Search Results

A pile of proposed new taxes and fees could make us Number 1. "There is a disconnect between the values of legislative leaders who hail from communities in Chittenden County and those of many rural Vermonters," said John Rodgers, a former Democratic state senator from Glover. Rodgers spoke at a protest on May 9, according to an article by VT Digger, where he told the group that the Legislature had “forgotten” them. The protest theme? "Tap Trees-Not Vermonters." In today's name-calling culture, questioning tax increases has been dubbed a conservative position. But what if you just don't have enough money to pay all those taxes, or you are one of the 64,000 Vermonters below the poverty line? What if your state ranks 22nd in median household income but your taxes rank 3rd? Vermont not only has the third highest tax burden in the United States, it has the single highest in New England while ranking 4th out of five in household income. The Vermont legislative supermajority considers itself "progressive." Is it progressive to add seventy-cents per gallon to the cost of heating fuel to Vermonters who can't afford to switch to cleaner energy? Is it progressive to refuse to strike a balance between regulation and building new homes instead of clinging to heavy regulations that are older than the cassette tape? "After the rally, James Ehlers — an activist and former gubernatorial candidate — urged the crowd to head down to the Sergeant-at-Arms’ office and draft paper messages to their senators and representatives, which would then be delivered throughout the building that afternoon," according to the article. Vermonters have become skeptical that any of power-brokers in Montpelier will even read them.

On Monday, May 7, Compass Vermont released the results of a Pew Charitable Trust study that removes the fig leaf used by proponents of heavy regulations to reveal that these policies cost millions of dollars and delayed housing projects for years. The bottom line? Act 250 and the people still defending the 54 year-old legislation have done far more damage to the Green Mountain State than the unproven good they claim. The results of heavy regulation include: Higher housing costs Higher rental rates Tripled homeless rates Economic stagnation Greater minority displacement Compass Vermont's readers asked to see the actual presentation, hoping that inflexible lawmakers could no longer distance themselves from the consequences of their policies. Click below to read the presentation deck.

The Pew Charitable Trust visited the Vermont State House in April to present a study on how over-regulation on housing adversely impacts home prices, rental rates, and economic growth while compounding homelessness and causing more displacement of minority populations. The study illustrates how Vermont's heavy regulatory obstacles, high fees, and long delays, led by the 1970 passing of Act 250, are the embodiment of arrested development. Other progressive regions have added more housing, while Vermont's regressive regulation has done real damage. The Pew Study, titled Outcomes of State and Local Housing Policy Changes, demonstrates the positive impact of more reasonable regulations when it comes to housing. It also places a spotlight on Vermont's failures. Here are some key slides from the research presentation. Housing shortage hurts affordability Heavy regulation has caused Vermont to fall woefully behind in developing new housing, dropping the state's housing stock to an all-time low while increasing the median home cost of a Vermont home by a stunning 44%. Heavy regulation has left Vermont with sky-high rental costs and the second-highest homeless rate in the United States As noted in the study, rental rates in Chittenden County have increased by 43%. Similar increases are found across Vermont. Meanwhile, only California has a higher per-capita homeless rate, but without California's resources to address it. Lack of housing disproportionately hurts the BIPOC community Inclusivity is a central tenet of Vermont's culture, yet heavy regulation actually hurts the people Vermont wants to support. Between 2017 and 2021, the city of Minneapolis built over 8,000 new housing units - here's what happened compared to Vermont Rental Rates Remained Stable A home in Burlington is 62% more expensive than in Minneapolis Modernization of old regulations was highly successful Reasonable regulations protect the homeless Act 250 evangelists argue the regulations protect the environment and water, but Minnesota ranks higher in both categories than Vermont, according to U.S. News and World Report. The Takeaway Vermont's Act 250 seemed like a good idea when it was passed in 1970, but this study clearly shows the adverse impact. One notable quote from the regulation's biggest defenders is their admission that the changes they are willing to consider, "won't help the housing crisis, but it's a start." Vermont regulatory proponents did it their way for 50 years, and most of the state's population has paid a steep price for their miscalculations. Hopefully, a less myopic look at Vermont's situation will lead to better practices sooner rather than later.

