Submitted by punkthesystem t3_112m3rn in vermont
idreamofchickpea t1_j8l07il wrote
Well he lost me at the bobolinks. Does anyone have experience with act 250 that they’re willing to share? Of course vt needs more housing but every argument for repealing 250 seems grotesque (e.g. suburbs).
[deleted] t1_j8m9ktd wrote
5th generation Vermonter. My father worked in land development all his life (45+ years), and so have l (35+ years- land surveying/civil engineering; permitting and now that I have become too old to get my hands dirty, title examination).
I can confidently say that Act 250 had been the BIGGEST obstacle to reasonable housing development in this state we have encountered throughout the entirety of our careers. I have personally witnessed HUNDREDS of reasonable development projects that were killed because of Act 250 since the early 2000s alone. That number is likely in the thousands of you include not only my time but also my father's time in land development back to Act 250's inception in 1970. It had effectively killed off all single-family-home development in our industry (except for the very wealthy) by the 90s.
This article is probably the best and most accurate description I have seen to describe how Act 250 continuously allows development to be stopped in it's tracks by folks who are uninformed and unqualified in making ANY decisions about proper land development, and who use Act 250 as either a NIMBY, political, and/or social weapon instead of how it was originally intended (to keep the ski-towns from over- developing UP the mountains). Now Act 250 stops development EVERYWHERE, because ass-hats (like the JP Morgan retiree running for S.Burlington council in this article) have figured out how to manipulate it for their own ends and, in it's present form, Act 250 doesn't allow any developers or municipalities to push back against someone's bullshit NIMBY claims in any amount of reasonable time enough for a developer not to lose significant amounts of $$. In short, Act 250 is a perfect tool for those that have already built their homes to keep others from doing the same... Only the very wealthy have the means to build new anymore. Act 250 is in MAJOR need of reform, period.
Also, as far as suburbs being "grotesque" goes: If developers didn't have to spend such an extraordinary amount of their budgets on permitting and nefarious lawsuits brought against them, then they would be able to invest more in aesthetic construction that would eliminate those repetitive, "cookie-cutter" neighborhood/housing designs in favor of more variety of construction within the same development. For example, if you could see what the original designs for all those condos/ apts that were built along Dorset and Spear Streets in the last 25 years instead of what was actually built, it would break your heart... The original designs were absolutely beautiful, involving a variety of multiple architects designs, green spaces, etc., but permitting costs forced the budget to kill aesthetic development, and now it looks like repetitive "sprawl" there instead of some beautiful neighborhoods, and those developers were lucky to be able to afford to even build that after all the permitting was all said and done.
mrgrey772 t1_j8mrvot wrote
I have a client who can’t even build a modest home on spear st. For less than 4 million.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j8n87p9 wrote
I think your client and the rest of the world have different opinions on the word "modest"
[deleted] t1_j8ncd44 wrote
I am not sure, but I think mrgrey's point was maybe that what once only cost a few hundred thousand to build now costs in the millions... Certainly still not talking about a middle-income single family home perhaps, but the cost to build a comparable home to what already exists on Spear Street is far-and-away above what it used to cost even as recently as a decade ago.
idreamofchickpea t1_j8ms5uo wrote
This is really good insight, thanks for sharing. Do you object to multi-unit dwellings generally or just the aesthetics of the ones that have been built? They seem like a logical option for people who don’t want a big house (elderly, young).
I’ve never seen a beautiful suburb myself, even when the houses are pretty. Not being a snob at all. It’s just a really inefficient allocation of space.
[deleted] t1_j8mtv75 wrote
I have absolutely no objection to multi-unit dwellings and even multi-purpose dwellings, which help make suburbs more pleasing and efficient. The neighborhoods I grew up here in VT used to have a lot of houses with multiple apartments and some even with "Mom and Pop" stores in them, mixed right in between the single family unit homes. You could walk around the corner for basic groceries and household supplies instead of having to drive across town. Those places also provided the much missed and necessary "third places" for folks to hang out front and socialize... Those are the things that create neighborhoods instead of suburbs. I would love to see housing development in Vermont based on those aesthetics again!
mojitz t1_j8n65fc wrote
One of my favorite apartments ever was actually a big, grey Maoist apartment block in China. It wasn't much to look at, and obviously didn't have any sort of high end fit and finish, but there were little shops and hole-in-the-wall restaurants and the like on the street-facing side of the bottom level and the whole thing was built to enclose a central courtyard on 3 sides where people would hang out or bump into each other and shoot the shit or whatever. It really felt in a lot of ways like a proper neighborhood in spite of being right in the middle of a massive city.
