ADK housing

[montcalm]

IMO everything you are saying is EXACTLY what we should avoid.

It's development for the sake of development. Why? So you can support a grocery store and a diner and work elsewhere?

That's not a community and tbh there is far more money to be made from tourism with "brick and mortar".


Why wouldn't you just work somewhere else? If you work remotely, you have a pick, no? But you want to choose an area that is highly desirable and see it developed more.

This is super insensitive but I notice it all the time:

People from NJ move to the Adirondacks and they want to turn it into NJ. Why didn't they stay in NJ?

I think you either have to love it for what it is - in fact you must, something is drawing you there and accept that those things are maybe what make it what it is.

I mentioned (on yet another thread like this) that if you want to boost up a small town and work remotely there, I can give you a long list in the rest of the state... but you won't have 3 million acres of public land and limited development (which you secretly love when it fits your motive).

[saabrian]

Montcalm: you seem to be making some wrong assumptions. I am not saying towns should subsidize my free or low cost housing. All I'm saying is that towns should encourage this kind of housing. I wasn't even thinking public housing, just private developers and market rate housing.

It could be tax breaks on construction costs. It could be PILOT agreements. It could to modify zoning laws to permit/facilitate this kind of construction. It could even be "we'll help you navigate the APA bureaucracy" It could be as simple as the supervisor and town board making it town that they would welcome such housing.

As for me wanting to live in the Park to work remotely, I don't see why that is so terrible. If I worked remotely in a town, it means I'd work in the town.

If I lived in and worked remotely in the Park, it would also mean that I'd buy groceries and gas and eat the the diner in that town. I'd be spending most of my money locally and helping "brick and mortar" businesses in that town. I'd be helping the sales tax base and the employment rate. I'd be volunteering for local organizations in that town, just as I do in my current town. That's what living in a place entails. In fact, I'd spend MORE of my money locally than if, say, I lived inside the Park but commuted to Albany or Plattsburgh for my job.

Isn't this what Park municipalities should want? People committed to living there full-time and being a part of the community? *smh*

[montcalm]

I hope someone is willing to pursue this. And that towns incentivize this. I live just outside the southeastern edge of Blue Line. I wanted move inside the Park. But the rental units (for living, not vacationing) were very limited, plus Internet was an issue, as I work from home. So I ended up moving to another place just outside the Blue Line. If there were more alternatives, I'd love to move further north. Something like you describe could work for someone like me.

Sorry I can't let this go... it's just...


So you want towns to implement programs to provide housing for you so you can work remotely? Like every other person that is buying up land and raising the price of real estate relative to those that actually work in the towns?



Just a suggestion, read what TCD wrote a few posts back. One of the best and most honest things he's posted, and non-political as well (we may not see eye to eye on a lot, but I meet him right in the middle there). That's probably your best bet of actually living inside the blue line. Asking the local governments to subsidize you existing to be there because you want to be, and not because you are directly working there, is 110% not what these programs are meant to fix. Talk about missing the picture.


And just to drive it home. Say towns did do something like that. They couldn't build the houses fast enough to fill them with the number of people that would come and work "remotely" there, so automatically that demand would drive up the price and you'd be exactly where you are now. You like it because you think it will benefit your motives but it has no real basis in long-term community and economy.

[saabrian]

They don't have to be dorms as most think of them. Someone could build what basically would look like a 1950's motel (the individual cabins clustered in one area, just having enough to be a full time living vs. a place to stay travelling) and rent or sell those out.

They would be smaller than most "regular" houses, thus cheaper to build and maintain, and being a group in one spot they would have lower taxes (less land with each).

I hope someone is willing to pursue this. And that towns incentivize this. I live just outside the southeastern edge of Blue Line. I wanted move inside the Park. But the rental units (for living, not vacationing) were very limited, plus Internet was an issue, as I work from home. So I ended up moving to another place just outside the Blue Line. If there were more alternatives, I'd love to move further north. Something like you describe could work for someone like me.

[montcalm]

Perhaps one other idea I have as well from the state level would be to provide (extremely) low interest loans or grants for housing to those who work in the park.

This then becomes less centralized to the community.

[montcalm]

As a relatively recent escapee from southern NY, I was surprised to find that RE taxes in Elizabethtown are about the same as on Long Island, for a home with the same(ish) market value!
Someone else here suggested just buying a piece of land and getting a house built. That's what I thought I would do after losing many purchases to other buyers, but building my house ended costing more than the houses I had rejected!

It varies all over, but many places I've researched are not this way wrt to tax rates.

Either way, I think some are missing the point that raising taxes or should I say, perhaps equalizing taxes should be done to meet the required town budget while factoring in a relief program for those who work (and have lower income) in the park.

If the towns want to screw themselves with poor political choices, that's on them. The state's role in this should only be that of limiting development and making sure current development preserves nature. Blaming the state for all the problems in the Adirondacks very much reminds me of the meme in which the person puts the stick in their own bicycle spokes.

As far as the last statement, I'll admit some hypocrisy here, but really that in some sense becomes a problem. The cost of developing new land, in the park, should always be far more than already developed land to be in line with Article 14.

