The issue isn’t only one of “omission”. There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics. Statistics are the worst of the bunch because they have the guise of authority, however no context whatsoever. The fact that 60.2% now falls under new Act 250 jurisdiction under Act 181’s road rule is almost meaningless, and worst makes it appear that somehow a lot of Vermont land is unfairly off limits to development.
We are in real need of development; however, it must be done in an efficient, cost effective, environmental, and safe manner. Before advocating for more land to be made available make people aware that in order to be developed properly, land has to have certain attributes, and most of Vermont’s land doesn’t qualify. In order to be appropriate for development slopes, exposure, elevation, soil types, existing uses ie agriculture, forestry and natural reserves, flooding, wetland preservation, proximity to existing transportation, shopping, work, schools etc. weather, visibility, view sheds, sand and gravel deposits, recreation (from birdwatching to hunting), existing public access to public land and a myriad of other more subtle attributes have to considered before any land should be developed. The mantra of property rights is not the only, or the most important factor in these decisions. Many “Compass” articles are biased, so please don’t lead us to believe otherwise because they contain “ statistics”, so please give us all the background, or make it clear that they are opinion pieces.
Here's another thing I learned in the radio business: when listeners called to complain about the music, we'd remind them the broadcast was free. They didn't have to listen. They were welcome to find a station that played what they wanted.
You wrote in your comment that development "must be done in an efficient, cost effective, environmental, and safe manner." Agreed.
The documented record on Act 250 is that the process is none of the first three. That's not Compass's characterization. It's in the state's own reports — LURB findings, JFO analysis, the Section 35 wood products manufacturers' report, and the legislative findings that produced Act 181 itself.
The Legislature passed Act 181 because the system you're defending was demonstrably failing the standard you set in your own comment.
The 60.2% figure was never a statistic without context. It was the share of Vermont land that would have come under new Act 250 jurisdiction under Act 181's road rule — a specific, named legislative initiative, sourced from primary documents and linked in the underlying Compass stories.
The House voted 141-0 earlier this month to repeal that rule, with Senate concurrence expected. Compass reported on what the rule would do while it was active legislation on its way to a July 1 effective date.
That the Legislature is now reversing itself, after exactly the kind of rural backlash the data made visible, is the strongest evidence available that the reporting was reader-relevant — not biased.
You're free to interpret any of this however you like. You're also free to read outlets whose method suits you better.
Compass isn't going to change its method, and it isn't going to relabel sourced reporting as opinion to settle a disagreement about what we should have covered instead.
.........."the Legislature is now reversing itself, after exactly the kind of rural backlash the data made visible, is the strongest evidence available that the reporting was reader-relevant — not biased."............Couldn't agree more...
The issue isn’t only one of “omission”. There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics. Statistics are the worst of the bunch because they have the guise of authority, however no context whatsoever. The fact that 60.2% now falls under new Act 250 jurisdiction under Act 181’s road rule is almost meaningless, and worst makes it appear that somehow a lot of Vermont land is unfairly off limits to development.
We are in real need of development; however, it must be done in an efficient, cost effective, environmental, and safe manner. Before advocating for more land to be made available make people aware that in order to be developed properly, land has to have certain attributes, and most of Vermont’s land doesn’t qualify. In order to be appropriate for development slopes, exposure, elevation, soil types, existing uses ie agriculture, forestry and natural reserves, flooding, wetland preservation, proximity to existing transportation, shopping, work, schools etc. weather, visibility, view sheds, sand and gravel deposits, recreation (from birdwatching to hunting), existing public access to public land and a myriad of other more subtle attributes have to considered before any land should be developed. The mantra of property rights is not the only, or the most important factor in these decisions. Many “Compass” articles are biased, so please don’t lead us to believe otherwise because they contain “ statistics”, so please give us all the background, or make it clear that they are opinion pieces.
Peter Erb, Hinesburg, Vermont.
Peter —
Here's another thing I learned in the radio business: when listeners called to complain about the music, we'd remind them the broadcast was free. They didn't have to listen. They were welcome to find a station that played what they wanted.
You wrote in your comment that development "must be done in an efficient, cost effective, environmental, and safe manner." Agreed.
The documented record on Act 250 is that the process is none of the first three. That's not Compass's characterization. It's in the state's own reports — LURB findings, JFO analysis, the Section 35 wood products manufacturers' report, and the legislative findings that produced Act 181 itself.
The Legislature passed Act 181 because the system you're defending was demonstrably failing the standard you set in your own comment.
The 60.2% figure was never a statistic without context. It was the share of Vermont land that would have come under new Act 250 jurisdiction under Act 181's road rule — a specific, named legislative initiative, sourced from primary documents and linked in the underlying Compass stories.
The House voted 141-0 earlier this month to repeal that rule, with Senate concurrence expected. Compass reported on what the rule would do while it was active legislation on its way to a July 1 effective date.
That the Legislature is now reversing itself, after exactly the kind of rural backlash the data made visible, is the strongest evidence available that the reporting was reader-relevant — not biased.
You're free to interpret any of this however you like. You're also free to read outlets whose method suits you better.
Compass isn't going to change its method, and it isn't going to relabel sourced reporting as opinion to settle a disagreement about what we should have covered instead.
Tom Davis - Publisher
.........."the Legislature is now reversing itself, after exactly the kind of rural backlash the data made visible, is the strongest evidence available that the reporting was reader-relevant — not biased."............Couldn't agree more...