mrgrey772 t1_j8niaz0 wrote
There is a middle ground to this I promise you. Doesn’t have to be the elites in their Single families versus massive commie blocks.
mojitz t1_j8nk448 wrote
Sure. Nobody here is suggesting we, like, demolish all existing housing and force everyone to move into apartment blocks constructed exactly with the architecture they used under the Soviet Union or Maoist China. I'm just pointing out that people tend to write off those housing units because they don't look pretty, when the reality is that there are some significant upsides to actually living in them.
Fact of the matter is that social housing can and does work and has been an extremely effective tool for alleviating housing shortages all over the world (including quite a few capitalist nations in the modern day, by the way). You just have to do it right and build with the intention of fostering diverse communities rather than warehousing the poor out of sight as we did here in the States in a prior era.
[deleted] t1_j8nbgij wrote
It sounds delightful! Almost like an oasis within the "desert" of the city. :)
mojitz t1_j8nckz5 wrote
That's definitely going a bit too far haha, but it's not totally off the mark and a little tiny bit more spent on maintenance and some greenery could have really pushed it over the edge.
idreamofchickpea t1_j8mxcxd wrote
Totally agree with this. Very frustrating.
Intru t1_j8v20f6 wrote
There's way of stoping suburbs and promoting sustainable communities that grow. Act 250 is a barrier but never trust a developers, lot size maximums and up zoning all single family zones to allow for up to 4 units. Allow soft commercial and edu in all residential zones. Have developers cover the maintenance of road and water infrastructure in developments of given size for up to 10 years so they have to cover the first cycle of maintenance. Remove parking minimums, lot size mins, floor area ratios, allow for single access blocks, ban drive thrus, ban street facing parking lots, require all commercial to have main entries to be street facing, etc, etc.
EscapedAlcatraz t1_j8mhsng wrote
I'd say it's working as designed, to slow growth and preserve the state environment. Unpopular opinion but adding thousands of units of housing would ruin the place.
[deleted] t1_j8mixek wrote
After a lifetime of seeing Act 250's implementation, I whole-heartedly disagree with you. There are PLENTY of areas where housing could be developed that would be beneficial. Like anything else, with proper planning and implementation, you can easily preserve aesthetic and environmental protection. Making a blanket-statement that adding housing "would ruin this place" is disingenuous and uninformed.
EscapedAlcatraz t1_j8mjb75 wrote
That's why I labeled this as "opinion". Having lived and worked in dozens of out of state areas, and traveled to hundreds of others, I'd call it an informed opinion. There are plenty of crowded, noisy, dirty communities in the U.S. One Vermont.
wholeWheatButterfly t1_j8nbmls wrote
I think it's way too easy to be scared by the prospect of new housing units. As was explained really well in the article, it would take WAY more new housing units than is needed in order to reach just a fraction of the population density of overcrowdedness in areas like NJ or CA. It's a gross miscalculation in perception to think that a few thousand more units across the state will have any significant impact on the amount of nature to enjoy in VT.
[deleted] t1_j8mlj0b wrote
[deleted]
o08 t1_j8mkqd7 wrote
Totally agree. Without Act 250 the natural beauty of VT would be ruined. Act 250 is the only thing keeping large development from going crazy. Around me a big developer wanted to expand a airport runway which would have destroyed over 12 vernal pools and wetlands. The runway was totally unnecessary for the planes he was bringing in. Luckily Act 250 stopped that expansion.
My other neighbor wanted to build 146 short term rentals with one parking spot per 3-4 bedroom rental. That didn’t fly either because of Act250.
That same developer has to fix 2 streams that can’t support aquatic life due to their prior construction work. No remediation would be happening without Act 250. Thank god it is the law of the land.
If towns don’t want Act250 determining smaller development then they only need to adopt local zoning regulations. That makes the thresholds to trigger Act250 jurisdiction way higher, ie 10 house/lot subdivisions or more.
[deleted] t1_j8mm5rv wrote
I also think that Act 250 is necessary for environmental protection. However, Act 250 as it stands is also greatly in need of reform. Too often it is misused to stop reasonable, well-planned and necessary development. There are plenty of places in this state where affordable, middle income housing could've been built without hurting the environment, which was stopped by the misuse and abuse of Act 250. I don't think Act 250 should be repealed: I think it needs to be reformed to keep people from abusing it for their own personal agendas.
