Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

o08 t1_j8mkqd7 wrote

Reply to comment by EscapedAlcatraz in How Vermont’s Housing Crisis Got So Bad by punkthesystem

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.

−3

[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 I don't think Act 250 should be repealed: I think it needs to be reformed to keep people from abusing it for their own personal agendas.

13

[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! :)

7

KingKababa t1_j8njbu8 wrote

Any idea what the anti-self-deterministic zoning legislation is called?

Edit: ie the name of the bill.

3

[deleted] t1_j8nlo22 wrote

Here are some articles on the subject:

https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2023-01-19/hoping-to-boost-housing-stock-vt-lawmakers-go-after-zoning-rules

​

https://vtdigger.org/2023/01/17/to-tackle-the-housing-crisis-vermont-lawmakers-consider-ending-single-family-zoning/

​

I believe they are s.226 and s.234. Links to the PDFs docs from the State website below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjww6SLgJj9AhUfEFkFHWMBB7sQFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flegislature.vermont.gov%2FDocuments%2F2022%2FDocs%2FBILLS%2FS-0226%2FS-0226%2520As%2520Passed%2520by%2520Both%2520House%2520and%2520Senate%2520Official.pdf&usg=AOvVaw18I1mapqbujrjf_8nlUAE8

​

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjww6SLgJj9AhUfEFkFHWMBB7sQFnoECB0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flegislature.vermont.gov%2FDocuments%2F2022%2FDocs%2FBILLS%2FS-0234%2FS-0234%2520As%2520Passed%2520by%2520Both%2520House%2520and%2520Senate%2520Official.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3pXF5ZyOzjd2XWnkN4LhZ6

3

mrgrey772 t1_j8mxw53 wrote

12 vernal pools and 1 wetland sounds fine to me.

2

[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.

1

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.

−1

[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.

1

[deleted] t1_j8n9ex5 wrote

[deleted]

0

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.

1

[deleted] t1_j8nnv7v wrote

[deleted]

−1

KITTYONFYRE t1_j8nost4 wrote

evidence?

−1

[deleted] t1_j8nvwxr wrote

[deleted]

0

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.

−1

[deleted] t1_j8nzvef wrote

[deleted]

2

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.

1