The bill would rebrand the board that sets rules for implementing Act 250
By Brooke Burns
The state’s racial equity office is concerned minority groups could be excluded by language in a new bill that tweaks Vermont’s key conservation law.
H.687 would rebrand the Vermont Natural Resources Board, which administers and sets rules for the implementation of Act 250, as the Environmental Review Board. A similarly named board was in place for a majority of the act’s existence, and it handled appeals of regional-level permit rulings. But legislators in 2004 scrapped it to send appeals to the courts instead.
The proposed board would once again hear appeals, along with handling the current board’s administrative duties and taking on several new tasks. The idea, backers say, is to streamline the process of applying for a permit. Rep. Amy Sheldon, D–Middlebury, introduced it Jan. 16 in the House Committee on Environment and Energy and said the bill builds on conservation efforts last year.
“This is a complement to it through the supporting of land-use policies that allow us to maintain an intact functional landscape,” Sheldon said, “and also protect our human communities with that landscape and help promote dense development in our downtown and village centers.”
Jay Greene, a policy analyst from the Vermont Office of Racial Equity, told committee lawmakers Feb. 23 that the office is happy the House is open to changing Act 250 because the office has found a number of racial equity problems relating to housing in the law’s existing language.
But Greene said the office found areas of concern in the proposed amendments before legislators.
The bill would require candidates for the new review board to have “a record and reputation for excellent character and integrity” — language that may discourage applicants who don’t fit the traditional background of Vermont’s political sphere and that favors white, well-connected people, Greene said. This, Greene said, despite the bill’s goal of designing the board to make Act 250 more citizen-friendly.
“We’re concerned that this could have the effect of excluding people who are not politically well-connected in the political sphere in Vermont, and the political sphere in Vermont is overwhelmingly very white,” Greene said in the meeting, adding later, “So if we’re thinking about who’s going to get recommended based on their reputation for excellent character, it’s concerning that that might end up excluding people who are not connected to the traditional kind of political landscapes here in Vermont.”
Greene also argued the $295 fee for appeals to the board included in the bill could pose an economic hardship. That fee would be charged on top of the initial application fee already paid by the person filing the appeal.
“Would it be possible to include a provision about emergency — or circumstances where a person can have this fee waived or something like that?” Greene asked lawmakers at the meeting.
Greene said the office was encouraged by a provision in the bill that would allow for housing units, within or attached to single residences, that would provide affordable housing and supervision for relatives, older adults or persons who have a disability. But Greene thinks the provision can go farther.
“Why not expand the availability of accessory dwelling units for any kind of long-term renter, regardless of family or disability status?” Greene asked. “Just because this seems like a low hanging fruit kind of opportunity to expand affordable housing — in areas with existing infrastructure for it.”
In addition to hearing appeals and administering the Act 250 program, the proposed board would also review applications for planned growth area designations, review future land-use maps in regional plans and review maps that classify areas as rural and working lands.
The Community News Service is a program in which University of Vermont students work with professional editors to provide content for local news outlets at no cost.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation, Race and Division, State Government
Non-whites can’t have “excellent character and integrity”?
You’d almost think they were the actual racists here in Vermont.
act 250 // state control of private property/// this is a bureaucracy funding operation/// look at the amount of persons milking this operation/// do you wonder why the price of housing is so high/// this keeps existing housing price valuations higher than normal/// shortage creates higher prices///solution is to build goat herder housing in the towns and cities/// tax payer funding public private housing apartments 250,000.00 dollar single bedroom coups///
Why do we have a State government office (and their corporate co-conspirators) that dictates, with impunity, policies that violate the Civil Rights Act “In 1964, Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools.”
Before that was enacted, we have this as well: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness”
Who handed over the authority to subvert the People’s law over to lawless, marauding grifters? Cease and desist all DEI lawlessness or face removal and prosecution by the People. DEI cultists, you can’t have it both ways – you are breaking the law as written. Your actions and policies are as repugnant as they are illegal. We will seize every taxpayer nickle stolen through this fraud. Declared and decreed.
Either they’re unaware of the Bill of Rights or the Civil Right’s Act or they’re ignoring their existence. Why do I think this? They continue to write bills that duplicate the rights enumerated in the U. S. Constitution or those that have been written since.
I guess they think they’re better or smarter. An affliction with such hubris was always punished by the gods in classical literature. May it be so in our time, before they bring the whole house down.
“a record and reputation for excellent character and integrity” — language that may discourage applicants who don’t fit the traditional background of Vermont’s political sphere and that favors white, well-connected people”
Because clearly a reputation for excellent character and integrity is part and parcel to “white privilege” right? WOW, just WOW!
Why are these sensitive folks even looking at or thinking about the color of people’s skin? Seems like they invent “racism” where there isn’t any. That seems racist to me.
Someone needs to explain to demoprogs that when EVERYTHING is racist, then NOTHING is racist.
The rationale for act 250 had to do with protecting the aesthetics of our state. We’ve made the consensus decision to forfeit the constitutional ideal of owning and developing our own land. “Development” was transformed into a curse word. We striped ourselves of this right and turned it over to the state. Instead of revisiting this abomination…actual auditing the impact and where we may have hurt ourselves, we debate minutiae. Have we entered that twilight zone where we distract ourselves with such tangential questions? Does the pressing issue of the “number of angeles on the dead of a pin” come to mind?