Aaron Adler’s recent commentary (“Changes in Act 250 and local zoning won’t solve Vermont’s housing problems”) is spot on. He perfectly exposes the futile search for any logic connecting land use policy with housing affordability (there isn’t any).
Only an exceptionally naïve reading of real estate economics would conclude that an additional house per acre or a few skipped environmental reviews lowers the curb price. The only thing regulatory reform accomplishes is lessening protections for irreplaceable resources and enhancing developer bottom lines. As for affordability: nada.
But Aaron, the consummate diplomat, stops short of calling out two painful truths about these misguided proposals. First is how lawmakers, faced with vexingly complex challenges, gravitate to stroke-of-the-pen solutions even if they don’t have a prayer. H.L. Mencken rubbed our noses in such methods when he opined that “every complex problem has a simple solution: neat, tidy, and wrong!”
More troubling is how readily the search for quick answers succumbed to the shopworn tactic of tossing vulnerable environmental and community values under the bus so long as there’s a buck at stake. Seriously! This is the sort of thinking we’d expect from Mississippi, not Vermont. With climate change breathing heavily down our necks, the very notion of subordinating environmental protection to human development must be anathema. Until our environment is no longer in jeopardy, we must get used to prioritizing these protections and never, ever leaving the appearance of subjugating them.
Without a doubt, Act 250 and our local land use regulations need serious overhauling. But holding the affordable housing gun to our heads is the wrong way to do it.
Paul Haskell
Randolph