As the November ballot approaches, the contest for Vermont’s top office has sharpened around two core issues: how to handle the growing stock of seasonal residences and how to stem a mounting healthcare crisis. Incumbent Republican Governor Phil Scott warns that new levies could scare wealthy owners away, while Democratic challenger Amanda Janoo argues that a targeted tax on vacation homes could unlock revenue for both affordable housing and a universal primary-care system.
Recent public opinion surveys reveal strong voter appetite for change. A Vermont Public Poll shows 57 % of respondents backing a second-home tax, while a University of New Hampshire poll records 55 % support. Yet the two campaigns remain far apart on implementation, each emphasizing different economic and demographic stakes.
Second-home tax: housing shortage versus tax-flight fears
Vermont classifies properties as either homestead (primary residences) or non-homestead (all other uses, including farms and commercial sites). The challenge lies in pinning down what counts as a second home. The Vermont Housing Finance Agency estimates that roughly 14 % of the state’s housing stock—about 50,000 units—are “seasonally vacant.”
Janoo proposes a new tax bracket that would target owners who do not occupy their properties for most of the year, aiming to encourage sales to local residents. She stresses that the highest rates should fall on private-equity funds and large corporate owners, whom she identifies as major drivers of price inflation. “We need to ensure that Vermonters, not distant investors, benefit from our limited housing,” she said.
Scott, who signed the bipartisan education-reform bill that created the new classification, remains skeptical. He worries that a hefty levy could push affluent homeowners out of state, eroding the tax base. “This looks like a knee-jerk reaction to raise money, not a long-term solution to our demographic challenges,” he warned, emphasizing the need for new construction rather than solely relying on taxation.
Healthcare proposals: universal primary care versus market-based reforms
Both candidates agree that soaring insurance premiums are squeezing families, but their remedies diverge sharply. Janoo envisions a state-funded, universal primary-care network financed by a 3 % income surcharge on roughly 2,500 households earning over $500,000. She estimates the measure would generate about $110 million annually, recouping recent federal tax cuts and providing a public benefit to address what she calls “the biggest crisis we have: our healthcare crisis.”
Scott, in contrast, champions regulatory tweaks that would allow businesses to form association health plans letting them pool together for better rates. In a recent executive order, he urged the state to study successful models elsewhere and adapt them to Vermont. He also points to expanded authority for the Green Mountain Care Board, which now has greater power to manage hospital budgets and curb cost overruns, though critics note that these changes have already contributed to layoffs in some facilities.
Both sides cite the aging and shrinking working-age population as underlying pressure. Scott argues that hospitals must adjust to a changing demographic and collaborate within a unified system, while Janoo stresses that a robust, publicly funded primary-care layer would reduce unnecessary specialist visits and hospital admissions.
Polling dynamics and the road to November
The latest Vermont Public poll places Scott ten points ahead of Janoo—42 % to 32 % among likely voters—marking a swing from a previous University of New Hampshire survey that had suggested a statistical tie. The poll also indicates that 16 % of respondents remain undecided, a sizable block that could swing the outcome as the campaign intensifies.
Political analysts note that Scott’s approval has slipped from 60 % in earlier years to the mid-40s, reflecting voter frustration over affordability, housing, and health-care costs. Nonetheless, his incumbency and reputation for fiscal prudence keep him ahead of a challenger who, despite an impressive grassroots surge, lacks the fundraising muscle to reach remote voters across the Green Mountain State.
As the debate stage approaches, both camps promise to lay out detailed plans. For Janoo, the focus will be on demonstrating how a second-home levy can be paired with universal primary care to create a more equitable Vermont. Scott, meanwhile, will likely underscore market-based reforms and the need for incremental, fiscally responsible measures. Voter sentiment on these twin issues will ultimately decide whether the 2026 election becomes a turning point for the state’s housing and health landscape.
