Editor’s note: This commentary is by Sandy Dooley, a 48-year resident of South Burlington, a former city councilor, vice chair of the city’s Affordable Housing Committee and earlier this year ended a nine-year stint on Champlain Housing Trust’s board of directors.
Many things about my home city, South Burlington, inspire pride. However, recent events in opposition to additional housing development in our southeast quadrant prompted me to reflect on the kind of community I want South Burlington to be.
We are a city of many diverse neighborhoods. To succeed and thrive, we need to be a community in which the residents of every neighborhood recognize that we need to support policies that promote the best interests of all city residents — not solely the interests of their neighborhood. At least in terms of the residents who championed the purchase of two of the three lots comprising the proposed Dorset Meadows development in the southeast quadrant, I do not see this larger-picture perspective.
Preservation of open space is not the sole priority need facing South Burlington. We need more housing, including new housing having a broad spectrum of prices. Housing in South Burlington is expensive. Part of the reason is the low vacancy rate. Increasing the supply of housing is one way to slow the increase in housing prices.
Removing land that is otherwise appropriate for development leaves less land available for new housing, thereby increasing the cost of the remaining land, which adds to the cost of housing. The southeast quadrant residents who applaud the removal of 37 acres from potential for development are either unaware of or lack appreciation for this consequence. (Concurrently, housing development on the other 44 acres was dramatically restricted via covenant.) Their view is that all new housing should be built elsewhere in the city. See this article in The Other Paper on Dec. 3 for details about these neighbors’ efforts.
South Burlington’s southeast quadrant neighborhood has the highest median household income in Vermont. Adopting a no-build policy there would likely exacerbate this exclusivity, as opposed to promoting inclusivity and opportunity, hallmarks of a thriving and enlightened community.
In addition, this neighborhood tactic lends itself to the inference that South Burlington has, historically, done a poor job of protecting the southeast quadrant’s natural resources from development. The facts do not support this representation. Of the quadrant’s 3,200 acres, 1,607, or half, are already protected from development due to natural resource protection zoning. This does not include an additional few hundred acres that are protected by master plan or other binding agreements (for example, South Village). Of the remaining land, about 320 acres are available and appropriate for development.
How do we achieve inclusivity and opportunity in the southeast quadrant if this land is made off limits for housing?
Last, we are an aging community. South Burlington’s median age is 42 (up from 40 in 2010), compared to Chittenden County’s median of 37. Plus, our senior cohort is growing over 3 percent annually at the same time the under-18 group shrinks by about 2 percent each year. We need an ongoing infusion of new and, especially, younger residents to replace those of us who retire elsewhere or reach the end of our days. Our success and vibrancy depend on this new blood. It is not in our interest to stagnate.
In short, the lesson for me is that Vermonters who are troubled by such actions, and their consequences, must reach out more and communicate better about the need to support policies that promote the best interests of all — policies that look beyond one’s local neighborhood.
