|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
Four Washington County legislators are being taken to task on the Rural Vermont Rising Facebook group for what a poster says is their negative characterization of the grassroots organization’s successful efforts this year to repeal Act 181 and promote legislation protecting property rights.
The criticism follows a Wednesday, June 24 post-session legislative forum in Waitsfield featuring state Reps. Dara Torre, D-Moretown, Theresa Wood, D-Waterbury, Candice White, D-Waitsfield, and Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington, according to an Ben Falk’s account posted 7:48 AM Thursday, June 25 on the 16,000 member Rural Vermont Rising online forum. The meeting had been advertised as an opportunity for constituents to ask questions and discuss issues from the recently concluded legislative session, including land use and housing.
Ben Falk, who said he attended the meeting, is an author at Chelsea Green Publishing and a Land Planner and Revel Farmer based in White River Junction, according to his Facebook bio. He described the lawmakers’ comments as dismissive of the grassroots campaign that successfully pushed lawmakers this year to revise portions of Act 181 through S.325 after widespread public criticism of the law’s implementation.
According to Falk, Wood opened the discussion by describing online opposition to Act 181 as part of a “threatening” online discourse. While acknowledging that many rural Vermonters supported the movement, Falk said Wood suggested that realtors also were involved and that misinformation was being spread by bots and “people that are not really people.”
Wood explained her statements to VDC Friday afternoon:
“My statement related to how my record was misrepresented on the group; that there have been some inaccuracies and somewhat noncivil commentaries; and that there have been bots or should I say FB “accounts” that do not appear to have bonafide Vermont citizens behind them. I had a good conversation with Ben after the meeting. My comments were not intended to minimalize the thousands of Vermonters who were/are engaging in their democracy and voicing their concerns. I applaud any Vermonter who engages with their government in ways that bring about productive change.”
Falk also objected to lawmakers’ framing of rural opposition as a perception issue. He wrote that legislators repeatedly suggested rural Vermonters “perceived” they had not been heard during the legislative process rather than acknowledging shortcomings in how the law was developed. “There was nothing offered as to how the public would be at the table in the future and zero specifics as to how the crisis of rural viability would be addressed,” Falk wrote.
According to Falk, Torre expressed frustration that comments she had made had been quoted online, including what Falk said was her earlier statement that “we have no vision for rural Vermont.”
Falk also criticized White’s explanation for voting against a floor amendment expanding Act 250 exemptions for certain on-farm businesses. He said White defended her vote by saying the proposal had not received “proper committee analysis,” while Cummings added that such review is “necessary for good legislation.” Falk contrasted that explanation with what he viewed as the rushed implementation of Act 181.
The legislators also reportedly said their support for revising Act 181 stemmed from problems with the law’s rollout rather than opposition to the law itself. Falk wrote that they acknowledged they “did not know what the law would mean exactly when they passed it” and that the mapping process and public reaction changed their understanding of its impacts.
Falk concluded that the discussion reflected lawmakers who continue to support the underlying goals of Act 181 while underestimating rural concerns over property rights and affordability. “All in all the tone felt like one you’d expect from people who are running unopposed in a place with few land-based people still surviving into this era of gentrified cultural economic takeover,” he wrote.
The comments attributed to the legislators are based on Falk’s public account of the meeting. There is no known media coverage of the meeting. Vermont Daily Chronicle has not independently verified the statements, and the legislators had not publicly responded to Falk’s characterization as of Friday.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation
Mr. Falk is a member of “the media” by his presence at the meeting, writing and placement of that writing in a public forum. Thus there was media coverage. I think the overall concern is the dismissive attitude of the legislator and characterization of citizen concern and new found voice as “threatening.” Are there some hotheads, I would guess there are because there are hotheads in society and there is sure to be in any subgroup. Is that everyone or Bots? I think not. Rural Vermonters have existed by the live and let live rule for many years and are realizing that passive approach is not always respected in a reciprocal manner. There are real concerns and many are working hard to be heard. It may seem “threatening” to those who have been largely politically unopposed, but that is the way of our government. We the people have the right to freely organize, speak our minds and be heard.