In Partnership with the Westside Current. The U.S. Supreme Court deliberated a landmark case Monday, Grants Pass v. Johnson, which could significantly alter how towns and cities across Vermont, and the nation address homeless encampments. The case, originating from a 2018 lawsuit by homeless residents of Grants Pass, challenges city ordinances that ban camping even in the absence of available shelter beds. Follow us on X @CompassVermont Homeless advocates argue that such restrictions criminalize the status of being homeless, thus violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Lower courts supported this stance, finding that penalizing unhoused individuals for sleeping in public places when no alternative shelter is available is unconstitutional. The city of Grants Pass maintains that anti-camping laws are vital for maintaining public safety. "Laws like ours really do serve an essential purpose," stated Theane Evangelis, representing the city, which has implemented a ban on encampments. "They protect the health and safety of everyone. Living in encampments is not safe; it’s unsanitary, and we witness the effects. There are harms associated with the encampments that affect both those residing in them and the wider community." During the oral arguments, the ideological split within the Supreme Court was clear. Liberal justices showed greater receptivity to the positions of homeless residents than their conservative colleagues. “Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and enacts a similar law?” Sotomayor questioned. “Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves from lack of sleep?” Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by former President Donald Trump, questioned the effectiveness of the Grants Pass camping ban in helping people move off the streets and into shelters. “How does it help if there are not enough beds for the number of homeless people in the jurisdiction?” he asked the attorney for Grants Pass. The justices focused on a pivotal question: Does Grants Pass’ city-wide camping prohibition criminalize the status of being homeless or merely the act of camping in public? They noted that the distinction is critical, as decades earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot be punished for their status, only their actions—someone cannot be arrested for being addicted to drugs, but can be arrested for using drugs. The discussion also delved into deeper philosophical questions. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., appointed by former President George Bush, raised hypotheticals to challenge the rationale of previous rulings. “Is being a bank robber a status?” he asked. And further: "If someone is hungry and needs food to survive, can they be punished for breaking into a store?" The Supreme Court's ruling is anticipated in late June.  . Read more details, including how the state of California is handling the case, here.

The Affordable Heat Act is a bitterly ironic name for a new Vermont law that will have a chilling effect on Vermonters come January of 2025. Vermont Bill S.5 S.5 seeks to ease the transition to clean energy by ensuring that all Vermonters can access cleaner, more affordable heat by forcing Vermont heating fuel companies to purchase credits in order to continue selling heating fuel. Follow us on X @CompassVermont The funds raised are supposed to assist all Vermonters to make their homes energy efficient, but the exact plan as to how that will work is not yet known. The cost of those credits, however, will be passed on to consumers, raising prices by an estimated seventy-cents per gallon. Some Vermont heating fuel companies have already sent letters out to their customers warning them of the price increase, resulting in a steady stream of calls into the Governor’s office, voicing concern. Compass Vermont asked Governor Scott about the legislation. “I vetoed that bill and was overridden.  The seventy-cents doesn’t surprise me,” he said. “We have a payroll tax that is going into place in July. We have a 20% increase in DMV fees. We have all kinds of taxes being proposed by the legislature at this point in time. It all adds up.” “It’s like this drip, drip, drip and it’s increasing the cost of living in Vermont and forcing people to make decisions about where they live.” “The knee jerk reaction of the legislature to any problem is “let’s just raise another tax and fix it.” When discussing the steady volume of calls the Governor’s office fields from concerned Vermonters about the coming  increase in fuel costs, Scott said, “people are scared, to be honest with you. They just don’t know what they are going to do because they don’t know where to go.  And they know these fees and taxes are coming right down on them. They’re just scared and we have to do all we can to prevent it from happening. The bill requires one more vote before being enacted in January, giving Vermonters who oppose the escalating costs time to contact their legislators with their point of view.

A landmark decision delivered on Friday, April 12 could test some of the tax hikes and fees the Vermont Legislature has passed or proposed. The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of California landowner George Sheetz in the case Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. Follow us on X @CompassVermont George Sheetz, who sought to build a small home in El Dorado County, was subjected to a $23,420 fee ostensibly to cover the expansion of public roads aimed at easing congestion. Arguing that this fee was excessive and constituted a violation of the Takings Clause, Sheetz challenged the county's demand in state court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court took on the case. The Court determined that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause should apply to legislative bodies that impose exorbitant fees, marking a significant limitation on government overreach. The Supreme Court's decision underscores concerns about the misuse of permitting fees by local governments as a means to generate revenue without raising taxes broadly, which often proves unpopular with voters. Vermont lawmakers have proposed or passed multiple revenue-raising bills, including doubling the property transfer tax on homes over $600,000, enacting a 3% tax on households earning more than $500,000, and increasing corporate taxes from 8.5% to 10%. They also increased motor vehicle fees across the board, and the state's antiquated Act 250 is renown for its excessive fee structure. Governor Phil Scott has warned the governing body that it is rapidly moving towards making Vermont the state with the highest taxes in the United States. This ruling is expected to have wide-ranging implications for how local and state governments across the United States approach the imposition of fees on property owners. It sets a precedent for closer scrutiny of government fees tied to permits and other regulatory measures, potentially curbing what some see as a tendency towards governmental overreach under the guise of fiscal needs.

