Lawmakers from both parties tried to force a floor vote on a law that excludes millions of acres of working farms and forests from Vermont's conservation total, in a state already short on housing.
A significant problem here is in the last line above. There is no question that Vermont needs more housing that is reasonably affordable to most working folks. There is debate about the size of this shortage. The most frequently cited assessment shows the short-term need varying by more than 11,000 units, depending on what assumptions are made in projecting that need.
But the uncertainty - some of which is inevitable in a discussion like this one - does not have to be resolved to realize that the debate over the inclusion, or not, of working lands in state conservation goals is not tightly connected to the housing issue. The only way thousands of housing units can be added within the next few years is to build those units where there is already infrastructure, or where central water, wastewater, and storm water utilities, and roads can be easily expanded. Very little of the land included in anyone's vision of conservation falls into that category. Letting rural Vermonters add a few homes on large lots (or not) within a framework of reasonable regulations is barely relevant to the housing shortage.
What is most relevant, and I do not see in the conversation, is the question of how to provide the necessary infrastructure that housing development will follow. This could be done in the existing growth centers and by building new infrastructure in small communities where that makes sense. Centering the housing conversation on access to infrastructure would shift it from abstract, large numbers (which get everyone excited, if not panicked, but do not change the reality that housing gets built one unit at a time) to the difficult, highly specific, on-the-ground questions about where infrastructure can be added and how it can be afforded. And building from there, to the question of how to make whatever housing gets built more affordable. That's what the Legislature should be talking about.
Focusing the housing conversation on infrastructure would also free the conservation conversation from what is, honestly, a distraction. Neither "side" wants to build vast tracts of housing in rural Vermont. Some people want it to be a little wilder, some want it to be more pastoral. And there is the hard question about the permanence of protections that is raised in Peter Erb's comment. It is impossible to navigate these questions in the abstract (which, in this case, too, is the enemy of clear thinking), but Vermonters are capable of dealing with it in a process that brings them together to talk about specific landscapes. The Legislature should get that process running (expensive, I know, but cheap compared to losing and then having to buy land back and restore it).
To recap, there is no pressing need to entangle the housing and conservation conversations. In fact, doing so at this time makes both more difficult. They will intersect, but if the proper foundations have been laid, the questions that must be answered at that time will no longer be abstract. They will focus on specific places where hard choices must be made. That's not as much fun as talking about lofty goals. But it is the only way folks will get a Vermont that works.
The real issue here is whether permanent protection is the desired result or not. Whether the lands are working lands or wild lands is not the issue and never has been. The Use Value Appraisal program can be bought out, frequently is, and does not conserve land. It is a contract between parties that can be ended at any time so that the land can be developed. It is also a program that is subject to the whims of the government and its budgets, and if not budgeted for the restrictions can be removed, I think, without penalty. This is definitely not what conservation means. None of the examples included make this clear. These compass articles are subtle attacks on our Vermont environment and its preservation and intended to support the Development and Construction industries in our state, and should be identified as such. It would be helpful for the AI basis for them and the query asked of AI to generate them be stated from the outset so we could all see what the real purpose supposed unbiased articles are.
One factual correction worth noting: the Land Use Change Tax is set in statute at 32 V.S.A. § 3757, not in the annual budget.
The 10 percent penalty applies on withdrawal regardless of budget cycle. The program restrictions cannot be removed without legislative action repealing the statute.
On withdrawal rates: the Vermont Department of Taxes publishes annual withdrawal data. I'd encourage anyone interested in how often current use parcels exit the program to look at the actual numbers.
The piece sources every claim to primary documents — NCEL's January 2026 midpoint report, the state statutes, the House journal, agency reports — all hyperlinked in the article.
Readers can follow the sourcing and judge for themselves.
I agree with the substance here, including the necessity of AI attribution and the query. I am seeing several AI generated articles on this topic whose language seems to hint at some kind of nefarious conspiracy, while listing facts, as well as fact-adjacent matter that could be open to interpretation. Those not savvy about AI seem to be eating it up.
Act 59, for better or worse, is about biodiversity outcomes. At the moment, we have no mechanism for evaluating if lands in current use are generating those outcomes, and there needs to be some conVERSAtion about this.
