If there’s one thing we love here at VTDigger dot org, it’s sports. Final Readers know that our sports section is famously robust, providing minute-by-minute coverage of Vermont’s many professional sports teams.
So you can imagine the excitement in our newsroom on Thursday when mobile sports betting went live across the state. To celebrate, we decided to place a wager of our own.
Vermonters can now place bets on three digital platforms — DraftKings, FanDuel and Fanatics Sportsbook — which state officials selected through a competitive bidding process.
The legal sports betting market is projected to raise some $7 million in new revenue for the state in its first year of operation. State law mandates that part of that money (at least $250,000 for the first fiscal year) go toward programs to help Vermonters struggling with gambling addiction.
“As a Boston-based company, we are thrilled for the opportunity to further expand in the New England region and provide Vermont with access to safe and legal sports betting,” Matt Kalish, president of DraftKings North America, said in a Wednesday press release.
After roughly 20 minutes of Googling a) how to use sports betting apps and b) which sports events were even happening on Thursday, we figured we were informed enough to place our inaugural bet.
Turns out, the Boston Celtics are playing the Milwaukee Bucks in basketball tonight at 7:30. Based on our unwavering loyalty to New England sports teams (even through the ups and downs — looking at you, Patriots), we decided to put down some cash on the Cs winning the day.
(VTDigger politics reporter Shaun Robinson: “Wait — can they tie in basketball?”)
Ultimately — if we did everything right — we placed $5 on a Celtics win. Want to know what the odds were? So did we. It’s complicated, and we didn’t really understand it. But we’re pretty sure that the Celtics are not favored, which means that if all goes well, we could win an additional $7.70.
We considered betting on something more interesting — 3-pointers, rebounds, who makes the first field goal — but honestly could not figure it out before our deadline.
Anyway, we are proud to be carrying on the longstanding tradition of gambling under the golden dome (see: March Madness brackets, adjournment pools and secret off-session poker games in the Marble Palace — IYKYK).
Check back in tomorrow’s Final Reading to see whether our wager paid off. Or, we guess, you can just watch the game.
To be clear: This is in no way intended as a promotion for DraftKings or any other sports betting operator. Honestly, if they had any idea we were doing this, they probably would have asked us not to.
If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, you can call the National Problem Gambling Helpline at 1-800 GAMBLER or access resources at problemgambling.vermont.gov.
— Shaun Robinson and Peter D’Auria
In the know
Advocates called on lawmakers Thursday to adopt a Housing First approach to the state’s homelessness crisis, a model that prioritizes moving people into permanent housing with as few strings attached as possible.
In a press conference Thursday morning, a coalition of advocates including former gubernatorial candidate Brenda Siegel, the Vermont ACLU and Vermont Legal Aid, among others, argued that the state needed to adopt a “data-driven” approach to housing.
“We need a statewide policy that changes the game and ensures the dignity and security of our fellow Vermonters,” Siegel said.
The Housing First plan calls for the state to set aside more state-funded housing units for people leaving homelessness, invest $5 million into the anti-homelessness nonprofit Pathways Vermont, and put money into “non-congregate interim housing units,” such as hotel rooms.
The coalition’s recommendations come as Vermont marks a continued rise in homelessness. On April 1, hundreds of Vermonters are set to lose their shelter through the expanded pandemic-era version of the state’s motel housing program. Last summer, the state evicted hundreds of people from motels after federal funding for the program ran dry.
The Agency of Human Services is seeking $4 million in its mid-year budget adjustment to stand up five temporary, emergency shelters by spring. But key questions remain, including where exactly the shelters will be located, who still staff them, how large they will be, and who will get a spot.
— Carly Berlin and Peter D’Auria
As Vermont quickly approaches a 2025 deadline to reduce climate emissions, state agencies and data experts engaged in a tense discussion this week about whether the state is on track to meet the legally binding benchmark.
The Global Warming Solutions Act, passed by lawmakers in 2020, requires Vermont to reduce emissions by specific amounts by 2025, 2030 and 2050. The law commits the state government to lowering the pollution that contributes to climate change to 26% below 2005 levels by 2025.
Leaders of various state agencies and data experts testified before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy on Wednesday about what kind of progress has been made so far toward reaching that goal.
Their testimony revealed questions about the appropriateness of the data the state cited to the committee in quantifying its progress.
— Emma Cotton
On the move
Calling it a “necessary part of the solution” to the opioid crisis, the Vermont House advanced a bill on Thursday that would establish two overdose prevention centers in the state, legislation which is likely to be vetoed by Gov. Phil Scott.
H.72 would pave the way for the sites by funding two locations and creating the legal framework that would allow them to operate. On Thursday, the House gave its final approval by voice vote, sending the bill to the Senate.
The vote followed hours of sometimes emotional testimony and debate spread across two days, with lawmakers repeatedly describing how Vermont’s opioid crisis has impacted them on personal levels.
Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, D-Brattleboro, said one of her favorite parts of living in a small town is watching kids grow up. But due to opioids, “in the last 10 years I watched those children die. I’ve also grieved the deaths of my friends’ precious children, of my own loved ones, of clients,” Kornheiser, who works as a consultant for nonprofits, said on Wednesday afternoon, holding back tears. “And we can’t go on like this.”
— Patrick Crowley
In a legislative session already dominated by intense debate over the state of public safety in Vermont, the House on Thursday passed a measure aimed at tackling one of the most pervasive forms of violence in the state: domestic and intimate partner violence.
The bill, H.27, cleared the chamber on a 106-31 vote, making it the first to win full approval by the House this session. It would expand the definition of domestic violence to include “coercive and controlling behavior” for the purpose of granting abuse prevention orders in Vermont’s civil courts. All 31 representatives who voted against the bill were Republicans.
A carryover from the 2023 session, H.27 would enable judges to grant abuse prevention orders to those whose intimate partners are inflicting emotional and mental abuse on their partners — potentially before the abuse becomes physically violent. Currently, survivors must prove in court that they’ve been physically abused by their partners before they can get such legal protections.
— Sarah Mearhoff
The Senate Committee on Government Operations took up legislation Thursday that would make permanent the pandemic-era policy allowing public bodies to host their meetings solely online. The Vermont Secretary of State’s office, though, isn’t fully on board with the idea.
For the past three years, lawmakers have granted state and local governing bodies temporary authority to convene without designating a physical location for their meeting, as is otherwise required by Vermont’s Open Meeting Law. But that authority is now set to expire in July.
Enter S.55, which would entirely nix the requirement that public bodies have a physical meeting space — and that they must designate someone to attend the meeting in person. The bill would require public bodies to allow access electronically or, at least, on the phone.
But that level of access is not enough for all Vermonters, Lauren Hibbert, the deputy secretary of state, told the members of the judiciary committee Thursday afternoon.
“We do not think that telephone access is sufficient access. It is really subpar,” Hibbert said. “It’s very hard to know who’s speaking, when it’s your turn to speak, or what the tenor and tone of the meeting are.”
Hibbert said her office could support a rewrite of S.55 that preserves in-person access for public bodies that make financial decisions or serve in quasi-judicial roles while allowing electric-only meetings for those that have less authority over spending and other key public issues.
— Shaun Robinson
What we’re reading
As March Town Meetings near, 2023 floods spur a temporary torrent of red ink, VTDigger
Squier family sells WDEV to former GOP candidates, Myers Mermel and Scott Milne, VTDigger
