Op/Ed
Editorial: Ask questions before you cast ballots
What’s interesting in the state’s House and Senate races this year is that most candidates from both political parties agree we need significant changes to create more affordable housing, reforms to funding education, and continuing to lower carbon emissions while keeping fuel costs affordable.
Such agreement is possible by the increasing crisis on each issue — in short, the status quo is no longer an option.
To that end, specifics matter and broad platitudes must be eyed with suspicion.
It’s not enough for candidates to say that if elected they’ll “make Vermont affordable.” It’s an empty slogan effectively adopted by Gov. Scott years ago to the state’s detriment. That’s because Scott has used the slogan to deflect any responsibility for leading the state to better outcomes. Not only has he shied away from taking initiatives to tackle these problems, but he has also been a Johnny-come-lately at the end of each session when he offers a veto with no more problem-solving than a repeat of his tired mantra.
It’s time voters should ask what has Scott done to address Vermont’s problems over the past eight years, and to understand that catchy slogans don’t equate to better outcomes. Instead, voters should demand to know what specific policies and actions each candidate would advocate to achieve their hoped-for objectives.
In today’s Addison Independent, we present an election guide that poses questions on those three issues, as well as an open-ended question about what other priorities each candidate might pursue. We encourage readers to spend time poring over the responses of their individual House races and the Senate race.
Here’s some context to each issue, and some perspectives from the candidates:
• Education funding:
Recommendations on the need to rethink how we fund education in Vermont is old news. The Legislature has been discussing this since Gov. Scott came to office in 2018. It was under Gov. Shumlin that the state implemented Act 68, which consolidated school governance and was the first step into consolidating schools that had shrinking enrollments. With no leadership coming from the governor, and with little movement coming from rural school districts to consolidate schools to create higher pupil-teacher ratios (about the only way to seriously cut costs is to reduce the number of teachers who have classrooms under 18), the Legislature authorized a commission this past session to recommend changes to the school funding formula. As Sen. Ruth Hardy writes: “More work is needed to reduce administrative costs, efficiently upgrade and use school facilities, equalize class sizes, and potentially further streamline school governance.” She also notes, as does Sen. Chris Bray, that “social” expenses are funded through the property tax. Sen. Bray, in fact, already introduced a study to consider how the state should pay for social services through the General Fund. From the study, he hopes to be able to craft legislation this coming session to do that. Sen. Bray also suggests the legislature follow State Auditor Doug Hoffer’s suggestion to standardize its payment schedule for medical services — potentially saving tens of millions of dollars each year.
It’s specific actions like those that will reduce taxes, not hanging on Scott’s slogans.
• Affordable housing:
Everyone knows the state lacks affordable housing; everyone wants to create more of it. There are suggestions the state limit Act 250’s reach, while still protecting Vermont’s character. That’s been done.
In his response to the question, Sen. Bray writes: the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee defined Smart Growth districts this past session that are to be Act 250-free for housing developments, and the districts were made to be 400% larger for developers of “affordable housing.” In his answer, he cites other advances the Legislature has made, acknowledging more is needed.
Sen. Hardy broadens the scope by noting denser housing development near downtowns needs to be adopted; some public funding must be put on the table for some affordable housing projects; and “lower-cost, energy-efficient manufactured homes, accessory dwelling units and multi-unit apartment buildings” must be implemented if the state is to solve a housing crisis that’s been brewing for the past two decades.
What Vermonters must also know is that the state, or municipal governments, are not the primary culprits. “The incredible cost of construction” is, according to Addison Housing Works Executive Director Elise Shanbacker. In a recent symposium on housing at Middlebury College, Shanbacker said it costs around $550,000 to build a modest 800-square-foot apartment. She also noted the Vermont Housing Finance Agency reported the median price of a newly constructed single-family home in Vermont was $616,500 in 2023. Construction costs have increased 30% annually since the start of the pandemic — all part of a global rise in costs due to a wide range of reasons — none of which are impacted by what we do in Vermont. Add to that the impact of the rental home industry on home prices, and the fact that Vermont attracted 17,500 new residents over the past four years (creating more demand for limited supply), and you understand there are no simple solutions to the housing crisis.
