Dear Readers:

Vermonters want the Property Tax System to be fair and reasonable. We also want a solid education system for our kids, not closed local schools and long bus rides. Vermonters also think we can provide a high quality education with better efficiency and lower some costs. 

In 2024, most Vermonters saw an unacceptably large increase in their property tax bills. Current law adjusts property tax payments for Vermonters whose household incomes are under $115,000.  Public Assets Institute finds that most households with incomes under $150,000 pay about 3% of their income toward the school portion of property taxes.  However, as household incomes rise higher than $150,000, the percentage of income paid goes down.  For instance, households with incomes of $500,000 pay about 1.5% of their income.  At $1 million, they pay about ½ of 1% (.005%). This means 99% of us, average Vermonters, pay a much higher percentage than the wealthiest among us. This can be fixed to make the property tax system more fair.

One obvious option for providing additional relief to struggling Vermonters is to require second-home owners to pay more. While this idea is in the law, it only becomes effective if the radical changes to local control are implemented.  There is no need to make this link. Folks who can afford a second home can certainly afford to contribute more; to support the vibrancy of the local community, support local kids, and save working class Vermonters some money.

With the two changes above, tremendous tax relief could be achieved for most Vermonters.

Local schools drive community health. Where has shutting one down ever made a community thrive?

Vermonters deeply value their local schools, which often serve as both educational institutions and community hubs. Residents of small rural towns have consistently supported their schools financially, within reason. These communities should not be penalized simply because we refuse to ask millionaires to contribute at the same rate as lower- and middle-income Vermonters. If we truly believe in equity and opportunity, we must ensure strong public education statewide—keeping every Vermont town thriving through well-supported local schools.

Vermonters do not want to completely upend our public education system, though they do want to save money and economize, combining resources where it makes sense. There are ways to do this without removing local control.

Vermonters don’t think that local schools should be closed due to politicians in Montpelier, using arbitrary class and school size minimums to do so. Only the voters of each town should make that determination.  Local control and local decision-making are, and always have been, a key component of Vermont’s democratic process.  

The process, outlined in Act 73, is moving forward with a Task Force that is currently developing redistricting options for the whole state. Their task is to lump approximately 300 public schools and 15-20 independent/private schools into 5 to 14 massive school districts.   The result will give Montpelier much more control, through the Agency of Education and the Legislature, to impose their plans on all of our local schools.  Local control will, effectively, no longer exist. And there is no evidence or guarantee that any money will be saved, nor taxes lowered, by this upheaval.

Ironically, shifting away from the current funding system will likely force smaller, poorer towns to pay higher property taxes while facing school closures. Most wealthier communities will pay less and see reduced school funding. With class size minimums imposed by politicians, many rural schools could close within five years, forcing students into long bus rides—an outcome few Vermonters find acceptable. Once this plan is adopted, likely in the next legislative session, reversing course will be extremely difficult. 

Vermonters can stop this government overreach. As the Legislature prepares for the upcoming session, we must unite to urge the Governor and lawmakers to prioritize fair taxation and take a more thoughtful, balanced approach to school reform. Our public education system is too vital to rush into sweeping changes.

-David Zuckerman, Hinesburg

To The Editor,

With the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk and other hateful acts aimed at those who are conservative, I can’t help but remember what President Richard M. Nixon said November 3, 1969 when he asked “the silent majority”, those who do not express their opinions publicly, for their support.

The silent majority is alive and well and probably even more silent now since there seems to be an abundance of very angry people out there who don’t care about how their actions hurt other people.  They only care about their own self-centered emotions.  The silent majority do not want to bring attention to themselves or their families for fear that some whacko with TDS may try to shoot them or run them over.  Fortunately, the silent majority can have the final say when they enter that voting booth because their vote is private unless you vote online.

Finally, I would like to remind other contributors to this paper that Kings are anointed but presidents are elected.  President Donald J. Trump was elected by a wide majority of the popular vote, won approximately 2800 counties out of 3142, (90%) and got 312 electoral votes.  With the continued swing leftward by the Democrat party, I can only see the silent majority growing larger as some middle of the road democrats come to their senses and leave that party of the fringe elements. 

-Bill Bruner, Hyde Park