[HN Gopher] Where are vacation homes located in the US?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Where are vacation homes located in the US?
        
       Author : rufus_foreman
       Score  : 65 points
       Date   : 2025-07-26 18:00 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.construction-physics.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.construction-physics.com)
        
       | AdventureMouse wrote:
       | TL;DR In Florida
        
         | the__alchemist wrote:
         | And less dramatically, states that have a coast (ocean, gulf,
         | or large lake)
        
           | quickthrowman wrote:
           | Or an abundance of lakes like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
           | Michigan, which are also Great Lakes states.
           | 
           | Finland also has a high amount of vacation homes on lakeshore
           | property, and I would guess that pretty much any area with
           | glacial lakes within hours of population centers will have
           | lots of vacation homes.
        
         | tzs wrote:
         | That's the TL;DR for the least interesting part of the article
         | since most would expect Florida to have the most.
         | 
         | It's well known as a major state to retire to, and many of the
         | things that make a place attractive as a retirement destination
         | also make it attractive as a vacation home location. And it is
         | a high population state so when comparing by absolute numbers
         | it would be the most obvious candidate for most vacation homes.
         | 
         | The interesting part is where it looks at percentage of homes
         | in the state that are vacation homes. Florida is high by that
         | measure too at 8.2%, but behind Maine and Vermont which are
         | each over 15%, and New Hampshire at over 10%.
         | 
         | It is even a little behind Alaska (8.9%) and Delaware (8.6%). I
         | bet not many people would have guessed that Alaska has a higher
         | percentage of vacation homes that Florida.
         | 
         | Hawaii is also interesting. It has twice the population of
         | Alaska, but only slightly more vacation homes (31.6k vs 29.2k).
        
           | fn-mote wrote:
           | > Hawaii is also interesting. It has twice the population of
           | Alaska, but only slightly more vacation homes (31.6k vs
           | 29.2k).
           | 
           | Common sense reasoning: people cannot afford to have their
           | vacation home in Hawaii.
           | 
           | High prices, long and expensive flights.
        
             | fragmede wrote:
             | Yes but it's _Hawaii_. Common sense reasoning only lets you
             | conclude that rich people have vacation homes in Hawaii,
             | not some specific percentage relative to the rest of the
             | states. I bet it if the math was done based on vacation
             | land area, Hawaii would come up near the top, given Lanai.
             | Probably places like Montana too.
        
               | radpanda wrote:
               | > I bet it if the math was done based on vacation land
               | area, Hawaii would come up near the top, given Lanai
               | 
               | I'd be shocked if the parcels that Larry Ellison owns on
               | Lanai are classified in a way that would show up as a
               | vacation home. Typically rich large landowners in Hawaii
               | are "gentleman farmers" who (ab)use agricultural tax
               | loopholes.
               | 
               | https://jacobin.com/2023/06/agriculture-property-tax-
               | break-u...
        
           | matwood wrote:
           | FL, ME, and VT also allow for weather arbitrage. People
           | winter in FL and summer in places like ME and VT.
        
       | 42772827 wrote:
       | The largest generation in US history is retiring and buying
       | property in the state with no income tax.
        
         | ceejayoz wrote:
         | And a corresponding level of services.
        
         | cpursley wrote:
         | This is not even logical, retired people don't have incomes.
         | Anyways, they get them with insane property taxes.
        
           | koolba wrote:
           | Not quite. Retired people have deferred income in IRAs and
           | 401(k)s that can be claimed at their leisure after 59.5 years
           | old. So if you deferred taxes from a high tax State and then
           | get the income in a no-tax State, you saved on taxes.
        
             | cpursley wrote:
             | True but generally this is lower than their W-2 was.
        
               | koolba wrote:
               | The point is that you finally have control of where are
               | when you realize the income.
        
           | karakot wrote:
           | Income from Social Security benefits and 401(k)s are taxable.
        
           | righthand wrote:
           | Depends on what you mean by retired. In the traditional sense
           | you're correct, retired people don't have income. In the
           | legal sense retirement just means the person is of age to
           | collect benefits. But there is also the question of type of
           | income.
           | 
           | If a retired person owns property and sells it, that is
           | income subject to capital gains tax.
           | 
           | If a person is retired but still owns the business or is even
           | still a board member, they're still working in a sense and
           | gaining shares.
           | 
           | There are plenty of "retired" people who are "working" and
           | have income.
        
             | ghaff wrote:
             | Or at least not much income. But they still probably have
             | dividends/interest. May well have annuities of various
             | kinds. Probably not much W-2 income but probably some
             | material cash-flow, especially if they have a vacation
             | home.
        
           | terminalshort wrote:
           | Depends how much money you retired with. When the ratio of
           | your net worth to the cost of a house is high enough,
           | property taxes are trivial. Let's say you have $50 million
           | and you earn 7% a year on that. That's $3.5 million a year.
           | Well worth it to live in FL to save the $350K you would lose
           | every year in NY / CA.
        
             | toast0 wrote:
             | Anything that involves living in FL isn't really worth it
             | :P
        
               | cpursley wrote:
               | Yes, yes - terrible place. Horrible beaches, rivers, etc.
               | Too many snakes, gators and mosquitoes. And we're all
               | full.
        
