Dear Editor,
The rural uprising over the last month has been a remarkable example of what can be achieved through focused, direct citizen action. Although we are on the cusp of achieving our immediate objective of repealing the 800-foot road rule and the Tier 3 designations of Act 181, there is a much bigger objective that we still need to accomplish.
One of the most significant problems with the entire process by which Act 59 — which set the goal of conserving 30% of Vermont’s landscape by 2030 and 50% by 2050 — and Act 181 were created was that both pieces of legislation were classic examples of what may be termed “power over” instead of “power with.”
“Power over” is characterized by hierarchy. It is characterized by a governance model that shades toward authoritarianism. It is a process by which a small, select group makes decisions that are binding on others but may not be binding on themselves. It is a centralized process. It is predicated on the false belief that some have more, and superior, knowledge than others.
In contrast, “power with” is characterized by a decentralized democratic model where all interested parties have a seat at the table, and all interested parties have a voice that is heard and considered. It is collaborative and recognizes that all parties have valuable knowledge and wisdom that must be included in the process.
Acts 59 and 181 are perfect examples of Martin Luther King Jr.’s classic definition of just and unjust laws. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King wrote: “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that… had no part in enacting or devising the law.”
In my view, this exactly describes the manner in which Acts 59 and 181 were created. Neither landowners, farmers, foresters, nor any group that actually represents them were invited to be part of the process by which these laws were drafted. Establishment environmental nonprofits and others were perfectly willing to impose the law on those of us who live in and work rural lands.
Another example of how these acts were “power over” and not “power with” is that Vermont’s Natural Resource Conservation Districts (NRCDs) were also completely shut out of the legislative process. NRCD is staffed by capable people who have a long track record of working with landowners. There is a level of trust that exists because NRCD staff listen to and collaborate with landowners. The result is that numerous substantive conservation initiatives have become standard practice. Farmers cover cropping their corn fields — the practice of planting a crop not for harvest, but to protect and enrich the soil between main growing seasons — is just one example of this.
The position of Rural Vermont Rising — a grassroots advocacy organization representing rural landowners and farmers — is that the legislative model moving forward must be “power with.” We must be in the room, at the table, when legislation that will substantially affect us is being drafted. We must be included in meaningful ways; no tokenism.
It is not enough that Tier 2 and Tier 3 of Act 181 are to be repealed. Act 59 must also be repealed because the permanent conservation enshrined by this legislation is the absolute epitome of “power over.” It insists that I concede a legal power over my land to an outside entity. The logical reality of that is that someone else wants power over my land. There is no “power with” relationship in that arrangement. Act 59 is a crude tool that fails King’s just and unjust law test.
Are development regulations necessary? Yes, otherwise deep-pocketed developers will run rampant in our beautiful state. Is land conservation necessary? Yes, because we need to maintain and support a healthy ecosystem. Is achieving these goals through a democratic process time consuming and messy? Yes, but it turns out to be a lot less messy and time-consuming than when a power majority attempts to compel a power minority to submit to their misguided plans.
Robert MacLeod,
East Hardwick, Vt.
