Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

5teerPike t1_j24ifdk wrote

>flatlanders that keep trying to make Vermont more like wherever they came from

In my case, this is apparently why we can't have sidewalks (this was also why it took forever to pass recreational cannabis sales & open shops). Crazy that nimbys don't consider public safety when you have kids walking home from school on the side of the road.

Vermont is in America and Nimbyism sucks.

Edit: when changes are discussed in your locale more people need to ask themselves what really makes Vermont, Vermont; and we should then ask if the changes proposed actually threaten that, because most of the time it doesn't. Some people believe no gay marriage allowed makes Vermont, Vermont (hence the take back Vermont bs). At one point there used to be more cows than people, and a lot of the forests we have now are because Vermont used to have a lot more farm land that has since grown over. Should we clear cut the trees to make Vermont, Vermont again by bringing the sheep farms back too?

Vermont was also the first to abolish slavery, shall we exile everyone who flies confederate flags here, or ban the flag itself, since Vermont was never a part of it and was openly against slavery before emancipation?

Because Vermont is a seedbed of change, and sometimes it's even ahead of the game! Americans traveling from other American states to this state in America are not trying to make it Boston part 2. You can catch up to this century and still preserve it. I think a lot of people confuse preservation with never changing anything. But if your house is already rotting now, you're not doing anyone a favor by leaving it dilapidated for the next generation. . .

15

quartadecima t1_j250pzw wrote

>>Vermont was also the first to abolish slavery, shall we exile everyone who flies confederate flags here, or ban the flag itself, since Vermont was never a part of it and was openly against slavery before emancipation?

Yes.

19

5teerPike t1_j2513bn wrote

I dont like them either, but they're the same types with "take back Vermont" signs too, so should we abolish gay marriage because it doesn't make Vermont, Vermont to them?

Frankly what does make Vermont, Vermont? And how does affordable housing, higher wages, cannabis dispensaries, and better pedestrian access take away from that?

People love the natural landscape, yet it's ruined entirely by power lines which some people argue is a facet of the landscape itself! We all know it's a lame excuse to do nothing, and the fear of outsiders trying to make Vermont something it's not is just absurd.

We should be able to say what it is first before being so afraid of what it shouldn't be. I have yet to meet anyone afraid of change who can.

0

quartadecima t1_j256md1 wrote

>>I dont like them either, but they're the same types with "take back Vermont" signs too, so should we abolish gay marriage because it doesn't make Vermont, Vermont to them?

Nope. If they’re going to fly the traitors’ flag, then send them packing. Vermont sent over ten percent of its population to fight in the Civil War, and had the second most fatalities per capita, according to at least one scholar. We were also the site of the northern-most action in the Civil War, the St. Albans Raid. They can’t have it both ways, embracing the Confederacy and its symbols while claiming to be “real” Vermonters with a monopoly on what makes Vermont Vermont.

I think we don’t actually disagree about NIMBYism in Vermont, so I’ll address your other points in the other sub-thread, time permitting.

ETA: To be perfectly clear, if they don’t like same-sex marriage regardless of whether they have confederate sympathies or not, they can still move to another state. If Vermont is anything, it’s a democracy, and that’s how we got (albeit awkwardly with the whole civil union thing) to marriage equality, here.

11

5teerPike t1_j25qktc wrote

It's a democracy, until someone doesn't want a rehab in town

Edit: im also using take back & the Confederate flags as an example of how "this is what makes Vermont, Vermont" is flawed logic.

4

ceiffhikare t1_j25mewj wrote

TBH i dont even care if the majority of it (VT or even greater America itself ) goes against the rights that the LGBT community have had recognized. These are basic rights inherent to any and all self aware entities. Those who stand against such deserve no place in a civilized society.

2

mycophdstudent t1_j262824 wrote

Vermont's a constitutional republic and your claim of Vermont being a democracy is just as aggravatingly false and misleading as calling Vermont a monarchy.

−2

quartadecima t1_j27cdbl wrote

Your point that there’s a distinction between direct democracy and constitutional republicanism is well taken.

However, I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to say my “claim of Vermont being a democracy is just as aggravatingly false and misleading as calling Vermont a monarchy.”

Consider that Vermont’s executive, the governor, is popularly elected, as are its legislators (let’s set aside debates over ranked-choice voting, for now). Even the judiciary is indirectly subject to a popular vote with judicial retention, with judges periodically needing approval from the popularly-elected legislature in order to remain on the bench. Consider also Town Meeting Day, during which direct democracy takes place in many municipalities across the state—perhaps its notable that every municipality in Vermont (except for the unincorporated gores) was created by an act of the popularly elected legislature.

Apropos of the subject at hand, same-sex marriage, it’s worth glossing over the history of Vermont’s path to marriage equality. First there was a lawsuit that made it to the Vermont Supreme Court, which held that the Legislature had to come up with a scheme to guarantee the same rights to same-sex couples as cis-heterosexual couples. The General Assembly then passed and the governor signed the law allowing for civil unions, which accorded a version of marriage equality with regard to the legal rights and responsibilities that attend civil marriage (It’s still not full equality if you can’t call such unions “marriages” though).

It’s late and I’m too lazy to check Wikipedia or Google, but if I’m recalling correctly, Vermont may have been the first state to legislatively enact legal rights for same-sex couples. It’s an important distinction from states that initially based marriage equality solely on high court decisions (or the U.S. as a whole, for that matter), because the fact that our laws regarding equal rights for same-sex couples were brought about legislatively speaks on some level to popular will; it’s a more “democratic” way to do things than merely having a panel of learned jurists enjoin discrimination against same-sex couples.

