Editor’s note: This commentary is by Scott Woodward, an information technology consultant and an eminent domain/takings specialist who lives in North Pomfret. He holds a juris doctor and master’s of environmental law and policy from Vermont Law School and is running this year as an independent for the state Senate in the Windsor Senate district.
[O]ur land-use policies have served us well for close to 50 years having thwarted the kinds of development that would otherwise jeopardize the beauty of Vermont and the Vermont brand. But have we become victims of our own success? I believe Vermont is at a turning point in terms of land use planning and development priorities, directly affecting the health of our economy and issues of affordability.
Continued revenue shortfalls, despite increases in taxes, suggest that Vermont’s economy suffers from fundamental structural issues. The recent VPR/Castleton Polling Institute poll results show that the economy/jobs/cost of living is the No. 1 concern. Stunningly, that same poll found that 70 percent of respondents believe job opportunities are “just fair” or “poor” and 75 percent believe that wages are “just fair” or “poor.” Improving wages largely depends on increasing job opportunities and our land use policies could very well be the main constraint keeping us from improving both.
I believe the main impediment to our long-term economic well-being is the “homevoter” effect, a term coined by Dartmouth College professor of economics William Fischel and described in his 2001 book the “The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance and Land-Use Policies.” The idea of the Homevoter Hypothesis is that homeowners have a stronger incentive to get involved in local politics than others (e.g., renters) because local policies have a powerful effect on the value of their largest asset, their homes. Whether it’s a home in Malibu or one next to the local sewage plant, a homeowner is going to act in ways that preserves or increases the value of the home. For this reason, homeowners have an incentive to act in more efficient ways. In Vermont, 66 percent of the total equalized property values are held by homevoters, thus giving homevoters a controlling interest in policy making.
The homevoter effect must also be viewed in the context of Vermont’s shifting demographics. Nearly half of the current population falls into the 45 and older age brackets whereas in 1980 it was closer to a third of the population. Relative to the total population, there are fewer younger people of working age and as we get older we tend to become more protective of our wealth, which in turn feeds into a more dramatic expression of the homevoter effect. Today, the homevoter effect has a larger and more powerful constituency than ever before in Vermont’s history.
If one were to study town plans across Vermont, the single most important land-use planning principle likely to emerge would be to “preserve the rural character of the town.” This has as much, if not more, to do with economics as it does aesthetics.
Â
If one were to study town plans across Vermont, the single most important land-use planning principle likely to emerge would be to “preserve the rural character of the town.” This has as much, if not more, to do with economics as it does aesthetics. Act 250, the Use Value Appraisal Program, ridgeline zoning and increased conservation have collectively been enormously successful in maintaining the beauty of our state and protecting actual home values.
The homevoter effect is also visible in debates over local control. Extending professor Fischel’s Homevoter Hypothesis more broadly, it’s not a stretch to believe that protecting the perceived value of one’s community is directly related to protecting the actual value of one’s home. Though the homevoter effect is not the entire story, we can see it playing out before our very eyes, whether it’s threats from solar or wind renewable energy development, the Vermont Gas pipeline, David Hall’s New Vista project, or I-89 interchange development projects in Randolph or Quechee Highlands. Opposition to school consolidation under Act 46 could quite possibly be viewed as an expression of the homevoter effect as well. I would argue that the battle over school spending is very much a battle over preserving home values because otherwise we would not be able to spend as much as we do on education.
Whether it’s change from above or change from external forces, the different constituencies opposing change have a common interest in preserving both the perceived value of communities and actual value of homes. Vermont homevoters are increasingly selective about the kinds of development that’s acceptable. Moreover, there’s a great deal of discord across Vermont about what’s good development versus unwanted development.
So what do we do about it? For starters, we need to stop fighting each other. As of late, there’s a lot of bullying going on in Vermont, whether it’s between Montpelier and local governments or local governments and regional planning commissions, to say nothing of the Public Service Board, developers and lobbying organizations. Certainly, conflicts and tension will always exist when it comes to making decisions about development priorities, but we are too small of a state to allow these kinds of conflicts to reach such a crescendo. Let’s resolve to cooperate – we can disagree, but let’s at least work together. In the words of Gov. Dean in his 2003 farewell address (like him or not): “How lucky we are that we live in a state where you can have a big argument with somebody at town meeting over the school budget; and three days later, if their barn burns down, you are there with a covered dish.”
I encourage communities and the state to paint a picture of what Vermont should look like in the years ahead. Our next governor may want to employ his or her administration to help formulate that vision. The Legislature should also examine whether our property tax incentives are aligned to promote the right kinds of development that will encourage growth, including building more affordable housing and allowing for the succession of farm properties to a younger generation of farmers. Local communities and planning commissions also have a role in terms of making sure zoning regulations don’t exclude attracting new residents and businesses. We are not alone in terms of the homevoter effect and we should look outward to gather information about how other states and cities are dealing with similar challenges.
(Author’s note: I’d like to acknowledge and thank Professor William Fischel for corresponding with me in drafting this commentary.)