[deleted] t1_j8mviov wrote
Unfortunately, the State is introducing legislation that aims to take away individual towns rights to implement their own zoning laws. Also, the nuances of Act 250 allow for a lot more triggers than only lot amounts/ sizes. Most of the politicians that control Act 250 and Zoning regs, both municipal and at State level, are not qualified to be making any judgements on environmental protections and development: It is especially in that regard that I think our processes need reform. Too many unqualified people are able to access and manipulate well-intentioned rules/guidelines beyond what they were originally intended for, without proper vetting.
EDIT: I don't think your post should be getting downvoted o08: You make some good points and it seems like we are having a healthy discussion. Usually folks are just screaming at each other in here, so Thank you for the pleasant dialogue! :)
KingKababa t1_j8njbu8 wrote
Any idea what the anti-self-deterministic zoning legislation is called?
Edit: ie the name of the bill.
[deleted] t1_j8nlo22 wrote
Here are some articles on the subject:
​
​
I believe they are s.226 and s.234. Links to the PDFs docs from the State website below:
​
mrgrey772 t1_j8mxw53 wrote
12 vernal pools and 1 wetland sounds fine to me.
[deleted] t1_j8n4tf5 wrote
Me too! :)
I also think that it's possible to have a neighborhood nearby that could be properly designed not to impact those pools and wetlands while also allowing people the benefit of being able to enjoy their beauty and provide the opportunity to learn why they are necessary and need to be protected.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j8n82v4 wrote
> Around me a big developer wanted to expand a airport runway which would have destroyed over 12 vernal pools and wetlands. The runway was totally unnecessary for the planes he was bringing in. Luckily Act 250 stopped that expansion.
wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. neat.
[deleted] t1_j8nfbpg wrote
Aw, no need to be mean here; we are all just having a discussion. :)
I am a HUGE critic of Act 250, but I still think it is necessary- exactly for reasons like o08's example: We do have a duty to protect our natural habitats /resources in Vermont to the absolute best of our ability. If we all work together, we can often have the best of both- preservation and development.
I believe all of our boats can and should rise with the tide of progress: It just takes more of us willing to work together instead of always trying to chop each other down.
[deleted] t1_j8n9ex5 wrote
[deleted]
KITTYONFYRE t1_j8nff7u wrote
"a large developer" wanted to expand the runway... meaning VTrans proposed expanding it... something tells me you didn't get this news straight from the horses mouth:
https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/aviation/documents/VASP_Draft_020421.pdf
and also:
> The runway was totally unnecessary for the planes he was bringing in.
bullshit. it's a 3,300 foot runway. that's too short for 99% of jets and many turboprops to safely land and takeoff from. those airplanes bring in far, far more money than the tiny little bugsmashers that can currently land there. for example, you could fly a little cessna 172 for ten hours a day and you'd maybe burn 80 gallons of fuel. most jets burn hundreds of gallons an HOUR, plus there's generally other services they'd need that small piston singles wouldn't. literally one single jet landing there one time per week will be the majority of your business lol.
I don't think you're very well educated on this subject, and that casts doubt on the rest of your claims as well.
[deleted] t1_j8nnv7v wrote
[deleted]
KITTYONFYRE t1_j8nost4 wrote
evidence?
[deleted] t1_j8nvwxr wrote
[deleted]
KITTYONFYRE t1_j8nxvel wrote
> The previous Vtrans aviation director was fired
direct from your article, he resigned
> Oh yeah, he was fired for that after the 5000 ft runway was denied and he was exposed.
lol what are you talking about? this happened in 2016-2017. i just linked you VTrans' report that specifically mentions extending the runway for Caledonia in 2020.
you have a weird mishmash of beliefs that are based on half-truths. you should not be nearly so confident. this article does more to prove you wrong than right.
[deleted] t1_j8nzvef wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j8o69wc wrote
[deleted]
KITTYONFYRE t1_j8p2i4h wrote
> I never mentioned anything about Caledonia and that is your own singleminded idea that the development I am talking about refers to what is in your mind. There are multiple projects throughout the state that take place over many years of time.
what are you talking about then? direct quote:
> Oh yeah, he was fired for that after the 5000 ft runway was denied and he was exposed.
northeast kingdom's 5,000 ft runway went through, it was never in doubt. caledonia is the only one with a short runway that was considered to be expanded, and that's a current problem.
