|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
Vermont has a habit of passing grand, high-minded laws before anyone’s sure how they’ll actually work. It’s like breaking ground on a massive construction project before you’ve even drawn up the blueprints. The result isn’t progress — it’s chaos, confusion, and a whole lot of people left standing around waiting for someone to figure out what happens next.
Building the Dream Before Pouring the Footings
Take your pick: the Clean Water Act, the Three-Acre Rule, the Global Warming Solutions Act, or the Clean Heat Standard. Every one of them was rolled out with fanfare — bold promises, urgent rhetoric, and the moral conviction that something big was being done to save Vermont’s future.
And every one of them, in practice, has turned into a golden albatross.
They’re massive in scope, beautiful in aspiration, and crushing in weight. These laws touch every corner of Vermont life — farmers, builders, homeowners, renters, town clerks, you name it. They raise costs across the board, from heating fuel to housing to basic compliance paperwork. And yet, years later, the people who passed them still can’t tell you exactly what they’ll cost, how they’ll be enforced, or when they’ll be finished.
The Clean Water Act and the Three-Acre Rule
Start with the 2015 Clean Water Act, Vermont’s answer to federal pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Conservation Law Foundation to clean up Lake Champlain.
The idea was noble: get a handle on stormwater runoff and stop phosphorus pollution. But the state didn’t have a plan ready — just a mandate. That law eventually spawned the Three-Acre Rule, which requires any property with three or more acres of impervious surface to install expensive new stormwater controls.
The rule took years to finalize and even longer to explain. Some property owners still don’t know whether they’re covered, what they’ll have to build, or what it’ll cost. Towns, small businesses, and churches are left in limbo, trying to plan around rules that keep shifting.
The net effect? Nobody’s sure what to do — but everyone knows they’ll be paying for it.
The Global Warming Solutions Act
Then came the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2020 — another huge, shining monument to good intentions. It sets strict greenhouse-gas reduction targets and gives citizens the right to sue the state if it doesn’t meet them.
But it never spelled out how those reductions would actually happen. No timeline, no cost estimate, no mechanism. Just a legal promise that someone, somehow, would figure it out later.
Four years on, the Climate Council still meets, studies, and writes reports, while Vermonters brace for higher energy prices and new mandates that haven’t yet been defined. It’s a blueprint that never got drawn — yet construction began anyway.
The Clean Heat Standard
The Clean Heat Standard followed the same pattern. It aims to cut fossil-fuel use by requiring heating-fuel dealers to buy credits or fund weatherization projects. On paper, it’s supposed to help low-income households. In practice, it’s so vague and convoluted that even lawmakers don’t seem sure who pays or how much.
Governor Phil Scott vetoed it, warning that it could raise fuel prices and hurt rural Vermonters who rely on oil, propane, and wood. The Legislature came back, tried again, and still couldn’t explain how it would work — or who would enforce it.
Meanwhile, homeowners are staring at their fuel bills, wondering when the next “climate fee” will drop.
The Common Thread: No Timeline, No Clarity
Each of these laws shares the same flaw: they were enacted before they were engineered.
The plans, costs, and enforcement details were supposed to come later — after the applause. That “later” has stretched into years, leaving property owners, towns, and businesses hanging.
No one disputes the goals — clean water, stable climate, efficient energy. But goals without timelines, rules, or budgets aren’t governance. They’re guesswork dressed up as virtue.
And while Montpelier keeps holding press conferences about “bold action,” the real burden lands on the people who can’t pass the cost on to anyone else: the taxpayers, the small builders, the farmers, the families who heat with oil and keep the lights on one utility bill at a time.
The Cost of Good Intentions
For the average Vermonter, these laws translate to higher costs of living — higher rents, higher energy bills, higher taxes — with no clear sense of when the benefits will appear. It’s one thing to pay for a bridge that gets built; it’s another to keep paying for blueprints that never materialize.
It’s not corruption — it’s unpreparedness. A government run by people who mean well but legislate by emotion instead of logistics. They pass laws the way some folks buy gym memberships in January: full of enthusiasm, short on follow-through.
Time to Bring the Plans to the Site
If lawmakers want to regain credibility, they need to stop breaking ground before they’ve drawn the plans. Every major law should come with an implementation schedule, cost estimate, and agency readiness review before it ever hits the governor’s desk.
Vermont doesn’t lack passion or purpose. It lacks planning.
Until Montpelier learns to measure twice and cut once, Vermonters will keep footing the bill for projects that were never ready to build.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
And the grand plan of Marxism democratic socialism fits well on the list too.
The GWSA and the CHS are not only vague and full of lofty humanitarian save the planet catch phrases, rather than a plan, but they are bashed in the premise that the climate can be controlled, the climate is warming, and that climates are somehow static systems that can be controlled b6 humans. Climate are complex dynamic systems, roughly cyclical over long timelines. These two laws should be repealed on that basis alone since they are based on faulty assumptions.
It also appears that the Clean Water Act and the Three Acre Rule also need to be scrapped and a real plan based on real data and facts should be formulated not by some NGO or vested interest but by objective assessment and o objective civil engineering to also include runoff mitigating strategies that do not conflict with other regulations.
