Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KITTYONFYRE t1_j8n82v4 wrote

Reply to comment by o08 in How Vermont’s Housing Crisis Got So Bad by punkthesystem

> 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