Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9olc3e wrote

Ugh. I’m torn on this.

On one hand, it’s clear we have a major problem with local zoning keeping the landed gentry wealthy and keeping “those” people out.

On the other, the state has a miserable record of “fixing” problems by taking control over them (school funding and healthcare are obvious examples).

Be prepared for housing and associated infrastructure to get exponentially more expensive and controversial as the state “fixes it”.

13

contrary-contrarian t1_j9pbahx wrote

This bill is largely de-regulation. The state isn't inserting itself into these regulatory procedures, it's limiting what municipalities can regulate (and reducing the purview of act 250).

This by all accounts should help make building in towns and villages easier and more affordable

20

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9pcvv1 wrote

If only. Rainbows and unicorns.

−3

contrary-contrarian t1_j9r8zf3 wrote

I mean... suggest something helpful then? Instead of sitting on your ass being useless?

1

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9tdf1f wrote

Sure. At the State level… End act 250. The 10 acre loophole and forest fragmentation is the result of this grand idea. End current use tax beaks. Most of this goes to the wealthy.
End TIF districts. Allows pet projects to be prioritized in generally wealthy parts of the state.
Ban all future building above 1750 elevation Statewide property and school tax with no variation between towns. Tax second homes at double the residential rate. Get environmental laws on the same page with development rules. For example, Vermont uses village designation to allow/incentivize more density in towns. Those towns are almost always next to a river that can no longer be managed as it was for the last 200 years of favor of fluvial erosion. In the age of climate change and redrawn federal flood districts, the end result is that nothing gets built.

At the regional level… Actually decide if regional or county planning is going to be a thing, and if so, give them authority. Currently we have a weak county/regional government. Playing around at the regional level without establishing the authority and role of the regional/county government is just a bureaucratic mess.

At the local level… Towns currently have local zoning, this was done at the behest and funding of the VT legislature. Well intentioned, but a problem of the legislatures own making that now keeps VT as a diorama under glass.

Let the towns and cities make their own zoning. Give tax breaks to those who allow greater density development. The local option tax shows that incentives for development work (see Williston, South Burlington and Burlington). Towns and their residents need to realize a benefit if they are being asked to change their current qualify of life.

What I can guarantee is that adding more layers of government regulation on top of the existing drivers of restriction and cost will not end with a positive result in a timely manner.

1

contrary-contrarian t1_j9txjhu wrote

Now match your policy goals with Vermont's political climate.

I agree with many of your proposals but the issue with governments is they are governed by politicians. Vermont has a citizen legislature with no dedicated staff assigned to the legislators. The majority of whom are not educated enough or savvy enough to fully understand the ramifications of complex land use and zoning issues.

It is going to take small steps of improvement to get anywhere. This bill is a leap in terms of Vermont making progress. It's not perfect by any means but it is much much better than nothing.

1

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9u4bxu wrote

Except it doesn’t change the major problems and adds levels of government regulation at the regional level.

So very frustrating.

2

contrary-contrarian t1_j9udaxd wrote

I agree it doesn't make major changes. As I noted those are unfortunately politically untenable.

However, it doesn't add levels of regulation, it removes them.

0

Mr-Bovine_Joni t1_j9pgnar wrote

Municipalities already have a chokehold on housing zoning - hence the insanely high prices. Taking the veto power away from towns in some cases will allow more to be built, increase housing quality, and bring prices down.

6

KITTYONFYRE t1_j9pe89t wrote

this bill is not giving more control to the state, though...

4

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9pi34n wrote

Do you actually believe that the state will stop after taking this step of control over local zoning?

The state already “incentivizes” traditional village settlement patterns (largely along now un-managed rivers in the age of climate change??? /smh) with designation, funding and regional planning entities.

I’m sure Burlington residents are gonna love the plan that the Jericho/Underhill legislators have in store for them.

This is not gonna end well or inexpensively.

−3

KITTYONFYRE t1_j9ps1fb wrote

slippery slope fallacy. zzzz address the bill, not some wild "what ifs" pulled from your ass

it's pretty unlikely that this bill passes anyway

4

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j9q1w5u wrote

I think this bill or a similar bill is likely to pass this or next session.

Please read the proposed legislation, it’s linked from the Digger story.

The elements of the regional plan portion of the bill are straight up central planning, including a requirement to hire “housing resource navigators” to direct the Towns.

More layers of government regulation never make life (or housing) more affordable for average Vermonters.

3

homefone t1_j9qfr3o wrote

Good. Local municipalities shouldn't be able to restrict all housing development, maybe barring large single family homes. The median home in Massachusetts costs well over $600K. If you'd like to fix the problem before we arrive at a similar point, the only way to do it is to build more housing and that's impossible without addressing local zoning.

1