This commentary is by Susan Culp, a resident of Newbury.
Vermont has a storied reputation as a “progressive” pro-democracy state. But what does that really mean?
If you define “progressive” as a state run predominantly by liberal elected officials who identify with the Democratic Party, then perhaps you’re right. But if you define “progressive” by public institutions that value the principles of good governance, inclusivity, transparency, accountability, and healthy civic engagement and empowerment, that will be hard to find in this state — at least in Montpelier.
Instead, we have a heavy-handed administration, often aided and abetted by state legislative leadership that is focused more on chummy relationships with each other and special interests than it is responsive to the constituents and communities that they ostensibly represent.
From a Fish and Wildlife Board that is a textbook example of special-interest agency capture, a Natural Resources Board that makes land use planning decisions via appointees without subject matter expertise or qualifications, or the ceaseless dishonesty and gaslighting of the Department for Children and Families with respect to forcibly siting an “architecturally hardware-secure facility” (i.e., juvenile detention facility) in Newbury without adequate infrastructure or services to support it — the list goes on.
The state-level overreach, often under the flimsiest of legal rationales, in steamrolling communities like Newbury is anything but democratic.
As a resident of Newbury, the controversy around the detention center siting has been my closest view of this disturbing modus operandi. DCF cooked up its plan to replace Woodside Juvenile Detention Center with a private company that had property in Newbury. Agency officials made agreements and sought legislative approval for a “Woodside Replacement” for adjudicated youth on a “no eject, no reject” basis, meaning that even the most violent youth could be placed there. All before even approaching the town of Newbury about their plans.
The project was introduced to us as a juvenile detention facility, and when they faced pushback, they began the process of moving the goalposts. It became a “residential treatment center.” A zoning application was submitted under the label “school” and then later submitted as a “group home for the mentally disabled.”
It has been an endless parade of deception, broken commitments, and misrepresentation about the true nature of the project — all to circumvent legitimate local land use laws. “Mental disability” was never among the criteria discussed for youth placement when the project was planned and approved by the state.
When the town rejected the state permit after reviewing the full suite of available public information about the project, citing its justified conclusion that it was not — as asserted by Vermont Permanency Initiative, the private company that owns the property — a “group home for the mentally disabled,” Vermont Permanency and the Department for Children and Families sued the town. And brought the full weight of taxpayer dollars to clobber a local community decision and force a facility in an inappropriate, underserved location in a conservation district.
The case is now before the Vermont Supreme Court. Vermont Permanency and DCF may prevail with their perversion of the group home statutes — which were intended to ensure people with actual disabilities could live in an integrated residential community setting, not house criminal youth in a lockup.
They could force Newbury to accept the placement of violent youth offenders in a remote rural area on a dirt road with no services. Such a remarkable precedent would have ramifications beyond our town.
And when the inevitable tragedy occurs, perhaps in the middle of an icy winter storm on an impassable Class IV dirt road, and one of those youths acts out in violence against one another or the staff or escapes into the community, and the law enforcement response is 45 minutes to an hour out, don’t say that the people of Newbury didn’t warn you about what could happen, or the risks. Or about why this type of facility shouldn’t be there.
Local emergency medical services cannot enter a building until it is secured by law enforcement. A lot can happen in an hour. Save your excuses for the families of those who would be injured, or worse, in such a scenario.
The very purpose of local government is to provide an avenue for the people who know a place best to have a voice in the decisions that affect their community’s future and well-being. And that perspective should be valued and respected in state-level decision-making. That is the essence of democracy, with a little “d.”
But Vermont has decided that bureaucrats and out-of-touch lawmakers in Montpelier know best. And they pat us on the head and tell us to roll over, damn the consequences. That is anything but progressive. Or democratic.