           | fragmede wrote:
           | New York state has a number of exemptions for property tax
           | for seniors (65+), which seems like a better mechanism than
           | California's prop 13.
        
         | PopAlongKid wrote:
         | This explains very little. State income tax is based on your
         | state of residence, not where you have a vacation home, in
         | which by definition you do not live most of the year. Further,
         | it makes no sense to refer to "the state with no income tax",
         | as there are many of those.
         | 
         | Granted, there are some working-age people who buy a vacation
         | home with the thought of moving into it permanently a decade or
         | two into the future, but those plans entail a lot of
         | uncertainty (health, closeness to family) and of course once
         | they move, it is no longer a vacation home.
        
           | xhkkffbf wrote:
           | When they retire, they sell their house in the place with the
           | job and move full time to the no tax state.
        
             | jaxn wrote:
             | So, no income tax right when you have less income?
        
               | xhkkffbf wrote:
               | But when you have less money, every dollar counts. The
               | income tax in places like Cali or NYS can be huge because
               | it eats into the disposable income. It could easy cut
               | your disposable income in half or maybe eat it all.
        
           | dgrin91 wrote:
           | Or you spend 6 months + 1 day in your 0 tax state (possibly
           | with some creative accounting) and the rest in high income
           | tax state.
        
           | garciasn wrote:
           | > as there are many of those.
           | 
           | Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota,
           | Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming do not have income
           | taxes. Less than 20% isn't 'many' to me but I realize YMMV.
        
             | majormajor wrote:
             | 9 is "many" if you're using "THE state with no income tax"
             | as a singular noun.
        
         | pengaru wrote:
         | > The largest generation in US history is retiring and buying
         | property in the state with no income tax.
         | 
         | Millenials are retiring already?
        
       | thechao wrote:
       | Dear map makers who show us by-state break-downs: normalize by
       | the population. The first map tells me this: New York, Florida,
       | and Texas have large populations.
        
         | rufus_foreman wrote:
         | Second map is "Percent of housing units that are vacation
         | homes".
        
           | fn-mote wrote:
           | My point would be: the second map belongs in the article
           | because it is informative. The first one does not.
        
         | jowea wrote:
         | Is that appropriate in this case? I would expect lots of
         | vacation homes be owned by people out of state.
        
         | fragmede wrote:
         | https://xkcd.com/1138/
        
       | roxolotl wrote:
       | I'm glad that Maine lives up to its Vacationland slogan
        
       | unsnap_biceps wrote:
       | I knew numerous people that have a vacation home in Florida due
       | to their parents retiring there and then passing away. They
       | decide to hold onto the house/condo as an investment rather than
       | using it in any way. Given how many people were retiring to
       | Florida, I wonder how many vacation homes there are due to this
       | rather than being the preferred purchasing location for younger
       | generations.
        
       | brudgers wrote:
       | If you are have an objective squint, a lot of vacation homes have
       | wheels. Per Google AI just prior to pasting:
       | 
       |  _As of 2024, there are an estimated 11.2 million RV-owning
       | households in the U.S., according to Emergency Assistance Plus._
       | 
       | That's more than double the 4.8 million mentioned in the
       | article...and theoretically some households could own more than
       | two. But modulo RV's are also used for work travel particularly
       | when it comes to construction.
       | 
       | Like anything relating to housing and real-estate, it's
       | complicated.
        
       | khuey wrote:
       | This is interesting, but one axis it's missing is that in some
       | places the "vacation homes" aren't actually habitable year round.
       | Quite a few cabins in Maine are neither insulated nor heated for
       | the winters, are only accessible via roads that aren't maintained
       | during the winter, etc. I'm not familiar with the area but I
       | would guess that Minnesota's Lake Country and other similar
       | places have the same thing going on.
        
         | scythe wrote:
         | This also occurs in the Rockies:
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal,_Gunnison_County,_Colo...
        
           | garciasn wrote:
           | Happens here in MN too. I own a vacation home that used to be
           | a fishing resort in the 40s-70s and now shares water / septic
           | with 5 other cabins; we turn the water off mid-Oct to end of
           | April because the lines are only buried about 2 feet deep.
           | 
           | Having a three-season place is pretty common here.
        
       | terminalshort wrote:
       | I suspect the "vacation" homes on Manhattan are really mostly
       | empty luxury units for foreign rich people to park money in the
       | US. "Billionaires Row" near Central Park is half empty for just
       | this reason.
        
         | vintermann wrote:
         | Shower thought, maybe bitcoin is actually good for the
         | environment, if it replaces even more wasteful ways of trying
         | to park wealth.
        
           | czhu12 wrote:
           | It's not really "parking" wealth since property taxes are
           | still collected every year on these properties, which fund
           | other city programs, unlike other asset classes like stocks
           | and crypto.
           | 
           | Presumably if the residents don't even live there, then they
           | are massive net contributors to the tax base
        
             | xhkkffbf wrote:
             | A lot of vacation towns have pretty good school systems
             | thanks to the fact that many of the people who pay the real
             | estate tax don't send their kids to the schools.
        
