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.