This commentary is by Ed Stanak, who worked as an Act 250 district coordinator for 32 years for Washington and Lamoille counties and a portion of Orange County.
Over the decades, the national Chamber of Commerce has been aggressive in its efforts seeking legislation to reduce, if not eliminate, many forms of government regulation — such as worker protections and environmental laws — all in the name of unleashing free enterprise to bring about “economic growth.” These efforts have rarely been constrained by facts and often exhibit traits of propaganda.
The April 18 commentary by Charles Martin for the Vermont Chamber of Commerce titled “Act 250 and the stifling of economic opportunity in Vermont” is an example of how the Vermont affiliate of the Chamber is committed to the mission of the national Chamber.
After Martin provided lip service acknowledging that “Act 250 deserves considerable credit for helping Vermont maintain” its status as one of the most beautiful states in the nation, he then went on to blame Act 250 for the cancellation of the hotel and garage project in Montpelier. One cannot help but note that Martin failed to credit Act 250 — but the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and at least two national studies did — for helping Vermont weather several economic recessions over the years better than other New England states.
Instead, Martin claimed, without providing any factual proof, that Act 250 “is a direct contributor to the economic stagnation facing many of our communities.” Is Martin aware that 70% of all development and land subdivision in Vermont are exempt from Act 250 review?
The record shows that the Act 250 District 5 Environmental Commission processed the application for the hotel and the garage project in a timely manner and a final decision was issued within six months of the filing of the application. The decision was then appealed to the Environmental Division of the Superior Court. And there the appeal sank into the swamp of legal procedures for two years until the Hilton corporation terminated its franchise agreement with the Bashara family.
Appeals of district commission decisions (only 5% of all commission decisions get appealed in any given year) go to the court in accordance with an amendment to Act 250 that the Legislature passed in 2004. Before then, appeals were handled by the Environmental Board, which consisted of nine citizen members. The amendment was proposed in 2003 by legislators who claimed that the board had failed to process appeals fast enough and that the judicial system would do a better job. One of the sponsors of that amendment was then-Sen. Phil Scott. The amendment was rammed through the legislative process with little opportunity for public input and careful scrutiny of what its effects would be.
So has the Environmental Court done a better job in processing appeals than the former Environmental Board? No. Had Martin’s commentary been fact-based, it would have conceded that a comparison of data from the former board and the current court shows that the board’s appellate process was much more efficient.
What conclusions may be drawn from this rebuttal to Martin’s commentary?
First, that the Chamber, and other developer lobbyists and legislative advocates like then-Sen. Scott, got what they wanted back in 2004 when the “permit reform” bill threw Act 250 appeals into the court system.
Second, that appeals actually take longer as a result of that change. Third, the Chamber’s beef about development being killed off by appeal delays caused by the maze of court process is with the Vermont judiciary and not with Act 250.
Finally, the same team of deregulation advocates, including Gov. Phil Scott, is now calling for yet more changes to Act 250 so that Vermonters will not be — to quote Martin — “left to suffer from the fallout of recurring instances of wasted opportunity.”
Based on their track record, the team (and the rest of us) should be careful of what they wish for because their last big “permit reform” idea didn’t work out so well for the Bashara family and the city of Montpelier, did it?
