Joshua Lisec’s firsthand account of Springfield, Ohio, comes as three Vermont counties appear in a federal immigrant-placement planning model

By Guy Page

The experience of Springfield, Ohio, following the arrival of thousands of Haitian immigrants could offer Vermont an early look at the challenges of large-scale population changes, according to Ohio author and journalist Joshua Lisec, who will appear Thursday on WVMT radio.

Lisec, a New York Times bestselling author and lifelong Ohio resident, is the author of Haitians of Springfield: An Oral History. He will be the guest on Chronicle Conversations at 12:30 PM Thursday, November 12, on WVMT AM 620, FM 101.3 and online at wvmtradio.com.

His appearance comes as three Vermont counties — Bennington, Lamoille and Windsor — have been identified as potential destinations for immigrant resettlement in a federally-funded planning document.

The three counties were included in a November 2025 report by the Washington, D.C.-based Niskanen Center titled “Mapping America’s Immigration Needs: A County-Level Model for Matching Migrants to Local Economies.”

The report examined 484 counties nationwide, using factors including labor shortages, available housing, cost of living and aging populations to identify communities that might be suitable for receiving new immigrants.

The connection between the federal planning effort and Springfield is not that the two situations are identical. Rather, Lisec’s account raises questions about how communities prepare for substantial population changes, how local services respond and whether residents have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting their communities.

Springfield, a former Rust Belt manufacturing center, has a population of about 58,000. An estimated 12,000 to 15,000 Haitian immigrants moved into the area over several years, attracted by manufacturing and warehouse jobs and relatively affordable housing.

No government agency relocated the Haitians to Springfield. Many moved voluntarily and entered the United States through federal immigration programs, including Temporary Protected Status and parole.

But the speed and scale of the population increase placed pressure on a community already dealing with economic difficulties, housing needs and strained public services.

In his book, Lisec draws on local reporting, interviews, public testimony, firsthand accounts and polling to examine the effects of the migration on Springfield residents and the Haitian newcomers themselves.

The book challenges what Lisec describes as the simplified national media narrative surrounding Springfield. He argues that the experiences of local residents deserve attention beyond the political controversy that erupted during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Among the issues examined are the effects on schools, hospitals, housing, neighborhoods and workplaces, as well as the difficulty of discussing the consequences of immigration without having local concerns dismissed as politically motivated.

The Niskanen Center report adds a Vermont dimension to those questions. Its county-level model was designed to match immigrant populations with communities that have economic and demographic needs. The report’s identification of Vermont counties does not, by itself, establish that the federal government has ordered or scheduled immigrant placements there.

The Niskanen Center has also reported working as a subcontractor to the federally funded Welcoming Initiatives for Newcomers program, according to reporting cited in an October 21 Vermont Daily Chronicle article.

Vermont has its own history of residents organizing against a proposed large-scale population development.

In 2016, residents of Royalton, Sharon, Strafford and Tunbridge learned that a foundation called NewVistas had been quietly purchasing property in their communities. The foundation was controlled by Mormon entrepreneur David Hall, who envisioned building a high-density, self-sustaining city for as many as 20,000 people on approximately 1,300 acres.

Hall reportedly had contemplated building between 50 and 100 such communities across Vermont.

The proposed development alarmed residents of the four towns, whose combined population was less than 10,000. They feared that a development of that size would fundamentally change the area’s rural character, historic villages, agricultural economy and way of life.

In August 2016, Tunbridge resident Michael Sacca organized the Alliance for Vermont Communities to oppose the project. The alliance worked with preservation groups and organized public outreach.

At a 2017 town meeting, 93 percent of voters opposed Hall’s proposal. Legislators of both parties quickly followed with a resolution opposing the New Vistas project. When the Congressionally-founded, privately funded National Historic for Historic put New Vistas on its ‘watch list’, that was the last straw for Hall, who then withdrew plans for the Vermont project.

“I don’t want to be on a national watch,” Hall told Vermont Public Radio. “Those who are opposing my dream did a really good job, so I tip my hat to them. I’m tired of the drama.”