Because that land can be converted into a housing development anytime the landowner wants? After receiving years of tax relief?
A significant problem here is in the last line above. There is no question that Vermont needs more housing that is reasonably affordable to most working folks. There is debate about the size of this shortage. The most frequently cited assessment shows the short-term need varying by more than 11,000 units, depending on what assumptions are made in projecting that need.
But the uncertainty - some of which is inevitable in a discussion like this one - does not have to be resolved to realize that the debate over the inclusion, or not, of working lands in state conservation goals is not tightly connected to the housing issue. The only way thousands of housing units can be added within the next few years is to build those units where there is already infrastructure, or where central water, wastewater, and storm water utilities, and roads can be easily expanded. Very little of the land included in anyone's vision of conservation falls into that category. Letting rural Vermonters add a few homes on large lots (or not) within a framework of reasonable regulations is barely relevant to the housing shortage.
What is most relevant, and I do not see in the conversation, is the question of how to provide the necessary infrastructure that housing development will follow. This could be done in the existing growth centers and by building new infrastructure in small communities where that makes sense. Centering the housing conversation on access to infrastructure would shift it from abstract, large numbers (which get everyone excited, if not panicked, but do not change the reality that housing gets built one unit at a time) to the difficult, highly specific, on-the-ground questions about where infrastructure can be added and how it can be afforded. And building from there, to the question of how to make whatever housing gets built more affordable. That's what the Legislature should be talking about.
Focusing the housing conversation on infrastructure would also free the conservation conversation from what is, honestly, a distraction. Neither "side" wants to build vast tracts of housing in rural Vermont. Some people want it to be a little wilder, some want it to be more pastoral. And there is the hard question about the permanence of protections that is raised in Peter Erb's comment. It is impossible to navigate these questions in the abstract (which, in this case, too, is the enemy of clear thinking), but Vermonters are capable of dealing with it in a process that brings them together to talk about specific landscapes. The Legislature should get that process running (expensive, I know, but cheap compared to losing and then having to buy land back and restore it).
To recap, there is no pressing need to entangle the housing and conservation conversations. In fact, doing so at this time makes both more difficult. They will intersect, but if the proper foundations have been laid, the questions that must be answered at that time will no longer be abstract. They will focus on specific places where hard choices must be made. That's not as much fun as talking about lofty goals. But it is the only way folks will get a Vermont that works.
The real issue here is whether permanent protection is the desired result or not. Whether the lands are working lands or wild lands is not the issue and never has been. The Use Value Appraisal program can be bought out, frequently is, and does not conserve land. It is a contract between parties that can be ended at any time so that the land can be developed. It is also a program that is subject to the whims of the government and its budgets, and if not budgeted for the restrictions can be removed, I think, without penalty. This is definitely not what conservation means. None of the examples included make this clear. These compass articles are subtle attacks on our Vermont environment and its preservation and intended to support the Development and Construction industries in our state, and should be identified as such. It would be helpful for the AI basis for them and the query asked of AI to generate them be stated from the outset so we could all see what the real purpose supposed unbiased articles are.
Peter Erb, Hinesburg, Vermont
Peter — appreciate the engagement.
One factual correction worth noting: the Land Use Change Tax is set in statute at 32 V.S.A. § 3757, not in the annual budget.
The 10 percent penalty applies on withdrawal regardless of budget cycle. The program restrictions cannot be removed without legislative action repealing the statute.
On withdrawal rates: the Vermont Department of Taxes publishes annual withdrawal data. I'd encourage anyone interested in how often current use parcels exit the program to look at the actual numbers.
The piece sources every claim to primary documents — NCEL's January 2026 midpoint report, the state statutes, the House journal, agency reports — all hyperlinked in the article.
Readers can follow the sourcing and judge for themselves.
— Tom
I agree with the substance here, including the necessity of AI attribution and the query. I am seeing several AI generated articles on this topic whose language seems to hint at some kind of nefarious conspiracy, while listing facts, as well as fact-adjacent matter that could be open to interpretation. Those not savvy about AI seem to be eating it up.
Act 59, for better or worse, is about biodiversity outcomes. At the moment, we have no mechanism for evaluating if lands in current use are generating those outcomes, and there needs to be some conVERSAtion about this.