Sometimes I think legislators forget who they are working for and what their job is. Lower cost, increase efficiency, improve every ones standard of living, protect the citizens. A really great start would be dumping ACT250 and all of it’s tentacles. It failed, wakey up.
Definitely have, on State and National level, with Democrat Congress Representatives actually saying they ‘rule’ the people and not represent of work for the people, particularly citizens
Vermont legislator wish it was bot driven. They have made it clear they no longer represent Vermonters. They are an oppressive regime walking all over our constitutional rights.
The hallowed committee process is not the neutral, intelligent collector of facts and developer of rational, common sense policies that it used to be. Rather, it has become a foot soldier in the majority’s crusade to enact laws that favor certain groups and disfavor others, as well as stifle any ideas or amendments of substance offered by the minority.
Rep. Wood votes against a floor amendment because it hadn’t had sufficient review by the committee. But if the amendment were sent to the committee, the committee would most likely recommend to the full House that the amendment be rejected. Then the majority members would be advised (threatened if necessary) to vote not for what in their judgment is right and sensible and good for their people back home, but rather to support the committee, come hell or high water.
So the committee process is now simply a tool in the majority’s toolbox to control the outcome, and by the way, give legislators like Rep. Wood a viable explanation for voting against the best interests of their respective communities.
Tom, it all comes down to the November election when Vermonters overturn the strangle hold of the Dems/Progs.
A Senate Republican Majority can correct the recent past of the G.A.
With your help, we can have the power to do more. A senate Republican Majority will write legislation, appoint Committee Chairs and members, conduct hearings, bring legislation to the Senate floor and pass it on to the House. You will have a balance of power, in the General Assembly. And, Republicans understand the difference between power over and power with.
Observe the story tellers and opposition, what does it tell you?
The criticism follows a Wednesday, June 24 post-session legislative forum in Waitsfield featuring state Reps. Dara Torre, D-Moretown, Theresa Wood, D-Waterbury, Candice White, D-Waitsfield, and Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington,
Why NO males? Believe none ever had to survive on their own and sought government for issuing power and control AND make a living. That’s the grassroots problem in Taxpelier. I’m sure they’ll recruit more similar human forms. This is also in Townshend government.
Same Newfane.
Its concerning that government, which has abused its limited authority, which we offer he use of force to maintain the peace is using language (purportedly) that our instruction of our public servants as per article 20 of the VT Constitution is threatening. Tell us, if they know so much and are doing so well, why are people this discontent? Perhaps because they are doing the wrong thing for the problems they state have evolved, while dodging responsibility for those. Small organic farm EXPANSION<ZERO PROPERTY TAX< can you, the reader find constitutional instruction to legislatures or public servants to override our 'Inalienable' – government may not interfere, limit or convert- Inherent and Natural right to private property? AND………..If our Constitution is not the highest law, and 'statutes and public servants do not have to honor and abide by it, what do we have? A democracy? no. A republic ? No. We have tyranny. That's all.
Emily, Tyranny is what we have and it is spreading very quickly throughout the North East, with Massachusetts and NY neck and neck for first place and we are pushing third.
They are still in shock that finally a large number of us Vermonters banded together and successfully countered THEIR ideas and opinions!! Guess what, we aren’t going away.
They don’t have any care for our constitutional rights! It limits there ability to rule over us. How come we endure inspections of our own homes with fuel tanks being inspected every 2 years? Considering the constitution protects us from this. But they force us to hire attorneys to change their laws it’s backwards. It needs to change. Every law that they pass should have to be proven constitutional! Not that it would matter since most lawyers are taught by Marxist professors.
You could say ‘good morning’ and they would find it ‘threatening’. It’s part of an overall strategy to insulate themselves from anything and anyone that questions their agenda.
Very on point observation by Koch: “The hallowed committee process is not the neutral, intelligent collector of facts and developer of rational, common sense policies that it used to be”
It’s not just the legislature and it’s committees: it seems to be widespread throughout our civil society. There is no more dialogue, discussion, or debate. Nobody asks questions. Each person has their own personalized media streams where they get their own ideas echoed back to them as reinforcement. Then new “information” and “ideas” are slipped in from time to time. It’s called propaganda.
