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.”
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.