In a letter to the editor in today’s Addison Independent, Ripton resident Jerry Shedd eloquently challenges a premise on the benefits of growth this editor proposed last week regarding the CHIP program. Then he asks an astute question: In defining the long-term benefits of growth can I and others championing growth as a solution “make the case that stability at that higher population level is preferable to the stability Vermont enjoys now?”

It’s a fair point that’s critical to the town’s (and state’s) long-term planning. Let’s also concede there’s more than one way to achieve stability.

In arguing that growth is needed to meet some of the needs facing Middlebury and Addison County, we’d point to the following:

• According to a new analysis by Vermont Housing Finance Agency, “Vermont is falling short of its housing targets by thousands of homes each year.” To alleviate the state’s housing crisis, “the recent statewide housing needs assessment estimates Vermont needs 28,000-41,000 more homes by 2030 but is currently on track to produce only 12,500.”

In Addison County, we need to add about 400 homes per year to meet projected housing demand by 2030. However, the county is currently averaging only 110 homes annually, which will leave the county nearly 1,500 homes short of the 2,000 total needed by the end of the decade.

Addison Housing Works notes the consequence of that shortcoming: “Falling short of these goals will continue to drive up housing costs, reduce availability, and push working families and vulnerable residents out of our communities.” In short, if we don’t change the current trajectory, the impact on the community continues to worsen.

• In our schools, it’s well-known we’ve been losing student population, making the operation of those schools less cost-effective. Because school funding is largely based on a fee-per-student basis, the goal should be to operate as close to schoolroom capacity as possible. So, if a school like Mary Hogan Elementary in Middlebury was designed to operate at 600 students (it was 600-plus at its peak 30-or-so years ago), and now educates under 480-500 (it had dropped to under 400 during the pandemic), we could bring on 100 or so more students with only a slight increase in operational cost that theoretically would be more than covered by the additional per-pupil revenue. It short, it should be a net gain and help reduce school property taxes.

• The loss of Vermont’s working-age democratic, particularly those in the 25-55 age market, mean many of Addison County’s employers are scrambling for help. Construction costs are unusually high in Vermont partly because the shortage of labor drives up hourly wages. Moreover, wait times for a plumber, electrician, carpenter, or anyone in the trades, discourages building, housing or commercial renovations — stifling what could be a more robust home-building industry. That same lack of labor hinders the state’s restaurant and outdoor recreational industry, forcing some restaurants to limit hours and days per week they are open. What’s relatively new is the enormous loss of jobs in Vermont. According to recent reports from the Vt. Department of Labor, Vermont lost 10,000 non-farm jobs this past year. And during Gov. Scott’s 10-year tenure, the state has seen a net loss of about 5,000 non-farm jobs. That is, from 2016 to 2025, Vermont has seen approximately 680,000 gross job gains from new business openings and corporate expansions versus 685,000 gross job losses from corporate contractions and business closures.

The given in this discussion is the assumption that when the labor supply is adequate and affordable housing is available, that helps create a more vibrant local economy. The working community buys goods and services from retail stores which drives a better selection of retail goods, eateries, and activities (not to mention more robust health care services) throughout the county. The applicable economic theory is to have enough critical mass to sustain the county’s basic services.

Mr. Shedd’s challenge, to those advocating growth, is to more clearly define what that metric might be. Without it, the premise is continual growth which creates its own set of problems and places an impossible demand on the earth’s finite resources and its capacity to handle human waste. It’s a valid point that deserves sustained debate.

Angelo Lynn