By Michael Bielawski
Lawmakers will review dozens of bills this week in their committees, according to the weekly House committee agenda. Note that the agendas can change daily.
No guns in public buildings – H. 525 (House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs) Sponsored by Rep. James Harrison, R-North Chittenden, and others.
Harrison will introduce the bill on Tuesday. It deals with allowing communities to restrict firearms policy in public buildings. It proposes to “authorize the legislative body of a municipality to adopt an ordinance that prohibits the possession of firearms in a municipal building.”
Homeless Bill of Rights – H. 132 (House Committee on General and Housing) Sponsored by Rep. Thomas Stevens, R-Waterbury, and others.
On Wednesday lawmakers will look at establishing a homeless bill of rights and to “prohibit discrimination against persons without homes.”
An area of interest is what this will mean for the homeless who decide to set up tents on a sidewalk or panhandle in front of a business. The bill’s text says it’s to protect their rights “to use and move freely in public places, including public sidewalks, parks, transportation, and buildings, in the same manner as any other individual and without discrimination on the basis of the individual’s housing status.”
Carbon taxes for energy utilities? – H. 289 (Tuesday, House Committee on Education) sponsored by Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, and State Rep. Laura H. Sibilia, I-Dover addresses the state’s Renewable Energy Standard and could force utilities to buy special credits to continue with carbon-emitting forms of energy. It proposes “purchase of tradable renewable energy credits for distributed renewable generation at a cost that is less than the applicable alternative compliance rate.”
Act 250 (zoning) – H. 687 (Tuesday, House Committee on Education) sponsored by Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, and Rep. Seth Bongartz, D-Manchester would modifying the state’s land use and development law known as Act 250. Its purpose is to provide “a regulatory framework that supports the vision for Vermont of human and natural community resilience and biodiversity protection in the face of climate change, as described in 2023 Acts and Resolves No. 59.”
The priority stated in the 2023 Acts and Resolves No. 59 is that “Nature is facing a catastrophic loss of biodiversity, both globally and locally. In addition to its intrinsic value, biodiversity is essential to human survival.”
Growing marijuana outdoors – H. 549 (Tuesday in House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs) sponsored by Rep. Karen Dolan, D-Essex Junction, and Rep. Lori Houghton, D-Essex Junction would deal with the outdoor cultivation of cannabis. It would “prohibit the outdoor cultivation of cannabis in an area of a municipality with a population density at or above 500 persons per square mile, in an area served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure, or in an area prohibited by the Cannabis Control Board.”
Cultivation would be allowed “on property lawfully in possession of the cultivator or with the written consent of the person in lawful possession of the property.” It should also be “screened from public view and access is limited to the cultivator and persons 21 years of age or older who have permission from the cultivator.”
Non-Vermont judges? H. 780 – (Wednesday, House Committee on Judiciary) sponsored by Rep. Martin Lalonde, D-South Burlington, and Rep. Barbara Rachelson, D-Burlington would change requirements for judicial nominations and appointments. One feature of note would allow for judges in Vermont to not need to be Vermont residents.
Non-residential property tax surcharge – H.608 (Friday, House Ways & Means) sponsored by Rep. Mary Howard (D-Rutland) would allow municipalities to impose a property tax surcharge on non-residential property, with revenue going only to rehabilitating blighted residential buildings and public safety.
The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation
h525 allow communities to ban firearms in municipal buildings///rept. james harrison/// no comment /// i will let some one else deal with this idiot///
home less bill of rights/// come on down to the state house and set up your tents on the front lawn/// go inside and use the bath rooms/// clean up at the sinks/// go up stairs and use the cafeteria/// all your friends will be glad to see you///
I wish Rep LaLonde was a Non-Vermonter…
I dislike that bowtie wearing commie, who votes for him anyways?
He is a non Vermonter. Arrived here from Michigan in 2007. Want to bet he has someone in mind to gift a judgeship?
Unfortunately, it is a majority of people in So. Burlington who vote for him.
Maybe something in the water is to blame?
Maybe there should be a rally that goes by his house all wearing side arms… You know, get him used to the idea.
The voting machines do……
More infringements on your rights just because these liberal clowns don’t understand
that law-abiding citizens are not the problem, make all the insane rules you want to make you feel better………. Criminals don’t care and will not follow your stupidity !!
Wake up people, vote these feckless clowns out.
The Golden Thunder Dome is busy, busy, busy. It feels like the flurry of panic lawfare warfare means their time is running out. Something must be readying to flip their tables over and stoking that fire lapping their heels and scorching their backsides. Desperation breeds contempt indeed.
I like the optimism…
Boy do I hope you are right Melissa ! It’s long past time to put Capitalism back in the Capitol
I personally ignore each and every one of those signs posted with the circle and slash running thru a firearm.
Unless they install metal detectors and do pat-downs, it’s on the honor system…just like the system we have in Vermont for giving away free stays in hotel rooms and most other public assistance programs.
It’s of my opinion that if they pat me down and tell me that I’m not allowed to have the firearm that my safety is now their responsibility.
If they can’t guarantee my safety (which they can’t) then they don’t have the right to tell me no.
