise afford to live in South Burlington (which helps cut our commuting expenses).

VTDigger is underwritten by:

In fact, my wife is also becoming one of those skilled young workers Scott wants to attract to Vermont to revitalize the economy. But when she finishes school, he will be hard pressed to convince us and others like us to stay. Furthermore, my wife and I barely contribute to local Vermont businesses because we can’t afford to. We wish we could. We live cheaply; shopping at Walmart, thrift stores, and cooking at home. We cannot afford to eat out or explore cafés and bakeries. For entertainment, we stay at home and play board games (winter sports are out of the question because they are cost prohibitive).

If my wife and I can barely survive, how can others with minimum wage afford to live here? They cannot. It is almost impossible to have any form of savings as a young family. Our dream of owning a home is out of reach until we are in our late 50s, after having paid down some debt. And while we want a family, we cannot afford to have one now. It is just too darn expensive. For our share of the rent ($755) we could afford to rent a large apartment or small home in New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida, or almost anywhere else! For the full price of our apartment we could afford to rent a home with a backyard elsewhere. So why come here?

Increasing housing stock and lowering food and energy costs will attract more workers to Vermont. Right now, homes are either too expensive or too remote. Transportation is a necessity, but a favorite for taxation. The ESSEX Plan that proposed increasing gas prices would unfairly punish the poor and low income residents who cannot afford expensive electric cars or newer more efficient vehicles. Look to Tokyo, for example. They have prevented a housing shortage by building up and more. Vermont state government should focus on legislation that forces local governments to streamline regulatory approval, provide more state funding, and chastise local governments that fall short of housing goals. Building more and building up – not out – will greatly alleviate the housing crisis.

The governor and the Vermont Legislature should focus their attention on improving the lives of Vermonters already in the state. And they should start by lowering housing costs. Vermont is a beautiful and unique state. But the reality of an overpriced state outweighs the dream of having a stable life here.