       | snowwrestler wrote:
       | The article cites the availability of air conditioning as a major
       | factor in vacation home trends. Prior to AC, escaping heat was
       | the main purpose to have a vacation home. That's why so many
       | vacation homes are near old major cities like Philadelphia, New
       | York, Boston, Chicago, etc. In the summer, families with money
       | escaped to the mountains or the beach, where it was much more
       | pleasant during the hot months.
       | 
       | I would guess that another huge factor has been the decline in
       | the real cost of air travel. It's now cheap enough that people
       | with money can reasonably expect to fly somewhere for every
       | vacation they want to take. You don't need a condo near the local
       | ski resort if you can fly to a different one every winter.
       | 
       | In fact, I feel buying property in one vacation spot is starting
       | to look more like an anchor than an escape hatch. Keeping capital
       | in securities instead is more liquid and less expensive (stocks
       | don't have roofs or plumbing). Let someone else own the hotel or
       | AirBnB or VRBO. I'll fly in and rent it just for the vacation.
       | This mindset may partially explain why vacation home ownership
       | has not "kept up" with the growth in real wealth.
        
         | MrDarcy wrote:
         | This is a win win win for all involved, owner, renter, and
         | Airbnb. I converted stocks into a vacation home on puget sound
         | and rent it out when we aren't using it. Demand is high enough
         | that we don't need to rent it out months in advance so we still
         | feel like it's mostly ours and we're not just another guest
         | fitting into Airbnb's schedule.
         | 
         | To your point I liked the liquidity of equities but it has been
         | nice to do something with it beyond just watching a number in a
         | spreadsheet. If we want a change in scenery it's a wash to rent
         | our own place out and stay in another.
        
           | yieldcrv wrote:
           | Liquidity is a major factor for me thats kept me out of real
           | estate in the past, have the money burning AI buyers helped
           | make home trading more liquid?
        
         | apwell23 wrote:
         | > You don't need a condo near the local ski resort if you can
         | fly to a different one every winter.
         | 
         | lodging at a ski resort is still very expensive though. I think
         | i makes sense to buy one if you ski ~100 days/year and airbnb
         | out rest of the time. Lots of ski resorts now have summer
         | activities like mtb and hiking too.
         | 
         | and ski resorts usually are sentimental purchases.
        
           | ghaff wrote:
           | 100 days/year is a huge amount. I don't really downhill any
           | longer but I'd have very little interest in getting a place
           | for a lot less than that for the purposes of stashing my
           | gear.
        
         | yieldcrv wrote:
         | I've been to many old mansion estates, and in hotter climates
         | the maid staff would have the upstairs rooms with potentially
         | the best rooms. (Although the rooms were designed to be
         | afterthoughts for maids.) I found that interesting, whats
         | desirable has completely flipped based on our ability to make
         | it comfortable.
        
           | anon7000 wrote:
           | I mean, attics and top floors with no AC often get
           | swelteringly lot because heat rises
        
             | arccy wrote:
             | plus heat transfer from the sun through the roof
        
         | ghaff wrote:
         | I came to that conclusion years ago. I guess that for a family
         | or group of friends, a ski condo could maybe make sense--or for
         | literal snowbirds that migrated with the season.
         | 
         | But the conclusion I came to years ago was that who wanted to
         | be tied down to a particular location or urban location for
         | vacation. Yeah, it's not cheap but more-so than owning and
         | having to deal with a second home.
        
       | tayo42 wrote:
       | If I got a vacation home it would probably be in Puerto Rico. Not
       | part of the analysis.
       | 
       | Then figure out a way to get out of income tax.
        
         | toast0 wrote:
         | If you are a bone fide resident of Puerto Rico, you generally
         | aren't subject to federal income tax. The commonwealth has an
         | income tax though... depending on your income, it might be more
         | or less than the federal tax; the top rate is lower, but the
         | brackets are smaller so you get to the top rate sooner.
        
       | furyofantares wrote:
       | I'd guess the ones in Alaska are rentals for seasonal workers. I
       | understand there are tourist areas that are largely unpopulated
       | in the winter and populated mostly by seasonal workers in the
       | summer (some of whom work in Hawaii the other half of the year).
        
       | phkahler wrote:
       | There are a number of retired people that bounce between Michigan
       | and Florida (or Arizona) depending on the season. You might say
       | they have 2 vacation homes :-)
        
       | owenversteeg wrote:
       | The most interesting part of this is the map of census tracts
       | that shows how most vacation homes are tightly grouped.
       | 
       | For example, Florida has a lot of vacation homes (8% of the
       | state's housing vs 3% nationwide), but the vast majority of
       | Florida census tracts have a tiny proportion and vacation homes
       | are the majority in a few small areas. In some areas, the
       | proportion of vacation homes seems to follow population density
       | (gulf coast of Florida), and in other areas it follows the
       | _inverse_ of population density (northern Maine.)
       | 
       | What I think would be really interesting is a map of distance to
       | primary home by census tract. Obviously Florida vacation
       | homeowners are mostly from far away and in New England they live
       | closer, but what about all the other areas?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-07-26 23:01 UTC)