Site icon Vermont Daily Chronicle

Stone: Act 181 is serfdom

Timothy Page

by Christine Stone

When mapped to its statutory language and agency behavior, Vermont’s Act 181 emerges as far more than a conservation law. It is a comprehensive land allocation system that integrates biodiversity protection, housing distribution, agricultural land preservation, and redistributionist and reparation (aka equity) considerations into a unified framework.

At its core, Act 181 restructures how land is categorized, valued, and ultimately used. Through mandatory regional mapping, land is classified not just by ownership or zoning tradition, but by ecological function—forest blocks, habitat connectors, wetlands, and agricultural soils. These classifications are not advisory; they carry regulatory weight. They shape permitting decisions, influence infrastructure investment, and determine where housing can and cannot be built.

In effect—it is serfdom—with this treacherous model of governance as ‘lord of the manor’.

This represents a fundamental shift. Vermont is moving from a decentralized, property-based system toward a coordinated, map-driven model where land use is directed through international frameworks, regional plans and state oversight.

This structure closely mirrors the global planning principles embedded in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted under the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity. Act 181 reflects these same planning principles and structural elements:

The UN international biodiversity and sustainability frameworks link environmental protection with social equity, economic inclusion, and land-use planning. Focus needs to be placed on these elements relative to diversified family farming, a term used by Senator Anne Watson at the Act 181 event at the Vermont State House. I asked Representative Wilson if she understood the meaning of this term. She stated that it meant many things.

What is diversified family farming? Diversified family farming is a key component of the UN’s efforts to achieve equity, rural development, and sustainability, notably through the UN Decade of Family Farming (2019-2028). 

Environmental Justice, Equity, and Land-Use Policy Mechanisms

A central component of the UN Decade of Family Farming (2019-2028) framework is the integration of environmental justice and inclusive governance. These approaches emphasize that conservation and land-use planning should not only protect ecosystems, but also address disparities in access to land, resources, and decision-making—particularly for historically marginalized populations including migratory indigenous peoples like peasants, migrants (non-citizens) and refugees, as well as BIPOC individuals.

Act 181 incorporates this concept through environmental justice provisions and planning processes that require broader participation and consideration of impacts across communities. These provisions were baked into Act 181 by multiple state commissions and boards, including the Land Access and Opportunity Board (LOAB), which seek to dismantle “systems of legal” oppression to proactively provide access and home ownership to migrant and refugee populations. LOAB members include the State Office of Racial Equity, Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs, Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, Vermont Every Town Alliance Project, Migrant Justice, U.S Committee for Refugees & Immigrants (Vermont), Liberation Ecosystem, Inc, NAACP Rutland and others. 

While rural homeowners face new, expensive “Tier 3” environmental restrictions that make their own family farms unstable, the state is simultaneously carving out “reparative grants” and specialized housing navigators for international arrivals. Key mechanisms to achieve include:

  1. Conservation easements and land access
  2. Special land-use provisions and incentives
  3. Working lands as part of the equity strategy 
  4. Participation and procedural equity

The intent of the “stolen land” acknowledgement commonly given by educational institutions, governments, non-profits, and corporations now comes into full focus. This narrative was the ideological precursor for delegitimizing private property rights, reframing traditional ownership as a lingering act of colonial injustice rather than a legal right. By labeling existing land titles as inherently predatory, proponents create a moral and legal vacuum that “equity-driven policies, such as those in Act 181, are designed to fill. Under the guise of Environmental Justice, the state shifts its role from protecting the rights of current deed-holders to active redistribution land-use tiers to prioritize “marginalized” global populations.

In effect, Vermont has operationalized—at the state level—many of the same planning concepts promoted at the international level without public input. This raises important constitutional considerations, as the Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection under the law. 

Even more concerning is how environmental justice, equity, and land-use policy mechanisms will be applied if Prop 4—a Vermont Constitutional Amendment, aimed at eliminating privilege and addressing inequities affecting historically marginalized groups—is approved by voters in November 2026. The UN defines inequity as the unfair, uneven distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges among individuals or groups associated with colonialism and enslavement. Under this context, there can be no doubt that the inequities to be eliminated include disparities in access to land and resources based on the shared language and elements of Prop 4, the UN Decade of Family Farming (2019-2028) framework, and the Environmental Justice, Equity, and Land-Use Policy Mechanisms incorporated into Act 181. 

The terms “Socialism” and “Communism” are often thrown out there as slurs…but its pernicious influence is easily recognized in the ideological petri dish known as social justice that makes up the work of Vermont’s government. The goals of both social justice advocates and socialists/communists are the same: 

By imposing ecological classifications that directly affect how landowners can use their property, Act 181 raises is nothing more than a regulatory taking. While property is not physically seized, restrictions on how and who you can use your property will impact its economic value.

The shift toward centralized planning raises many concerns like due process, as decision-making authority moves from local jurisdictions to regional and state frameworks. Additionally, the incorporation of equity considerations will raise equal protection questions. Vermont’s government has abandoned the very foundation of the U.S. Constitution as the Bill of Rights protects individual liberties from government interference or majority rule. People as “individuals” hold rights, not collective entities or groups. 

As implementation continues, Act 181 will not only shape Vermont’s landscape, and social and economic future, but also influence the broader conversation about land use, governance, and individual rights in the United States.

Resource List:

Exit mobile version