If only they had bought locally...

As I read this article in the New York Times, about a $50 million renovation of the New York Public Library, I noticed that the building, completed  in 1911 after 12 years of construction (and that's without any permitting delays) was built of Vermont marble. 

Many buildings in Washington DC were also built with Vermont marble, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the Jefferson Memorial, Washington Monument,  the Tomb of the Unknowns, parts of the Capitol Building, the Smithsonian, the US Department of Agriculture building, the Rayburn Office Building, and Union Station.  And that's just Washington.

What if buying local had been the official policy of Washington and everywhere else in the U.S.?  Why do advocates of buying local think that such a policy will benefit communities in the future when, in the past, towns and cities benefited by being connected through trade with other communities across the nation and the world?

Comments

[GreggB]

Nonsense. If we hadn't sold out our precious Vermont marble there would be more for the locals. We could have built ski lift towers out of the stuff. Marble covered bridges, marble sugarhouses, marble deerstands, the local uses are unlimited. If only our shortsighted predecessors hadn't sold out to Washington special interests.

[G. Cross]

Much of the granite used in Vermont today for curbs comes from China. Do you suggest that such a purchase is a good idea? Furthermore, the folks I know who promote buy local are not focused on "everything." Have a heart guys!

[James Ehlers]

Dear Mr. Cross,
Have you tried to open a quarry in Vermont lately? It is not the Chinese that implemented the permitting process with which you would contend ... No Sir, just Vermont politicians who speak of a vibrant rural working landscape and then write laws to ensure their speech remains only words in the wind ... Stone on a truck would be suitable manifestation of their sincerity.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers

[G. Cross]

Dear Mr. Ehlers,

No, but unless you have or can document a specific case that has, it is rather presumptuous to believe that you know exactly the level of difficulty that might be involved. Again, bad news is the apparent currency of this site, thus both the posting and the responses are in full character.

Cordially,

George Cross

[GreggB]

George in 1999 OMYA was stopped from opening a marble mine in Tinmouth. P.87 'Vermont Farm Women.' Not my usual reading material, my wife got it as a present and I was flipping through it when I found the above info. Is that a good enough example?

[G. Cross]

Mr. B.
Sorry, one mention of a denial in the book "Vermont Farm Women", while a good book I am sure, is not good enough. I live next to a quarry, a rather large and profitable operation, and know a bit about the permiting process. In our neighborhood's case, the owner came to a written agreement with us which was then included as a part of the Act 250 amended permit. It has allowed him to expand his quarry substantially and has protected existing neighborhoods from undue encroachment. The owner is a cooperative neighbor and a very good business man. There are times when a denial of an operation makes sense. There are times when a compromise makes sense. And, there are times when a company should be given a permit over the objections of some. Permiting is not all bad. Well, except on a site dedicated as "we promote policies and political action aimed at sustained, environmentally-sound economic growth and prosperity in the Green Mountain State." Sure!

[Greg Decker]

Quarry permits denied:

5W1455 RIVERS DEVERLOPMENT, LLC, MORETOWN

2S1147-1 MCLEAN ENTERPRISES CORP., CAVENDISH

5r1415 PIKE INDUSTRIES, INC., WILLIAMSTOWN

5R1124 DURANLEAU CONSTRUCTION CORP, WASHINGTON

[GreggB]

Looks like we may have no choice but to get our marble curbs from China. God bless free trade and Merry Christmas to all.

[G. Cross]

Less than 2% of Act 250 permits are denied. That seems like a reasonable number to me and certainly does not reflect the great concern about permiting expressed by most on this site. Wonder why that is?

[Greg Decker]

Let's stick to the facts. The ANR Act 250 Database contains 21 records containing 'quarry' in the description. 17 of the 21 were approved the remaining 4 (listed above) were denied. That's a 19% denial rate.

[G. Cross]

Well if that is true, you should be able to quantify it with facts and not just assumptions. I would have to guess that those who simply do not like any regulatory conditions on development always come back to the fantasized aborted cases. Interestingly, I have never seen a case-by-case listing of same. It seems that if such was the reality at least one of the regular posters on this site would be keeping a score card. Please don't chastise me for using measureable data if you are unable to refute it with clear evidence that your speculation has at least some basis in fact.

[G. Cross]

My comment was directed at all Act 250 permits. Greg since you are so deeply (no pun intended) into the data base, would you mind enlightening us as to why the 4 were denied. Could it be that they should have been denied? Or is it your opinion that all permits should just be granted?

[GreggB]

Note that the four denied act 250 permits do not include the OMYA case. So there must be a bunch of stuff out there that gets stopped(for better or worse) before getting to the act 250 process.

[Greg Decker]

I was simply responding to your request for a specific case(s) where a quarry was denied a permit. I found four. But, since you asked, I’ll summarize one of them. (Maybe more if I have time) Note, I did not select this case – I simply started with the first one on the list.

RIVERS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, MORETOWN
10/18/05 application filed
07/27/2006 application denied –

1. The applicant satisfied all legally established state and federal environmental standards. Every engineering standard set by VT law was satisfied as were all technical requirements. However, the board subjectively determined “the industrial noise from the quarry operation will be qualitatively out of character with the setting and is therefore determined to be an adverse impact” This even though the noise was within the legally established limits.

