Emerson Lynn On Politics

No Growth No Way

The legislative impasse over affordable housing in Vermont exposes a bias that needs correcting if we are to be successful in building homes Vermonters can afford and in a quantity sufficient to meet current and projected needs.
    The proposed legislation, H. 863, is currently mired in the Senate Committee on Economic Development and the committee chair, Sen. Vince Illuzzi, put his finger on the problem when he said, “It appears that what started out as a housing bill … was hijacked by those who wish to advance a no-growth agenda. 

Precisely. It happens with all such initiatives. If affordable housing – or any growth related issue – surfaces, it’s axiomatic that the environmental community will be part of the discussion. If the legislation proposed does not meet their standards, their support is withdrawn. This message was delivered yesterday by the environmental groups involved with H.863. Part of the bill would significantly tighten up Act 250 requirements for development in all areas not included in designated downtowns, village centers or “new town centers.” If this provision is moderated, or eliminated, the environmentalists say they are no longer on board, which, presumably, means they would oppose the legislation.
    And the affordable housing initiative falls with it.
    There is nothing wrong with environmentalists being part of the discussion. They should be. But there needs to be a balance of influence. Currently, there is not. Vermonters are paying the price for that imbalance when it comes to affordable housing; the more difficult it is to build, the more expensive it is to buy. It’s just that simple.
    The bill’s originating premise is laudable. Proponents want to increase the density of development in designated downtowns and village centers and would do so by relaxing, in part, the Act 250 regulations that govern such development. There are 26 village centers and 20 downtowns that would immediately qualify, and another 12 village centers and three downtowns that would qualify if the regulation regarding subdivisions was removed, according to figures provided by Housing Vermont.
    Obviously, non-profits such as Housing Vermont favor the legislation because the lion’s share of their efforts happen in our downtown areas. And they are correct, where possible development should be guided toward in-fill projects that take advantage of a municipality’s infrastructure. That’s just common sense.
    But why not leave the bill at that? Why use the same legislation to make housing more expensive in all areas of Vermont that are not part of the designated downtown, village center structure? If 46 downtowns and village centers qualify for help under H.863, then what about the other 195 municipalities in Vermont – and their attendant rural environs?
    Development in those areas – most of Vermont  - would become more expensive because the regulatory burden would be vastly increased. That increased burden is what prompted Dan Luneau, chairman of the District 6 Act 250 Environmental Commission to urge our legislators to oppose it.
    One would think the non-profits would politely ask that the environmental groups pick another means by which to press their cause. If they want to tighten up Act 250 to retard development in all areas other than designated growth centers, then they should find legislative sponsors to do just that. The desire among environmentalists  is there. Conservation Law Foundation attorney Sandra Levine laid the groundwork Wednesday: “Frankly those are standards that should be in place throughout Vermont, and it’s troubling that there are senators that don’t agree with that. Without those standards, all that’s left [in the bill] is a fairly broad exemption for Act 250.”
    No kidding. Without the exemption, the affordable housing initiative doesn’t exist.
    As much as the bill’s proponents would like to suggest that this is an affordable housing bill, clearly it’s not. As Ms. Levine makes clear, this is more about limiting growth than it is encouraging it. If not, then they should agree to separate the items. And why would Ms. Levine and her entourage oppose the bill if it didn’t include the restrictions? The bill, stripped of the non-germane restrictions on rural areas, would still retain all the incentives sought by non-profits and those interested in affordable housing in our downtowns.
    In other words, is this about affordable housing, or about limiting growth?
    This should concern Vermonters. We can’t afford to have important initiatives held hostage because we can’t separate the missions of the various advocates.  At present, we are being held hostage. We are being told that if we want to build affordable housing units in our downtowns, that we have to agree to more expensive development, or no development, in all other areas. That’s not a compromise. That’s a demand. If Ms. Levine and her no-growth advocates have sufficient strength to stand on their own – meaning that they have adequate support from Vermonters – then they should be willing to test that support in the Legislature and fly solo.  It’s also a clearer, more honest way to govern.
     That’s not the way things work in Montpelier. It needs to be.

(Emerson Lynn is editor and publisher of the St. Albans Messenger where this essay first appeared.)

Comments

[GreggB]

So surprising who would have guessed VT has a 'Senate Committee on Economic Development.' Of course if the word 'Anti-' was in the title that would make perfect sense. I'm almost tempted to sit in on one of their committee meetings, probably best that I not. I'm certain it would make me cry.