Vermont’s Mormon megacity called off after preservationists sound the alarm | Hacker News Reader

Vermont’s Mormon megacity called off after preservationists sound the alarm

archpaper.com

50 pointslando231932 comments

I'm Mormon, live in Utah, and am fairly involved in Mormon culture. I've never heard of this project except via Hacker News. If an LDS builder has a plan to build a community, it doesn't mean he's trying to populate it with Mormons. He's even quoted as saying so in the OP.

This has nothing to do with Mormonism. Reporting trying to trace a connection is merely pandering to the fact that Mormons being weird makes for a more interesting article, and earned your click.

This sort of thing happens when people try to build large amounts of housing in the US pretty much anywhere. It's a strategic ploy to drive up housing prices, enriching landlords and homeowners at the expense of renters and young people.

Uhhh, 'more homes' is absolutely the last thing any landlords want as it does the exact opposite of 'driving up home prices'. Especially given this is a new development, there's no erstwhile 'home prices' to drive up ...

The “city” would be carved out of four other cities mentioned in the article. Not only would these new developments compete with those existing areas, it would compete with any planned developments, or potential developments that opponents would prefer to build in the described “city” of only they could acquire the land.

Though, I think the grandparent comment meant that blocking new home construction is a ploy to increase home prices and harm renters and the young.

In absolute terms there would almost assuredly be more homes than less in that scenario - thereby putting downward pressure on housing costs, not upward. This is Economics.

Moreover - there is no real competition for land (specific plots and waterside aside). Even in Vermont's largest urban area (Burlington) you can literally go one kilometre in any direction and find tons of open space, even you go a few more, it's empty.

Developers can go almost anywhere - if one spot taken, you can literally walk in almost any direction and find suitable land.

Which is at least partly why places like Vermont have average home prices of $192K and California (mostly urban) has average home prices of nearly double that. [1][2]

In light of the basic economics here, the parent commenter has the onus to prove his more cynical position that this is 'all some kind of evil rent ploy'.

Because it's not, and if it were, it would be the dumbest ploy ever, because there's no surplus control or surplus capture. People can build next door to move outside of the supposed economic control.

[1] https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ [2] https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article132559...

I don't think it's conscious ploy by people to drive up housing prices - most of the people who tend to object the most are those who have lived in an area their whole life and intend to live there until they die, and so they won't realize any house price appreciation within their lifetime. Rather, I think they actually mean what they say: they will miss the open wilderness and historic character of the area if it's developed into a new-age urban development.

The reason that such trifling (to outsiders) concerns can actually block housing developments is because there's a strong selection bias in land-use planning. Current residents get a vote, while future residents get no vote. Moreover, current residents often have strong relationships and lots of friends within the area, so they may get more than one vote. So democratically, the loss of undeveloped wilderness in some other area of your town counts more than the gain to a non-resident of having a place to live.

> The charming village centers and idyllic surrounding farms and forests in four historic towns,” reads the Trust’s statement, “would be permanently altered by a development proposal calling for construction of a new planned community in this rural part of Vermont.”

Disgusting. The proposed development would be so much more ecologically friendly than spreading those same residents around sprawling “idyllic” “villages.” Not to mention that I doubt many of those “idyllic” existing stuctures have modern levels of energy efficiency. I don’t know why the Trust hates the environment so much.

Probably for a couple of reasons. One, an outsider, two Mormons, three it's different and upsets the local idea of how to live amongst nature.

Anyway, looks like a similar development experiment is still on schedule near Brigham Young in UT.

With the 200 square foot apartments idea I'm really not sure this was going to go far....

Meekness is a positive trait in the LDS church.

I have met a fair number of fantastic people who were/are members of the Church but I saw how many folks struggled under its influence and expectations.

The worst aspect of Utah LDS culture is the social shunning if you leave the church.

> Meekness is a positive trait in the LDS church.

Nominally, sure, just like other Christian religions. There are still plenty of big expensive houses in the Salt Lake area.

I would argue that the worst part of their culture is their pattern of transferring an entirely confused notion of reality onto their children.

Mitt Romney is very meek indeed.

Joseph Smith threatening 'I will be killed by angel with a flaming sword, if you don't do your duty and become my 15th wife', is also 'meek'.

As an ex-mormon, (I was 100% in 2 years ago, and believed everything, I also didn't know about Polyandry, Book of Abraham, Joseph's Polygamy (was told it started w/ BY and ended at 1890's), member since I was 14 (38 now), never missed a day of Seminary, but there's so many things they tell you, that's just not true or correct.

The CESLetter.com is a major eye-opener.

> The proposed development would be so much more ecologically friendly than spreading those same residents around sprawling “idyllic” “villages.”

Per Wikipedia, the four towns the land is drawn from have a total population of 6,629 people, so a development of 15-20k isn't just accommodating "those same residents", but increasing the area's population several times over.

Those same residents are not coming to VT now, so there will be no village sprawl.

More ecofriendly than spreading them around, but less ecofriendly than not having those residents at all. So it depends what the alternatives are.

And also, they never claimed to be concerned with the global environment. Only with the character of their immediate locale.

Baffling why Vermont's population is aging rapidly, given its "charming village centers and idyllic surrounding farms and forests in four historic towns." This is what young people crave. Millenials just can't get enough charm/farms.

Millennial here. More interested in unfettered wilderness, safe bike routes, and good places to eat than charm/farms.

I'm joking. this is clearly the agenda of retirees and busybodies trying to keep things just the way they are, to the detriment of young people.

Because of course it's a good idea to chase off extremely low crime demographics. What a smart move! /ssssss

I'm sure this ain't breaking the hearts of most Mormons anyways. Utah will take them with open arms.

Mormons are decent people overall, but the church is still officially quite homophobic. I wouldn't really want 200,000 (or even a significant percentage of that) homophobic voters moving in next door to me. I like having civil rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com