This is a big stretch, but some time after the passage of the civil union laws, Vermont might have been the first state to legislatively recognize same-sex marriages, outright, and with many fewer political consequences for legislators who voted for it than for certain legislators who did not get re-elected after they voted to pass the civil union law. I might be totally wrong about that, so please fact-check me. I’m too lazy to look it up at the moment.

Again, where legislators theoretically effect the will of the majority of their constituencies, I think it’s fair to characterize that as “democratic.” It’s hardly monarchical, at any rate. Marriage equality in Vermont did not happen by royal or even executive fiat. Neither was it solely the product of a court decision—it took acts from a democratically-elected legislature.

You can get aggravated and split hairs about whether Vermont is a “democracy” or a “constitutional republic” (couldn’t that be characterized as a kind of democracy?), but that misses the point: Vermonters wanted same-sex couples to enjoy the same rights as cis-het couples, and had people representing them who made it happen.

4

5teerPike t1_j26ztiv wrote

It's as misleading as treating the state as if it doesn't belong to a greater collection of 50, as a part of the United States of America. . .

1

quartadecima t1_j252eja wrote

>>Crazy that nimbys don't consider public safety when you have kids walking home from school on the side of the road.

Or wireless towers for expanded broadband coverage, or renewable energy generation for our climate aspirations. Who wouldn’t want sidewalks?

>>when changes are discussed in your locale more people need to ask themselves what really makes Vermont, Vermont; and we should then ask if the changes proposed actually threaten that, because most of the time it doesn't.

Well said.

>>At one point there used to be more cows than people, and a lot of the forests we have now are because Vermont used to have a lot more farm land that has since grown over. Should we clear cut the trees to make Vermont, Vermont again by bringing the sheep farms back too?

I suspect a some people’s misplaced sentimentality about overcrowded forests that aren’t even old growth gets in the way of forestry practices that would actually promote a healthier ecosystem. “bUt yOu CaNT cHop dOwn TrEes!” they say, though.

>>I think a lot of people confuse preservation with never changing anything. But if your house is already rotting now, you're not doing anyone a favor by leaving it dilapidated for the next generation. . .

Excellent point. It’s incredibly frustrating to see so much crappy housing stock that people try to pass off as “quaint” or “having character” or “being unique,” as though being “unique” is an end in and of itself, even if it is uniquely bad.

Also: God forbid we build high rises or allow for increased density in our urban areas (That was sarcasm). It grinds my gears that people complain about a lack of affordable housing in the same breath as opposing development of denser housing.

9

MYrobouros t1_j26ielz wrote

Luckily I think we snuck in some really good stuff in the last legislative term right? Like, iirc by-right 4plex creation and 1/8 acre minimum lots if you're on town water and sewer? Or am I totally off base there?

Either way seeing our State work with the Congress for the New Urbanism was really encouraging. There's a way to keep an authentic Vermont that isn't unlivable and I think there's the will there if we just keep hope.

Well beans I think I was wrong here. Maybe this year!

2

5teerPike t1_j252w5m wrote

I don't think we need high rises in small towns to have more affordable housing, and the town i moved to just before the pandemic has been having the sidewalk debate for years. my neighbor, who is around my age aka millennial, is from Vermont and says it was a big issue when they were a child. It's silly! We also have unelected positions on our select board and it drives me nuts because they don't do anything!

Edit: I don't want to chop down the trees either, but they are an example of change that has taken place in the state that some would refuse to recognize for the convenience of their stagnant attitude.

−2

Vtjeannieb t1_j2599qw wrote

Unelected positions on your Select Board? Never heard of such a thing. Maybe you mean “ran unopposed “, a very different thing. And if you want change, run for a position. Many Vermont towns have a hard time finding people to take these poorly paid, time-consuming, and thankless positions.

2

5teerPike t1_j25qugm wrote

Nope. They are unelected

Maybe they have a hard time because anyone who comes in and has ideas™ is called a flatlander & rejected outright lol

2

-_Stove_- t1_j29o9ug wrote

Please point to these "unelected selectboard positions" within the state of Vermont.

0

5teerPike t1_j29oo98 wrote

I don't want to say exactly where I live, so here's what the deal is in Stowe

"The Town Manager is appointed by the Selectboard and serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Town of Stowe. The Manager is responsible to the Selectboard for the day-to-day administration of local government. He is responsible for hiring and overseeing all non-elected employees, recommending budgets to the Selectboard and advising them, and ensuring that local government services are provided in a professional manner that is consistent with their policy direction."

So it is a thing and it's not just in my town either! The fact that many people don't know this should be a cause for concern, and we should raise our concerns about it.

Edit: East Montpelier has non elected officials as well

0

-_Stove_- t1_j29tn05 wrote

So this is not a position on the select board. edit You are clearly conflating "Town officals" with "Selectboard members". Learn the difference.

1

5teerPike t1_j29ub66 wrote

In my town several select board members are unelected, even the editor of the local paper told me this. There are unelected positions in other towns as well.

I don't want anyone making any decisions for a town to be unelected, and they are. Besides doxxing myself, what else do you want?

0

-_Stove_- t1_j2a51k9 wrote

I don't want anything. I believe that you are wrong, I've asked for concrete examples. I totally understand your desire to privacy, but without providing any additional info, all I can say is...I believe that you are conflating "The selectboard appoints a person to a town position" and "Selectboard members are not elected" (again w/the exception).

If you want the full text: https://www.pantonvt.us/uploads/3/1/6/7/31673701/handbook_for_vermont_selectboards_1-9.pdf

1

5teerPike t1_j2a5aq6 wrote

Welp that doesn't change what everyone I've inquired about this with has told me: some select board positions are unelected.

You can believe what you want, multiple people who work for my town have made it painfully clear that I'm not.

Ask around. You may be surprised..

Edit: I'm not reading an entire handbook on this. Can you point me to where it discusses this issue specifically? Which chapter of the document covers this?

0