This commentary is by John Bossange of South Burlington, a retired middle school principal.
We read a lot these days about the need for more workers to fill jobs, the need to grow our economy, and the need for more houses to accommodate those individuals and families when they move to Vermont. All of these issues are related and important to the future of our state.
But too often, absent from the discussion is the impact of that growth on our towns and cities. They will inevitably struggle with the “carrying capacity” of such desired growth. You can’t promote more people, jobs and homes without planning for the impacts.
Unfortunately, a recent article submitted by the Vermont Futures Project did not address “carrying capacity” in its analysis of what’s needed to ensure successful, long-term growth.
“Carrying capacity” includes the impact of growth on schools, police, fire, public works, parks, intersections and traffic control, and many other essential services — like the ability to maintain adequate wastewater treatment and stormwater systems, provide enough fresh, clean drinking water, and enough expanded fossil fuel gas and electrical grids.
Growing our economy with more jobs, workers and homes must always include “carrying capacity” to fully understand the true cost of that growth on our tax base and on our environment.
The Vermont Futures Project has proposed increasing our state’s population from 649,150 (2023) to 802,000 by the year 2035. That’s an increase of 153,850 residents in 12 years. It’s not at all clear if this growth in residents are of working age, or just a collection of individuals and family members. However, the article continues to suggest we will need 13,500 workers for each of the next 12 years, and that assumes there is a workforce needed for anticipated retirements and for an expanded economy.
Those assumptions are at best questionable, and the lack of clarity makes these numbers confusing and unconvincing.
We do know that there is a need for more housing of all types, beginning with apartments, smaller condominiums, duplex, triplex and, as they are promoting in Canadian cities, fourplex housing units. Younger workers and those with families are the future of Vermont. The article is correct. We do need more people to move here to replace our aging population.
However, younger families wish to enjoy the beauty of our state and will not likely move here to live in sprawling sub-developments of expensive single-family homes. Most want to escape that type of living environment and they will move here for work if they can enjoy the natural beauty of undeveloped and conserved land in Vermont.
Young people also have a passion for saving the environment and understand the urgent need to conserve land to help mitigate the climate crisis. They want to envision a livable environment for their children with a hopeful future. So far, that’s been a key part of the Vermont appeal and must be a reality for any successful job growth or recruitment.
The Vermont Futures article further states that the key to bringing people here is to build more housing. That’s true if constructing new homes of all types occurs within village, town and well-defined city core areas. The Vermont Futures Project does not make this commitment to responsible development.
Younger families will come and look for affordable homes, good schools, and communities that have bike and walking paths close to schools, stores, libraries, and other municipal amenities. If they can’t see that, most will not move here and experience ugly, sprawling, car-culture living environments even if the Vermont job offer is enticing.
The Vermont Futures article continues to state that we need to move from 269,527 existing housing units to 350,000 housing units. That’s an increase of 80,473 households. Here is where the critical issue of “carrying capacity” comes into play.
In Vermont, using the state formula, every new home unit occupied produces 2.35 people. With 80,473 new homes proposed by Vermont Futures Project, that translates into 189,111 more residents, far more than the initial proposed number. Again using Vermont’s formula for school enrollment projections (0.17 of residents), that would mean an additional 32,148 students under the age of 18 in our school system. Further, that number of desired population grown to reach the Vermont Future’s goal of new Vermonters will yield 185,087 more cars, using the state formula of 2.30 cars per household in Vermont.
Think about that. 189,111 more residents, 32,148 more school-age kids, and 185,087 more cars in our small state. That’s what building more houses as proposed by Vermont Futures will produce. In terms of “carrying capacity,” these numbers will have a devastating impact on our villages, towns, cities and counties.
Who would want this much growth? The answer is those who will profit the most. Readers should carefully look at the board of directors and the major donors who support the Vermont Futures project. Vermonters deserve to know who sets their vision, stands to benefit financially, and funds their research.
“Carrying capacity” is expensive. History tells us that impact fees and growing the grand list never come close to covering the true costs of development. The necessary financial burden always falls to the taxpayer with sharp, dramatic increases in both municipal and school tax rates, often a few years after the developers have completed their building and moved on.
Increasing population and building more houses have historical and well-documented consequences. We need to measure the “carrying capacity” of every new building permit request because it will directly and very quickly affect our pocketbooks and the quality of life for everyone in our state.
The Vermont Futures Project article failed to address “carrying capacity.” How could these numbers have been omitted from the proposal? The authors owe all residents of Vermont an explanation. This failure should cause town managers, selectboards and city councils everywhere to reject the proposal because, more than most, they are ones who understand the true impact and costs of growth in their communities.
