Vermont reports approving 98% of Act 250 permits. Two Vermonters say the approval rate misses the point — it's the cost and time of getting there that drives people out of the state.
I wish some enterprising reporter would investigate the impact of out of state money buying up existing housing to stockpile and resell into a tight market and while they are at it, quantify the cost increases for materials and labor driven by second home development throughout the state competing with residential housing. Act 250 protects the environment from developers foisting their external to their project environmental impacts onto my rivers, lakes, roads, schools, highways solely to increase their profit margin. Act 250 alone should not be held responsible for the shortage of residential housing!
Thank you for reading and for taking the time to share your perspective. A few thoughts in response:
On the out-of-state money claim — that's an interesting angle and we'd be glad to investigate it if there's data that supports it. Do you have a source? We work from primary data at Compass Vermont, and if the evidence is there we'll follow it.
On Act 250 protecting the environment from developers — that's the stated purpose of the law, and we don't dispute it.
But Todd Heyman is a Vermont farmer running a farm stay on his own land who spent $15,000 navigating a process that then allowed his neighbors to weaponize it against him.
Neil Ryan watched a neighboring wood products business relocate to New Hampshire rather than continue fighting the same system.
The story we reported is about whether the regulatory process works as designed — for everyone, not just large developers.
And on your third point — you're right, and we'd gently suggest re-reading the piece.
This story is not primarily about housing. It's about the full cost and time burden of Act 250 on Vermont business owners, farmers, and landowners — people who are not developers in any conventional sense of the word.
Housing is one data point in a much larger body of evidence about a regulatory system that has operated for 54 years without ever systematically tracking what it actually costs the people who go through it.
Good reporting of the downsides. but two things more are needed for a complete analysis. First, what have the upsides been? What would rural VT look like without Act 250? Would we be happy with that? Second, what changes could be made to achieve a better balance? The other tradeoffs intended to re-balance implementation of the act have been obscured by the furor over the road rule, but do they have merit?
I wish some enterprising reporter would investigate the impact of out of state money buying up existing housing to stockpile and resell into a tight market and while they are at it, quantify the cost increases for materials and labor driven by second home development throughout the state competing with residential housing. Act 250 protects the environment from developers foisting their external to their project environmental impacts onto my rivers, lakes, roads, schools, highways solely to increase their profit margin. Act 250 alone should not be held responsible for the shortage of residential housing!
Deeno —
Thank you for reading and for taking the time to share your perspective. A few thoughts in response:
On the out-of-state money claim — that's an interesting angle and we'd be glad to investigate it if there's data that supports it. Do you have a source? We work from primary data at Compass Vermont, and if the evidence is there we'll follow it.
On Act 250 protecting the environment from developers — that's the stated purpose of the law, and we don't dispute it.
But Todd Heyman is a Vermont farmer running a farm stay on his own land who spent $15,000 navigating a process that then allowed his neighbors to weaponize it against him.
Neil Ryan watched a neighboring wood products business relocate to New Hampshire rather than continue fighting the same system.
The story we reported is about whether the regulatory process works as designed — for everyone, not just large developers.
And on your third point — you're right, and we'd gently suggest re-reading the piece.
This story is not primarily about housing. It's about the full cost and time burden of Act 250 on Vermont business owners, farmers, and landowners — people who are not developers in any conventional sense of the word.
Housing is one data point in a much larger body of evidence about a regulatory system that has operated for 54 years without ever systematically tracking what it actually costs the people who go through it.
We appreciate the engagement.
Tom Davis, Compass Vermont Publisher
Good reporting of the downsides. but two things more are needed for a complete analysis. First, what have the upsides been? What would rural VT look like without Act 250? Would we be happy with that? Second, what changes could be made to achieve a better balance? The other tradeoffs intended to re-balance implementation of the act have been obscured by the furor over the road rule, but do they have merit?