Young people “don’t want to live on pavement,” organizer John Rodgers tells VDC-TV
Act 250 revisions restricting housing in rural areas faces guv’s veto
By Guy Page
A ‘Tap Trees’ protest organizer rebuked the Legislature’s urban-only housing bias in an interview yesterday, May 8, the same day the House gave initial approval to a revision of Act 250, the state’s land use/housing development law.
Vermont’s young people deserve the opportunity to buy land and own a home, John Rodgers, an organizer of the ‘Tap Trees, Not Vermonters’ protest set for 11 AM – 2 PM today at the Vermont State House, said in VDC-TV yesterday.
The protest takes place after the House voted 99-32 to accept the Senate version of an Act 250 land use/housing ‘reform’ bill that critics say would only slow construction of much-needed affordable homes in rural Vermont, but would – after several years of regulatory preparation – allow some construction of new homes, including small apartment/duplex/condominiums, in some approved urban centers.
The bill faces a likely veto by Gov. Phil Scott. With the Senate voting with less than a 2/3 majority, and the House mustering 99 votes (with 19 representatives not voting), it is unclear whether the veto can be overridden by the required 2/3 majority.
After a flurry of last-minute amendments, the Senate approved H.687 Friday, May 3. A few days of House behind-the-scenes negotiating later – probably an attempt to secure the 100 votes needed to override a likely gubernatorial veto – the bill was put on the Action Calendar yesterday for a vote on concurrence with the Senate version same day.
The hasty concurrence with the Senate version bill – due to its importance to Supermajority House leadership and the impending adjournment Friday – disgusted Republican Art Peterson (R-Clarendon).
“We are reviewing a 29 page amendment, produced today, to an 167 page bill for a vote today. Absolutely irresponsible attempt to push the bill through,” he emailed VDC at 5:57 PM. Nevertheless, the bill passed Second Reading 99-32, shortly before the House adjourned about 9:36 PM. See roll call below. Peterson also registered his disappointment on the Floor:
“This bill is too large, too sweeping in scope, and simply not ready for enactment. In an end of biennium rush, bill H.687 is being crammed down the throats of Vermonters, leaving rural communities to suffer the consequences.”
Rep. Gina Galfetti (R-Barre) found the whole bill unacceptable: “This bill is a dumpster fire and signifies everything that is wrong with the unthoughtful law making of a super majority that has permeated this whole biennium.”
The Floor comment by H.687 author and sponsor Amy Sheldon (D-Middlebury), chair of the Environment and Energy Committee, reflects her strong commitment to protecting biodiversity: “Yes on H.687 to modernize our State land use framework to support human and natural communities as they adapt to a changing climate by establishing a location-based structure for state land use regulation that protects critical natural resources with encouraging economic development and housing.”
Hindering new home construction in rural Vermont is grossly unfair to young people, Rodgers said.
“They have to have a way to build wealth,” Rodgers said. “Home ownership is a way to build equity and wealth which will turn into intergenerational wealth. Without that, people are just working like dogs and they’re handing all their money over to some business or business owner. They never have a chance to build that wealth and equity and have a sense of place.”
And the buyers of newly-built homes will find themselves surrounded by pavement, not nature, Rodgers said.
“Most of these big housing developments [allowed under a revised Act 250] are in cities and villages, with no connection to Nature. The young people in my area want to have a small piece of land and a small house so that they can have a garden, maybe raise a few animals, be self-sufficient, be connected to Nature. They don’t want to live on pavement. I mean why would you come to Vermont if you wanted to live in a city? I know a lot of people like living in the city, God bless them, they can they can have it. I couldn’t live there. I’d feel like I was in a cage.”
H.687 Roll Call Yes and No votes follow party line – Just one Republican, Rutland City Rep. Eric Maguire, voted yes for H.687.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Housing, Legislation, Podcast
And here you are presented with the Obama/Biden “Equitable Housing” plan for Vermont, aka: high density housing tenements that will slowly but surely force middle income Americans into apartments where they share units with illegals, migrants, and low-income unemployed drifters.
Why? That’s “equity”. Personal achievement and investments and talents and hard work have NO place here in Obama’s USA any longer! His Communist mission is being fulfilled, his goal of radically transforming America is being realized, and gullible Vermonters who have advocated for this thinking that their children would somehow be able to own a home in the countryside with our altruistic government benevolently providing a hand-up to industrial citizens was NARY the objective.
This is precisely the type of housing you see in many locales within eastern Europe, parts of Asia, and in all former & current Communist domains. It is but MORE of the leftist march toward Communism presented as “equity” & “diversity” for all. This time it’s for Vermont!!!
Disclaimer: “Please note that these wonderous high-density, architecturally void projects will not be made available to people within the following areas: Chappaqua, NY, Oahu, Hawaii, Rehoboth Beach, DE, and in any and all other areas wherein privileged politicos who espouse Communism but do not themselves wish to live under the repressive & grim state of Communism after dedicating their lives to grifting and betraying the Constitution of the once-free Republic known as the United States of America reside. Blah, blah, blah, unless otherwise specified in writing which these overlords neither guarantee or warranty in any manner whatsoever anyway – after all, since the Constitution didn’t mean a hill of beans to these despots, what leads you to believe this document will.”
Enjoy, Vermont. Next time pay attention when you vote. McCarthy was RIGHT!
That’s industrious citizens, not industrial citizens, my profuse apologies.
they are not representing Vermont, they are following the dictates of the united nations through agenda 21.
Who do you think came up with the idea of tiny house? Why would you want your house mobile and tiny, with zero chance of normal financing and depreciation to boot! Why do you think the united nations wants you to be able to move your house?
These are dumb ideas, they make no sense, yet here we are.
Misty Knoll chickens have far more rights than vermont citizens
when you get a permit from the state or your local government to do some thing on your land ,you are signing a contract/// now, what idiot would sign a contract that is not in your best interest and also pay off a pack of fee sucking crooks ///
Act 250 was supposed to accomplish good things…protect the state from a host of bad stuff…right? I suppose we should have suspected that relinquishing our property rights could go bad. Mandated community action from the state requiring submission is contrary to our costitutional heritage and …it has drawbacks. Local organic community action arising from consensus is self correcting and sparse us these kinds of turmoil storms.