Sometimes, it’s all in the naming of a bill…
H.132 “Homeless Bill of Rights” usurps your rights to create a special class- the homeless- to do as they please, be it on a city sidewalk or perhaps a state park. Homeless camp inside Berlin Mall? not out of the question, with the right legal team on the job.
H.289, rep. silibia’s continued efforts to “put it to the utilities” really only puts it to the ratepayer- the consumer of electric power. She knows that the requirements of the GWSA cannot be met in the timeframe she demanded, so on the way to repeal in the future- she’ll work hard to extract dollars from those “evil” utilities- and her base will love her for it!
H.687 looks like an innocuous “green” bill- but the devil is in the details. like sibilia, amy sheldon has an agenda- and it’s not to serve her constituents. Coupled with Act 59, and buried in lengthy administrative changes, this bill appears to encourage litigation and extend rights to interested trees, rocks and weeds- represented to the various boards and courts by- of course- the NGO groups that drafted the bill.
Vermont’s voters need to ignore the pretending of the elitist legislature and clearly understand that these burgeoning socialists seek to please their donor masters, not the constituent. If all of the thousand plus bills introduced thus far were to be codified, Vermont would surpass California with regulations, litigation and misery.
If Vermont’s eligible voters continue the agnostic complacency, Vermont becomes the socialist and totalitarian dystopia every leftist dreams of.
You nailed it…the demoprogs take the voters so much for granted that they only feel the need to please their donor base, while they dream of their day in the sun being interviewed by MSNBC on the steps of the statehouse.
Until we “cash cows” grow incisors and start putting the fear of God back in these “public leeches” I mean servants (not!) they feel protected under the “Golden Dome”. They have forgotten, that is our house, not theirs ! It’s time they were reminded. Whether we are “RINOS” or Conservative Republicans, we need to present a united front. Most importantly vote, and vote for the furthest right candidate available, whoever that is, because one thing is certain, by not voting for the futherest right candidate, you are not canceling out a vote for a candidate that is futher left . Deny them that vote !
Perhaps the right to work to get their benefits. That failing, please include their right move out of state back to their less generous place of origin.
I oppose H.608, a non residential property tax surcharge. I own property in towns where I do not reside. I am charged a higher rate because it is non residential. I can not vote on the budgets of these towns. I see this as “taxation without representation.” I get no services for my tax dollars. My children do not attend schools in these towns. How about passing a bill that would allow me to vote in the towns of my non residential properties? It is not the responsibility of non residents to fix blighted buildings.
While I’m not in favor of increased taxes in general, there are many municipal services most people appreciate and rely on. And the funds proposed by the bill would also fund public safety.
Are there roads in the towns where you own property, and do they get plowed and maintained? Is there water and sewer service? Is there police, fire and ambulance service? Do those towns bill for taxes and recording deeds and vital records? The municipal property tax supports all those services.
Is any of that property producing income? It is unfortunate but blighted property is often the result of absentee owners. You can still participate in the local government by attending selectboard meetings and voicing your objections if this bill passes and those towns decided to enact such a tax, even if you can’t vote.
By the way, schools are funded separate from the municipality.
The road my property is on is not plowed nor is it maintained by the town. It is the responsibility of the property owners to maintain the road. I do not have water or sewer services. I see the Secretary of State having a contest to see which colleges can sign up the most students, {in state or out of state} to vote in our elections. I see Montpelier and Winooski allowing non citizens to vote in municipal elections. On my tax bill there is a non residential surtax on the municipal tax and a non residential surtax on the educational tax. I never approved of having different tax rates for residential and non residential property owners. I knew most non residential properties were owned by Vermonters {camp or business, investments }..ect… Yes main roads are plowed but everybody gets to use them whether they have property or not. Yes, I may benefit from some of the services the town provides but maybe I would like to have more services or less services. My point is I don’t have a vote and that is ” TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”.
Ms. Ruth, I’ve been saying the same thing… I don’t own any property other than where I live but there are some folks that own across the street and are decent folks and come up every weekend. They are very helpful (part time neighbors) and we consider them friends. But they can’t vote in town elections. I too feel it is “taxation without representation”. But it begs the higher question. It isn’t just town elections/laws that affect their property. As you noted about the schools. So, state laws affect their property tax. So, they should be allowed to vote in state elections. How would that work, logistically speaking? What about the other 38% of non-resident homeowners in the state? Who only come up once a year or AirBnB their propterty? I agree it is “taxation without representation” but how do we solve this conundrum? I have been pondering this for some time. It’s not fair. I also think education should not be paid for by the state or federal government. But that is a conversation for another day.
Respectfully,
Pam Baker
How will a bill like this square with Vermont’s “Preemption” law ? I found the following on a page in an article on this in a web site belonging to the anti-gun group, “The Giffords” that would seem to me to indicate this bill is contrary to the State’s Preemption law. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/preemption-of-local-laws-in-vermont/ How will these disingenuous dirtbags navigate this ? I don’t know, but I’ll bet they try.
Of course I was referring above to H525.
Growing weed behind a screen like I’m getting a drink in Mormon Utah is ridiculous and peak NIMBYism
This what happened in California….
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220852028/judge-blocks-california-law-banning-carrying-firearms-in-most-public-places