[deleted] t1_j8povka wrote
[deleted]
cpujockey t1_j8nmvk3 wrote
What's wrong with suburbs? The way I look at it if you're middle-class person you should be able to own a home and live in a neighborhood. Yes I get the fact that we need more apartments to fill the void for the lower income bracket of folks but apartment buildings are not going to be the way forward for everyone. There needs to be housing built for every income bracket with the exception being the wealthy as they can just build their own shit / they already have shit.
idreamofchickpea t1_j8npcbt wrote
Apartments are not just for lower income lol. Don’t get me wrong no one should be too poor for adequate housing but that’s a different consideration. Not that middle class people are doing so well with housing either.
Suburbs are inefficient and unsustainable. I do get that many people like them, not criticizing your taste. Dense housing is the only feasible option I see for the future.
In Vermont I’m not even sure what counts as suburbs, though. What’s a suburb of middlebury (wheee the author lives)? Weybridge?
cpujockey t1_j8nr4eb wrote
> I do get that many people like them, not criticizing your taste. Dense housing is the only feasible option I see for the future.
I see your point and I respect it. However, I think that dense housing really only works in burlington - that's where the majority of folks are anywho.
> In Vermont I’m not even sure what counts as suburbs, though. What’s a suburb of middlebury (wheee the author lives)? Weybridge?
well - north ave in burlington would be a good example. unless there is some definition of suburbs my highschool education is failing me.
Intru t1_j8v3qj2 wrote
Density is relatively, most villages and towns in VT have some level of density. Density includes things like duplexes or triplexes, four or five unit apartments buildings. Also a lot of old apartment blocks in small towns are pretty easy to miss you can easily dismiss a three story apartment building in Putney VT or Wilmington with a large single family farm house at first glance. You have the general stores with a unit of housing on top all over the state, that's density. We need to open our minds that we need this type of density everywhere.
greenglasstree t1_j8sa0z4 wrote
Burlington definitely has suburbs: Colchester, Winooski, Shelburne, Charlotte, Williston, etc.
Burlington needs to densify and add more mid-rise buildings to accomodate working class people.
Intru t1_j8v2uhv wrote
The problem with the suburbs that they are not resilient long term and are restricted to single family housing and car based comercial, single family housing is that it's the only housing typology allowed in a lot of our residential zoned land. That's the problem its zoned out diversity of housing stock. You should be able to get the housing type you want but when you gate keep it so the only housing you can get is only one type then we create the hot mess we are i.
cpujockey t1_j8w5bms wrote
I think that you're thinking about HOA and forced neighborhoods. A suburb is just a street block of residential zoning. Then again my definition could be wrong. I'm not very educated.
wholeWheatButterfly t1_j8navk6 wrote
His suggestion is to change act 250 so that it starts applying to residential projects of 50 or more units. This is an increase from the current of 10 units or more.
Recently, a senior living facility was going to open up here in Rutland, at the old college of saint Joseph campus. Right next to the new rec center, and the organization was even going to strongly subsidize the library moving to the old college library - a beautiful and modern facility, especially compared to the current building which is falling apart and crowded. Unfortunately the developer backed out. I'm not sure if they cited Act 250 specifically as a reason, but I'm sure that concerns about the development process dragging out contributed to their decision to back out. this wouldn't have even been entirely new development, as most of it would have just been repurposing the college campus, which is tucked away in the woods anyway. Again, idk how much of it is act 250 specifically, but I was excited about the new library, and I'm sure the senior living facility would have been an economic boost. It's a bummer.
[deleted] t1_j8ndqye wrote
I have a LONG history of working with the CSJ property, going back to the 80s. It has always been an Act 250 nightmare there due to the proximity to the creek and there are also significant wetlands about the property. There is also a lot of ledge and bedrock on the property that makes it very costly to bring in utilities (water/sewer) for expansion / development. Unfortunately, the same problems are presenting themselves for the old Rutland Plywood property across the creek, which has put off developers from looking into utilizing that property as well. :(
That was a real shame when the senior housing project fell through. However, I see that Casella has been looking at investing in the property, so we are all keeping our fingers crossed!! :)
idreamofchickpea t1_j8ndtoq wrote
What a loss! That sounds like exactly the kind of development to benefit everyone. Super curious why the developer backed out.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments