Social Links

Run of Site Leaderboard

6 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. This is serious stuff. It amazes me that Vermonters, with all the other things we have to contend with, can’t rely on this being a “no-brainer” with unanimous support from our elected officials. But so be it. Fight is on.

  2. Excellent piece Mr. Tokar.

  3. As of 8 pm on Town Meeting Day, the following 22 towns had passed resolutions against tar sands oil. Several towns, including Montpelier, Burlington and St. Johnsbury, had yet to report:

    East Montpelier
    Craftsbury
    Charlotte
    Montgomery
    Warren
    Waitsfield
    Moretown
    Fayston
    Starksboro
    Ripton
    Hinesburg
    Cornwall
    Bennington
    Walden
    Plainfield
    Marshfield
    Calais
    Woodbury
    Middlebury
    Putney
    Worcester
    Middlesex

  4. 6 more towns:

    Randolph
    Montpelier (1650 – 643)
    Grand Isle (passed by Select Board earlier)
    Chittenden
    Burlington
    Cabot

    1 or 2 still not reported.

  5. Greensboro confirmed this morning. A total of 29 towns passed resolutions vs. tar sands oil! Also 3 towns in Maine.

  6. In Marshfield, a lot of people hung in there for a 2.25 hr discussion. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to learn as much as we might have about the science of tar sands or the company’s hopes of running it thru Vermont, because we had to spend a lot of time on procedural issues – whether or not we could talk about it all, essentially. Though early speakers who were able to get heard, had made a strong case for why it is a local issue, as well as a planetary one – Admire the stick-to-it-ness of those who stayed thru all the procedural bickering, until we were able to vote (strongly) in favor of the slightly amended proposal which will request our town officials try to do business with fuel companies which avoid tar sands oil. Note: not a bit of reporting by the Times Argus on Marshfield’s intense debate and vote on this important issue!

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Tokar: Voters to address oil pipeline issue at town meeting"