GOP leadership wanted to wait until chair returned from vacation

By Guy Page

It’s not often that you see Vermont House Speaker Jill Krowinski gobsmacked in the middle of a floor session of the Vermont House of Representatives. 

It happened yesterday, Thursday February 5, when Rep. Gina Galfetti (R-Barre Town) tried to pull out of House Environment and onto the floor a bill she says is a common-sense solution to the existing 30% by 2030, 50% by 2050 total land area conservation mandate. 

The video can be seen at the 14:25 mark on the You Tube post of the February 5 House session. 

H.70 was introduced over a year ago by Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell) and co-sponsored by a slew of Republicans, including Galfetti. It would get Vermont to its mandated 50% conservation of total land area by the simple expedient of including land now enrolled in ‘current use’ – AKA farmland and forestland taxed at its use value, not its development value. 

Vermont is committed by law to having 50% of total land area conserved by 2050, thanks to a  bill introduced and shepherded into law several years ago by House Environment Chair Amy Sheldon. The law closely follows a U.N. based 50 x 50 initiative.

Sheldon, however, is on vacation. To Galfetti, it seemed a golden opportunity to flag the chair’s absence during the middle of the legislative session, and to at least get a roll call House vote of some kind on liberating Vermont landowners from the 50 x 50 mandate.

“I wanted to highlight the fact that she’s on vacation when there’s important work to be done,” Galfetti told VDC today. Her decision was met with concern not only by Krowinski, but by GOP House leadership, which preferred to raise concern about the non-action on H.70 after Sheldon returned from vacation.

Regarding the appeal of including current use in 50×50 – “We’re only at 27 percent for the 30 x 30. We won’t get close to 50 x 50 unless we include land for current use. They’re trying to achieve permanently controlled land and take forest land owners into either complete conservation plans or ceding the land to another entity, like a land trust. We’d be at 55% if we included current use.”

Galfetti’s initiative apparently came as a shock to Krowinski. There was a pause. A stammer. Dead air on the House video broadcast. An explanation that it’s been a while since she’s had to handle a request like this. Finally, a recess. 

The eventual roll call in the House Journal requested by Rep. Joe Parsons (R-Newbury) eventually showed the Democrats (and a handful of GOP chairs and vice-chairs) having none of either a procedural or land-conservation end-around:

No

Arsenault of Williston

Austin of Colchester

Bartholomew of Hartland

Berbeco of Winooski

Birong of Vergennes

Bishop of Colchester

Black of Essex

Bluemle of Burlington

Bos-Lun of Westminster

Boyden of Cambridge

Brady of Williston

Brown of Richmond

Burke of Brattleboro

Burkhardt of South Burlington

Campbell of St. Johnsbury

Canfield of Fair Haven

Carris Duncan of Whitingham

Casey of Montpelier

Cina of Burlington

Cole of Hartford

Conlon of Cornwall

Corcoran of Bennington

Critchlow of Colchester

Dodge of Essex

Dolan of Essex Junction

Duke of Burlington

Durfee of Shaftsbury

Emmons of Springfield

Garofano of Essex

Goldman of Rockingham

Goodnow of Brattleboro

Graning of Jericho

Greer of Bennington

Harple of Glover

Headrick of Burlington

Holcombe of Norwich

Hooper of Randolph

Houghton of Essex Junction

Howard of Rutland City

Hunter of Manchester

Kimbell of Woodstock

Kleppner of Burlington

Kornheiser of Brattleboro

Krasnow of South Burlington

Lalley of Shelburne

LaLonde of South Burlington

LaMont of Morristown

Long of Newfane

Lueders of Lincoln

Marcotte of Coventry

Masland of Thetford

McCann of Montpelier

McCoy of Poultney

McGill of Bridport

Mihaly of Calais

Minier of South Burlington

Morris of Springfield

Morrow of Weston

Nigro of Bennington

Noyes of Wolcott

Nugent of South Burlington

O’Brien of Tunbridge

Pezzo of Colchester

Pinsonault of Dorset

Pouech of Hinesburg

Priestley of Bradford

Rachelson of Burlington

Satcowitz of Randolph

Scheu of Middlebury

Sibilia of Dover

Stevens of Waterbury

Stone of Burlington

Sweeney of Shelburne

Tomlinson of Winooski

Torre of Moretown

Walker of Swanton

Waszazak of Barre City

Waters Evans of Charlotte

White of Bethel

White of Waitsfield

Wood of Waterbury

Yacovone of Morristown

Chapin of East Montpelier *

James of Manchester *

Ode of Burlington *

Olson of Starksboro *

Several Democrats explained their votes (that’s what the asterisk in the House Journal means):

“I vote No because the use value appraisal program is different than permanent land conservation and because the committee process would be critical to adequately considering the impact of this bill just assigned to House Committee on Environment less than two weeks ago,” Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier) said. 

“I vote no. Vermonters have a tradition of hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreating on the lands of our great State,” Rep. Carol Ode (Burlington) said. 

Yes

Bailey of Hyde Park

Bartley of Fairfax

Bosch of Clarendon

Boutin of Barre City

Branagan of Georgia

Burtt of Cabot

Casey of Hubbardton

Charlton of Chester

Coffin of Cavendish

Demar of Enosburgh

Dickinson of St. Albans Town

Dobrovich of Williamstown

Dolgin of St. Johnsbury

Donahue of Northfield

Feltus of Lyndon

Goslant of Northfield

Gregoire of Fairfield

Hango of Berkshire

Harvey of Castleton

Higley of Lowell

Howland of Rutland Town

Kascenska of Burke

Keyser of Rutland City

Labor of Morgan

Laroche of Franklin

Lipsky of Stowe

Luneau of St. Albans City

Maguire of Rutland City

Malay of Pittsford

McFaun of Barre Town

Micklus of Milton

Morgan of Milton

Morgan of Milton

Morrissey of Bennington

Nielsen of Brandon

North of Ferrisburgh

Oliver of Sheldon

Page of Newport City

Parsons of Newbury

Powers of Waterford

Pritchard of Pawlet

Southworth of Walden

Steady of Milton

Tagliavia of Corinth

Taylor of Mendon

Taylor of Milton

Winter of Ludlow

Galfetti of Barre Town *

The problem with the 50 x 50 mandate is that “You would have to wrest control from private landowners,” Galfetti told VDC today. “I think taking away land rights from property owners is fundamentally flawed, and not rewarding the generational stewards of farms and foresters is anti-Vermont.”

“It’s just another example of passing arbitrary laws with goals that we have no idea how to meet. And when a solution is proposed, it was never considered – that was H.70, which has been hanging on the wall since last January. We’re offering a common-sense solution.”