“It’s not corruption — it’s unpreparedness.” I beg to differ on that assertion. Who greases the wheels of the selection process and the Legislative process? Federal, State or local? No one can run a campaign or put forth legislation without outside money and influences. Show me a real grass root campaign or person, not politically tied and funded by one party or another, a corporation, an NGO, or foreign entity? I can’t find one that had any success being opposite of the mob rules group think. Bought and paid for – every last one. Prove me wrong – I invite it and welcome it.
There was a time moderates or centerists stood in the gap, built bridges, found ways to compromise, put forward sound, sane ideas. Not anymore and not for many years now. They all had to resign, retire, or capitulate. The Republic died – suffocated to death under volumes of Acts of enormity. No one noticed and no one seemed to care. All by design and all as planned long ago.
Question, does this article look familiar to anyone in Vermont? Does this seem eerily familiar????
The Running Of The Florida RINOs
Eduardo Vidal
October 26, 2025
1
Share
Image by Spartan7W
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter, Youtube Doral, Florida — This publication has reviewed the attacks by the Republican establishment—known as Republicans In Name Only (RINOs)—against grassroots conservative activists of the MAGA and America First movement. See: RINOs Destroying Trump’s base in Flordia, and Rules for RINOs.
Election Integrity Brigade of Miami-Dade County Now, RINOs are attacking the work of the Election Integrity Brigade, a leader of the MAGA and America First movement in South Florida: 1. The Brigade began as a subcommittee of the Miami-Dade Republican Executive Committee (REC) but broke away in June 2023 after its members realized that the REC showed little commitment to election integrity—especially in its own internal elections.
2. The Brigade believes that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. President Trump shares this belief.
3. The Brigade also believes that the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot was largely a false-flag operation. Only RINOs pretend that the positions expressed in these points no. 2 and 3 are “conspiracy theories” or that they have been “debunked.” President Trump agrees with the Brigade.
4. The Brigade has no connection with former Senator Frank Artiles, who was convicted of funding a “ghost” candidate to help elect Senator Ileana Garcia—both Republicans.
5. The Brigade supports the rule of law and has no objection to President Trump’s suspension of Temporary Parole Status for illegal aliens. Temporary means temporary.
6. The Brigade believes that there is no bipartisan commitment to free and fair elections. The Democrats oppose them, and the RINOs are no better.
7. The Brigade works with Defend Florida to promote legislation limiting Vote-By-Mail (VBM). VBM is rife with fraud—lacking voter ID, chain-of-custody controls, and objective standards for signature verification. President Trump has called for the elimination of VBM.
8. The Brigade opposes special legislation protecting poll workers from imaginary “harassment” by poll watchers. This legislation is championed by the Florida Supervisors of Elections, Inc., a private cartel of public-sector institutions. The Brigade is committed to upholding the truth, exposing fraud regardless of party, and placing conservative principles above party loyalty.
RPOF Grievances Against MAGA Leader
The Brigade is not the only target of RINOs. Cathi Chamberlain, founder of Pinellas Watchdogs and leader of the America First Executive Committee of Florida, received four grievances from the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) in August:
1. “Divisive Rhetoric” – The RPOF accused Chamberlain of repeatedly referring to fellow Republicans as “RINOs,” including in public statements such as: “We don’t just have RINOs in Washington, D.C. We have them in our own backyard, right here in Florida. The RPOF claims such language fosters division and undermines party unity.
So, the RPOF opposes free speech in the name of “party unity.” That sounds more like a political party in a one-party totalitarian regime.
2. “Affiliation with Defend Florida” – The RPOF objects to Chamberlain’s participation in, and promotion of, Defend Florida events, claiming the group “promotes unsubstantiated election fraud claims” and works to remove “established Republican leaders.”
So, the RPOF opposes canvassing voter rolls, investigating election fraud, and organizing support for grassroots candidates. Isn’t that what representative government is supposed to encourage? The RPOF appears more interested in protecting the establishment than in empowering conservative activists.
3. “Leadership in Pinellas Watchdogs” – The RPOF condemns Chamberlain’s leadership in a group that criticizes local Republican officials and supports grassroots challenges against them.
So again, the RPOF objects to criticism of party leadership and any effort to hold them accountable—protecting the establishment rather than the grassroots activists.
4. “Campaign Involvement with Jeremy Brown” – The RPOF criticizes Chamberlain’s past role as campaign manager for Jeremy Brown, a state House candidate later convicted on federal charges related to January 6.
The RPOF refuses to acknowledge that the January 6 riot was mostly a false-flag operation—a Deep State cover-up for the stolen 2020 election. President Trump disagrees with the RPOF’s position, having commuted the sentences of January 6 political prisoners and ended their persecution.
The RPOF aligns itself with Democrats who, without evidence, insist that the 2020 election was clean and that January 6 was an unlawful insurrection.
These grievances reveal the RPOF’s true nature: intolerant of dissent, hostile to free speech, and protective of establishment power. They resemble the tactics used by governments in one-party totalitarian regimes.
For example, last year this columnist reviewed a book by a Cuban exile who tried to start a branch of the Libertarian Party in Havana.
He quickly became the target of grievances from the Communist Party—eerily similar to those the RPOF has filed against Cathi Chamberlain.
Is Florida becoming a new Cuba? If so, perhaps New Yorkers seeking refuge from communism should look elsewhere.
I’ll add, is Vermont becoming the 1st Colony of the United Nations??????