Propaganda and censorship is what authoritarian systems use in order to control the general population. Many have accepted membership into the authoritarian “inner circle”, and are rewarded with benefits (i.e. lifetime health care, lifetime retirement benefits, guaranteed salary increases, protection). They need the censorship because they know most people would never be willing go along with their plans. If the truth got out, the general population would have an uprising.
So is the lack of real, honest debate and discussion an accidental phenomenon caused by the new internet? Or is the lack of debate something that is being installed in us (through propaganda techniques) on purpose?
It’s true that some capitalist companies can get too powerful and causes harm to people. The peoples government used to be the best tool to bring them to justice.
But what about an authoritarian system that controls everything, including the laws and law enforcement: all businesses, most news media, the distribution of wealth by way of direct employment and by taxation through irregular rules, can seize land and property at the flick of the wrist since it can also make it’s own laws whenever it needs to, or for that matter make any laws it needs to protect itself and grow itself?
Since the authoritarian system controls the government, what tools do the people have to go after the system when it gets out of line?
What does the State of Vermont governmental system look like to you? Do they control and operate everything, or don’t they? Are the legislators we elect only allowed to serve the interests of the State, or are they allowed to serve the interests of the people?
I think many are waking up to the answer. The globalists funding from the shadows seem to be going for it, and these people are just means to an end.
“I applaud any Vermonter who engages with their government in ways that bring about productive change.” This statement really sticks in my craw, and speaks volumes about the way some of these people think. “their government” sounds totally unlike “their representatives”, and “in ways that bring about productive change”!?! Had it ever occured to them that we don’t want a gazillion new laws each year piled on just because, or that we don’t really want their idea of “productive change”? The more they position themselves as our aggreived better, the more I dislike them heartily. I hope our voting system is marginally not compromised, because I’m not seeing any willingness on their part to do what they are supposed to be doing; which is to truly help their fellow Vermonters instead of stomping on them on their way up the ladder!
Crocodile tears.
This is a classic case of the old adage, “you can’t have there come here without here becoming there”. Even the oldest of these “new Vermonters” arrived here when Patrick Leahy became senator in 1975. This is how the state turned around from republican in 1974 to the Leftist democrat wasteland it is today. We get the kind of government we deserve.
Reps. Dara Torre moved to Vermont from Colorado.
She graduated from Oberlin College with a bachelor’s in history and a minor in government. She,holds a ‘certificate’ in nonprofit management from Marlboro College and a ‘certificate’ in climate change and health from Yale School of Public Health.
How did that prepare her to be on the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure considering matters relating to energy, utilities, telecommunications, broadband, information technology, cybersecurity, and other similar policies? maybe she’ll be taking over Margaret Cheney Welch’s position when her five year term runs out.
Rep. Theresa Wood ‘relocated’ to Vermont is a child but it’s hard to know when. She attended Champlain College, earning a Legal Assistant degree (?) and later a bachelor’s degree in business from JSC.
Somehow that supposedly ‘qualified’ her to bounce around on the House Committee on Human Services, Health Reform Oversight Committee, the Joint Fiscal Committe, the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee, the Joint Legislative Management Committe, the Special Committee on Capitol Complex Flood Recovery, and the Special Committee on State House Improvements? Wow!
Rep. Candice White relocated to Vermont in 2003. She moved here from Boston. She holds a a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature
from Boston College. How that prepared her to be on the House Committee on Transportation is a bit of a mystery, but if you don’t think she’s connected, take a look at her biography – from liberal magazines to the ski industry!
Last but at least, Sen Ann Cummings relocated to Vermont in November 1975. Her biographical records state that she was born in Holliston, Massachusetts, but prior to becoming a resident of Montpelier, she was educated in Wantagh, New York, and Lexington, Kentucky! Degreed up from Cardinal Cushing College, Brookline, Massachusetts (BA in sociology); St. Michael’s College (MSA, in administration). She is the former mayor of Montpelier and been a member of the Senate since 1997. Can you say term limits?
This is a perfect example of how out of touch VT legislators are with rural VT, and it reveals the disdain they have for their rural constituents. They’re a bunch of Karen snobs.