They have not really changed their minds, only their tactics.

by Rob Roper

If there is one thing I’ve learned watching and often finding myself neck deep in Vermont politics over the past quarter century, is that you have to evaluate every word that comes out of Democrats’ mouths for linguistic loopholes. This, after all, is the party of “it depends on what the definition of “is” is.” So, when leadership puts out statements of an election year conversion regarding repeal of the road rule and Tier 3 in Act 181 my optimism is cautious in the extreme.

Here’s red flag number one: Environment Committee Chair, Act 181 champion and architect Amy Sheldon’s (D-Middlebury) statement to her committee that she was “looking at” partial repeal. “Looking at” is not the same as moving forward with. Moreover, her presentation had all the conviction of a POW hostage video where someone off camera was holding a gun to her head to get her commit treason. I had to squint closely to make sure she wasn’t blinking in morse code a contrary message of solidarity to VNRC.

Here’s her full quote with a few highlighted areas of concern”

I would start with the reality that the road rule and tier three are certainly not going in the direction that we expected or hoped they would go. We’ve heard, I think, very sincere input from people about how it was proposed and the effects it would have on their land. In conjunction with that, and hopefully your inboxes have been shifting some too, people are, I think, really coming to the table with ideas and suggestions for, you know, if we could put this aside, then maybe we could have a refresh a little bit like what we just heard from the last witness. So, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking over the weekend, and I’m sure you all have too. I would just put out there that I think it’s time for us to — I feel like maybe the tier concept, even broadly, is dividing us, so I want to rethink maybe even that very fundamental thing. But certainly, we don’t need our shared interest in protecting our environment to divide Vermont, particularly at this moment. So, I guess I’ll start by saying that I I’m looking at repealing the road rule and the tier three and revisiting how we structure that in a path that goes forward.

This is not a message of “we messed up and need to repeal a mistake we’ve made.” It reeks of a typical “Delay and Pivot” strategy. Let me translate point by point the highlighted sections above: We’ve hit a temporary road block… hold on while public opinion shifts back in our favor… we will regroup around a different strategy… but in the meantime let’s not allow this to become an election issue that could reduce our numbers and chances for ultimate success… but rest assured we will get exactly what we want in 2027.

There were similarly concerning sentiments throughout the committee. Rep. Michael Hoyt (D-Hartford) said,

“It seems to be that we do want to find a way to make sure we protect our most critical habitats and, like, how can we do that? And if it’s not through sort of an Act 250 tier way what do we do?… The other thing I’d like us to look at it, because I just don’t know much about it is the senate floor amendment. Like, what was behind that? Because it seems like it would actually allow building in areas where maybe we don’t want building….”

These are not the comments of a person who has seen the light on reversing course or respecting the property rights of rural Vermonters. He’s saying stick to the goal even if we have to change tactics. We certainly don’t want the cave dwellers building anything where we who know better don’t want them to.

Ela Chapin (D-East Montpelier) said, “I’m mourning we have to start over in some ways but am also excited that we have new information from the last two years.” Having to start over is a very different sentiment from scrapping entirely.

And on the senate side we hear a similar mourning the setback but pivoting toward the same outcome from Energy & Environment Committee Chair Anne Watson (D/P-Washington), “I think the goals are good and think there are maybe other ways to achieve them.” The goals, of course, are seizing control of property away from rural landowners and giving it to the state – and she fully intends to achieve this, if not by this law than that.

No, the goals have not changed and will not change so long as these people retain their seats of power in Montpelier. You cannot change the minds, you have to change the bodies. The Democratic Socialists play the long game. They are ideologically driven and, given another chance, will keep coming back to their same ideological policy points regardless of reality repeatedly proving them to be utterly misguided.

Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com