Editor’s note: This commentary is by George Plumb, who is a member of the board of Better (not bigger) Vermont. He lives in Washington, Vermont, which is only a few miles from the proposed NewVistas development.
[T]he NewVistas Foundation, a Utah nonprofit corporation, and its founder, David Hall, have proposed a long-term plan to construct a 2.88-square-mile, up to 20,000 residents, mixed-use industrial, commercial and residential development in rural areas of the towns of Royalton, Sharon, Strafford and Tunbridge. The development would surround the historic Joseph Smith Memorial located in the town of Sharon just north of Route 14.
The NewVistas Foundation and a company owned and controlled by Mr. Hall have already purchased over 1,800 acres of land in the four towns. Hall, who is heir to a large fortune, says that he is spending a considerable amount of money on this plan: between $15 million and $20 million a year including research and engineering.
The four towns combined now have a current population of about 6,700 people. Adding 20,000 more people would quadruple the size of the population. When the Joseph Smith monument was constructed in 1905 Sharon had a population of about 700. Today’s population is about 1,500. Montpelier, our state capital city, has a population of 7,900 people. Think about what bringing 20,000 people into an area of similar size would look and feel like. Is this what we want to happen to such a rural area?
The majority of people in these four towns oppose the NewVistas development. On Town Meeting Day in 2017 all four towns passed resolutions opposing this development by overwhelmingly majorities.
The proposed development would have tremendous environmental costs including loss of agriculture and forest land, increased traffic, noise and light pollution, more water runoff, and reduced game and wildlife populations.
There would also be social costs. The sense of community would likely change dramatically with an influx of people with potentially different values. Democracy as we know it could very well shift to ballot decisions instead of town meeting discussions as happens with larger communities. The historic character and neighborliness of our communities would likely be altered if not destroyed entirely.
Some political leaders, economists, planners and developers want to grow the population and have more development. However, the concept of developmental growth always having economic benefits is in itself a misconception. Besides environmental and social costs there are always economic costs that often, if not always exceed, the economic benefits. This results from more road infrastructure to build and maintain, more police and fire safety required, expansion or building of new schools, and possibly expanded sewerage treatment and disposal.
As Eben Fodor states in the book he authored, “Better Not Bigger,” “Urban growth is not something to be sought after like a prize or a blessing. Instead it is more like a parasite that saps the strength and will of our communities.”
The state of Vermont has a population of 627,000. Although we currently import approximately 95 percent of our food we could probably grow at least 75 percent of our food if we had to because of climate change. Let’s work to keep our population relatively stable so that we will be able to be more resilient as agricultural production from other areas decreases.
The local communities have formed an organization, Alliance for Vermont Communities, to oppose the development. To learn more about the alliance and all the organizations that are “partners” go towww.alliancevermont.org
Mr. Hall has stated he is buying and conserving land. He is not conserving it, just delaying development. Wouldn’t it be great if Mr. Hall demonstrated his spiritual grounding by buying land, putting a conservation easement on it, and then reselling it? That would leave a real legacy!