2. Furthermore, the board objected to the engineers method of measuring noise because the non-auditable low frequency waves created from blasting cannot be easily heard or measured but can be felt. No alternative methods were mentioned. Despite the fact that the method satisfied the technical requirements of Db levels the board ruled that noise was an adverse impact.

3. The proposed development satisfied all local zoning ordinances. However, “policy requires that new development maintain and enhance the town’s scenic resources and working landscape.” The board ruled that the development was not consistent with the Town Plan in this regard. Even though the type of proposed industrial processing was within the zoning regulations and the ambient noise was within legal limits the board determined the quarry would produce an adverse impact on the surrounding rural character. Thus, they ruled the quarry was not consistent with the town plan which is a fundamental requirement of Act 250. (I though Act 250 was supposed to be an environmental regulation but it sure looks and works like a land use regulation doesn’t it? – funny how that works.)

4. The key issue in determining that the quarry was not consistent with the town plan was language that expressed a desire to maintain and enhance the town’s scenic resources and working landscape and the state mandated requirement for town plans that “growth should not significantly diminish the value and availability of outdoor recreational opportunities” The board determine that the non-auditable low frequency blast waves would disturb horse at a commercial stable across the valley which was a desirably business type as defined by town plan goals. Furthermore, the board determined the legally allowable noise limits would nonetheless diminish the value and availability of outdoor recreational opportunities – horse riding.

5. Also, the board determined “…the proposed quarry is a detriment to the property values for certain Moretown properties.” This factors into the 250 process under financial impact on town revenue. The board ruled the reduced values will adversely affect tax revenue, however, they did not cite this impact in their final ruling.

6. Reading the entire report it is clear the primary concern of the board was the impact of the quarry on the horse stable. The stable was more in the ‘character’ with the desired type of development described in the town plan and the board felt the noise would impact this preferred business.

-----------------------------------------------------
On another matter, this is a paragraph from the above ruling:

“10 VSA 6086(a)(9)(A) requires district commissioners to consider financial capacity of a town to accommodate growth… The commission is cognizant… that if a project will not cause or encourage increased residential or commercial growth beyond that which will occur in the region without the project, then a conclusion can be supported that the project complies with 9(A).”

Isn’t any proposed project part of “what would occur”?

----------------------------------------------------

Lastly - your purported fact that only two percent of all ACT 250 applications are denied is irrelevant. Denial rates don't have any meaning when you’re lumping together different kinds of permits. Quarries are a nice example to make this point. 19% of the applications filed since 1991 have been denied which is apparently much higher than the average of all permits combined.

[Greg Decker]

MCLEAN ENTERPRISES CORP., CAVENDISH

Denied for two causes:

1. Noise- the board ruled the noise level of one neighboring property would exceed 50 db (the legal limit). The board claimed the actual Db at a neighbors mailbox would be 58 Db. For comparison purpose by federal standards things like cars and snowmobiles etc. need to be less than 70db at 50 feet. Thus, a car passing the mailbox would likely exceed 58 Db.

2. The quarry planned on using a section of a class 4 road for their entry way. The board ruled that heavy trucks would interfere with the use of the road by people walking their dogs and bicycling. The planned upgrade of the road would have diminished its value for this purpose primarily because it would alter the aesthetics by removing trees and old stone walls.

[Greg Decker]

PIKE INDUSTRIES, INC., WILLIAMSTOWN

Only the cover page of the decision is in the database.

DURANLEAU CONSTRUCTION CORP, WASHINGTON

Details not available. The case dates from 1991 so it may predate the use of computer records.

[G. Cross]

Greg, is it your contention that anyone should be able to open a quarry anywhere he/she desires? If your answer is yes, then we simply are in complete disagreement with each other. If your answer is no, then somehow a decision has to be made as to where a quarry can be sited. Once that happens some will be given the green light and some will be stopped. We have boards to make these decisions. The decision makers in the case you cite are far from flaming liberals. You can second guess the decisions if you want. But the fact is that real people made the decision to deny the permit. The process did not stop the quarry. The permit was denied by a board (real people) after presentations for and against the project. Seems like a fair system to me.

[GreggB]

Will you guys stop saying that VT is a bad place to open a quarry. You're just repeating the governor's sound bites that VT is bad for quarrying. If we started saying that VT was good for quarrying more people would come here and open quarries. Then VT's young people wouldn't be fleeing VT for the greener(golden)uranium quarry fields of Utah.

[G. Cross]

And what permit is it that your friend who wants to install a sink needs? Is a state permit or a local permit? What is the specific issue in question? You anonymous guys can keep throwing out cases without any clear definition of the issues and make believe that such is the definitive knowledge of the process. However, there are some of us who just don't buy into the same old arguments.

[Greg Decker]

Exactly, what we need is a definition of the issue. From the cases I've read and stories I've been told it appears the issue is the uncertainty of the process.

The first decision I reviewed above is a good case in point. The applicant satisfied the technical requirements but failed to satisfy the board and the vague and indeterminate goals in the Town Plan. How could this business have prepared for or anticipated the outcome of this process beyond satisfying the environmental requirements like they did?

A Town Plan is essentially an embodiment of the wants and desires of the majority view of the town. Thus, these decisions are in effect giving legal force to the majority party view in a dispute over what type of development is preferred in the community. When the coercive power of the government is used to promote popular opinion at the expense of the minority view its called a tyranny of the majority.