Local developer Zeke Davisson of Summit Properties, which is working on a proposed 218-unit mixed-income housing project off Middlebury’s Exchange Street Extension, noted that state and federal grants of over $100,000 per unit have enabled the developers to plan on building units available to median-income families, “but without that incredible amount of public money it’s impossible right now to build affordable housing.”
To that end, hanging your hat on Act 250 restrictions or reducing red tape to solve the crisis won’t do the trick. Legislators need broad and deep understanding of the issues to pursue measures that will move the needle where it’s most effective.
• Climate crisis/Affordable Heat Standard:
The Affordable Heat Act has prompted the most debate and misinformation in the county’s Senate race. That’s because Sen. Chris Bray is a lead sponsor of the legislation and the heating oil lobby is out to get him. The lobby has reportedly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in a statewide effort to discredit the legislation and to specifically target Bray for defeat. That’s fair game in political warfare. Businesses get to defend their turf when it’s threatened and there is no doubt that the end game with this legislation is to reduce Vermonters’ consumption of fossil fuels, particularly heating oil.
What’s not been fair, however, is to deliberately create misinformation about the law. First, what passed is a bill to study whether and how such legislation could be drafted to help Vermonters transition from fossil fuel use to electric power. To that end, Republicans across the state, including Gov. Scott, are guilty of fearmongering when they claim that Democrats passed legislation, via the Affordable Heat Act, that will raise Vermonters’ heating bills by $1.70 to $4.00 per gallon. It’s just not true. And by continuing to suggest that over and over in campaign fliers, even when candidates know it’s not true, is just underhanded. It’s the type of politics we expect from ex-president Trump, but not from local residents would aspire to be our next senators.
That’s unfortunate and voters should take that kind of campaigning into consideration.
What true about the Affordable Heat Act is this: it’s designed to operate like Efficiency Vermont, which put a small tax on Vermonters’ electricity bills to fund weatherization and other energy-efficient campaigns. Almost every household and business can qualify for the energy-saving measures that are meant to be cost-efficient and have proven extremely effective over the past two decades.
Similarly, the Affordable Heat program is designed to place a small tax on suppliers that will encourage them and users to make the transition. It’s also designed to help suppliers transition to being the suppliers and service professionals of renewable energy sources, such as heat pumps. The goal is to help Vermonters get off fossil fuels in a way that’s affordable and will provide low-cost energy for decades to come. As renewable energy costs come down to the price of fossil fuels, that’s more realistic than ever — and it’ll help prevent the worst effects of a warming climate. It is, in short, good legislation on all fronts. Whether it can be done affordably at this time is what the studies will inform the legislature.
More misinformation:
• On two other pieces of misinformation seen in Republican campaign flyers, Gov. Scott and most GOP candidates have unfairly targeted Democrats for passing a new $80 million payroll tax and voted to raise property taxes at outrageous levels! On the first, the very small tax on payroll (0.11% on employees and 0.33% for employers, unless the employer assumes the full tax, which many are) is being used to solve the affordable childcare crisis, and it’s working. As for the increase in property taxes, the legislature has to fund the school budgets passed at the district level. Gov. Scott’s plan was to borrow money to lower this year’s taxes, while simply adding that future debt to next year’s burden — not a great plan in anyone’s book. Again, such tactics embraced by Republicans are underhanded, and not an honest appraisal of the measures passed.
Angelo Lynn
More News
Op/Ed
Editorial: Trump’s dominance ushers in a new era of nastier politics
Trump’s dominance in the swing states reflected voters’ dissatisfaction with high inflatio … (read more)
Op/Ed
Ways of Seeing: Crises showing our vulnerability
Have you heard of the Thin Veneer Theory? This is the idea that underneath a thin layer of … (read more)
Op/Ed
Clippings: New York City marathon exceeded my dreams
It was the culmination of four months of specific training, and a desire to return to my p … (read more)