I used to think this land development was a minor issue, but the more I think about it, I really do recall literally watching the sprawl happen around the Fulton chain, which was already vastly developed. But in the late 80s, that was largely contained to the lakes themselves. In more recent years a number of what I recall as "$300k" vacation homes popped up on newly developed housing tracts e.g. Dan Bar Acres et. al.

[MTVhike]

As a relatively recent escapee from southern NY, I was surprised to find that RE taxes in Elizabethtown are about the same as on Long Island, for a home with the same(ish) market value!
Someone else here suggested just buying a piece of land and getting a house built. That's what I thought I would do after losing many purchases to other buyers, but building my house ended costing more than the houses I had rejected!

[Bunchberry]

We must remember that the Adirondacks are heavily influenced by government regulation so they may need some additional government intervention to provide housing for the people that actually live in the Adirondacks. When the park was created remote work and verbo did not exist.

[chairrock]

The land value increase from gentrification can easily exceed the price of what the family living there can afford.

Yes, and the market will determine the real estate prices and the wages....OR the govt. will allocate money to subsidize.....and who pays for that?

[billconner]

As I said, the LAND value may go up (which would raise taxes a bit), but since that is only a small part of the total value it won't make a major difference.

The house itself is NOT worth any more just because there is a big one nearby!

IF someone bought the property and REPLACED the house with a larger one, then of course the value would change - this is talking about someone who already owns the house and is not changing it.

The land value increase from gentrification can easily exceed the price of what the family living there can afford.

[Wldrns]

However, when the multi-million $ homeeowners move in, they demand cityfied services of new water llines, sewers, well paved roads, city parks, pools, street lights (oh God no, please not that) upgraded fire and police protection, day care, nearby high end education schools and other education opportunities,upgraded communications services, and all kinds of expensive add-ons to normal life. Those excesses are not commonly found in small hamlet living, to be paid for with increased taxes to all residents. They leave the city life for "simple" rural pleasures, yet they want to bring the city with them.

Regarding the dormatory style living/apartments. google Soviet Union era housing in Eastern Bloc countries to see how well that all worked out for citizen's living conditions and the environment.

[DuctTape]

In some areas the land value is a small percentage of the total value, in other areas it can be a high percentage.

[BillyGr]

Of course the total taxes go up. A dump surrounded by expensive real estate is worth more. Assessed value should relate to market value. They're called million dollar tear downs.

As I said, the LAND value may go up (which would raise taxes a bit), but since that is only a small part of the total value it won't make a major difference.

The house itself is NOT worth any more just because there is a big one nearby!

IF someone bought the property and REPLACED the house with a larger one, then of course the value would change - this is talking about someone who already owns the house and is not changing it.

[billconner]

That makes no sense. If your house is much smaller than that million dollar one, it will never be valued the same.

The value of the land might go up a little, but that is only a small portion of the overall value - the majority of it is the building and that won't be worth more just because there is a large one near it.

Of course the total taxes go up. A dump surrounded by expensive real estate is worth more. Assessed value should relate to market value. They're called million dollar tear downs.

[BillyGr]

Property taxes typically are based solely on assessed Property Value, however a year round resident making 30-40K a year can't afford property worth several hundred thousand dollars or more with the taxes attached to it. When your neighbor builds a million dollar home next door to your small cabin in the woods, your property values increase to a point the taxes on them become confiscatory and you can lose your home. Need to have a circuit breaker for property taxes based on some other variable(s) such as family income, provided the person(s) on that property are year-round residents actually living & working there in community too. I'm sure this isn't the first time this idea has been heard.

That makes no sense. If your house is much smaller than that million dollar one, it will never be valued the same.

The value of the land might go up a little, but that is only a small portion of the overall value - the majority of it is the building and that won't be worth more just because there is a large one near it.

I have no objection to the dorm idea. Every little bit helps. It's great for certain groups - primarily younger and single. But is it going to be that appealing for a parent or couple with kids? Every little bit helps. But I am skeptical this is going to make much of a difference generally. Maybe in specific places.

"It's not fun but..." is not really a great marketing ploy. It pretty much guarantees that dorms are going to be viewed as temporary and of last resort. That does not really bode well for its longer term impact. I assume we want people to move to the Adks for work... and stay there!

They don't have to be dorms as most think of them. Someone could build what basically would look like a 1950's motel (the individual cabins clustered in one area, just having enough to be a full time living vs. a place to stay travelling) and rent or sell those out.

They would be smaller than most "regular" houses, thus cheaper to build and maintain, and being a group in one spot they would have lower taxes (less land with each)

Not to mention heating in addition to gasoline. I use to get oil bills around $400. Last week's was over $1000. Don't think dorms work for a family of 4 but like the Star program thoughts.

Fuel oil is a concern. We need to get off that stuff although I?m sure a number of people in the region are invested in this and the alternatives are not cheap.

It is expensive at the moment - doesn't mean it will stay that way. Luckily, this is the time of year most are using little (if any - only those who also heat water with it would) anyway, so that gives it time to readjust before the next heating season.

There are also ways to save on that - in fact, we had prepaid for ours last year and thus even if we were still getting that delivered today (not needing it now) it would have been only $2.82, no matter what the "market" price was! Quite a break from the current pricing, and it was never higher than that all year since last fall (and, had the actual price gone lower, it would adjust that way as well, so you aren't stuck with a high price).
Probably not all companies offer that, but certainly worth checking around to see if one in your area does.