It's All About The Environment, Right?

Every time I read another story about our Act 250 "environmental" regulations, I can't help but think about how "traffic safety" and consistency with "community aesthetics" impact the environment. After all, these are typically the elements used to deny permits - therefore they must be "environmental," right?

For example, consider this application for an IHOP restaurant  in Rutland. The Agency of Natural Resources denied the application because "traffic" would increase (which is bad) if the business were to successfully increase the economic activity in the vicinity of the existing Diamond Run mall. It would appear the ANR would like to protect the environment (and frustrated drivers) by removing "change" from any economic progress. This is what they call being "progressive."  As in aggressive against progress, I think.

I wonder what New York city would look like if business permits were denied because of traffic? Would it still look like Vermont?  Who decided freedom from traffic is more important than economic progress? Why are we letting an "environmental" agency make these kinds of decisions?

Comments

[Dennis Lukas]

Comrade, Act 250 is for the good of the people. The commissars see the evil the people are to blind to see. You would be poisoned by fast food at IHOP. Traffic is bad.

If it was the Farmers Diner the permit would have been granted.
Act 250 gives the few to much control over our choices and our future.