From Stowe Mountain Rescue: When you live in the path of totality, you suddenly feel like the center of the world! Nothing like a cosmic event to draw people into the mountains. If you’re one of the many thousands planning to visit Stowe for the eclipse, we’re excited to host you. Follow us on X @CompassVermont. However, the prospect of you all out there in the backcountry is slightly sobering for our team. The sheer numbers involved makes us suspect that we’ll receive multiple calls towards the end of the day, which is going to be a logistical challenge. We’ll need your help: 1/ Plan to stay in the valleys – there is plenty of open space where you can safely view the eclipse. Many of the trails to elevation will be closed in any case, as is normal for this time of year. Foot traffic is very damaging on a muddy trail so the Green Mountain Club keeps them closed until mud season is over. 2/ This time of year is not quite wintery enough to make you think of winter, and yet it is definitely cold enough to give you hypothermia. Wherever you end up, pack extra layers, more than you think you’ll need. It will be COLD. We can’t emphasise this enough! 3/ Whether with snow, ice or mud remains to be seen, but the trails are guaranteed to be slick. Proper boots will be essential and microspikes may be required. Whether you’re a seasoned hiker or new to this, a local or a visitor, you’ll be at risk of slipping. 4/ Be self-sufficient. If you end up needing our help, it may be many hours before we can reach you (if we get called to multiple locations at once, the delay will be epic). Think warmth, food, water, headlamps, extra batteries. Even if you don’t need this stuff, you may encounter someone who does. 5/ Alcohol, drugs and the backcountry are not happy bedfellows. Diminished coordination and an inhibited ability to stay warm are not going to help. We don’t mean to be patronizing, but this is an easily-avoided element that can change an outcome for the worse. Please exercise restraint! 6/ To top it off, the roads are anticipated to have heavy traffic, which will contribute to our delayed response time. With all that in mind, roll on 8th April! It should be an amazing spectacle.

The passage of H.880, "an act relating to increasing access to justice and to corporate taxes and fees," will have a significant impact on Vermont's corporate tax rates. Under these bills, the top marginal corporate tax rate would increase from 8.5% (already the 10th highest in the U.S.) to 10% for the calendar year 2025. This change would affect not only the corporate tax rates but also judicial fees, indicating a broader financial impact on businesses operating in Vermont. Read more in this VTDigger article.

Krispy Kreme is getting in on the celestial action this week with the release of a special donut honoring the upcoming total solar eclipse over North America on April 8th. The popular donut chain will be offering the limited-edition "Total Solar Eclipse" donut at participating locations across the United States and Canada. The Eclipse donut features a classic original glazed donut dipped in a rich black chocolate icing meant to represent the moon passing in front of the sun. It is then topped with a spray of silver sprinkles and an Oreo buttercream swirl. A whole Oreo sandwich cookie stuffed right into the center of the donut. According to Krispy Kreme, the layers of the Oreo were specifically included to mimic the alignment of the sun, moon, and earth during a total solar eclipse event. Just remember, don't eat one unless you have the matching glasses!

In a strategic move, Unilever, the parent company of popular ice cream brands like Ben & Jerry’s, Magnum, and Popsicle, has announced its intention to separate its ice cream division into a standalone business, according to the Wall Street Journal. This decision marks a significant shift for the company, which has been in the ice cream business for over a century. Unilever's ice cream business, which also includes Wall’s, Breyers, Talenti, and Klondike, generated revenue of $8.6 billion last year. However, the division has experienced challenges such as slower sales growth, particularly in its out-of-home segment, and increased competition in the frozen desserts market. The decision to spin off the ice cream business follows ongoing tensions between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s, with the latter filing a lawsuit against its parent company in 2022. Disputes arose over business decisions, including the sale of Ben & Jerry’s products in Israel and board member affiliations. As part of the restructuring, Unilever expects around 7,500 jobs to be affected globally, aiming to save 800 million euros over the next three years. The company is also exploring options for listing the ice cream business as a separate entity or potential sale, with the goal of completing the separation by the end of next year. Unilever's move reflects broader industry trends, as other consumer-goods companies have also reevaluated their ice cream businesses in recent years. The company remains focused on enhancing its overall performance and delivering sustained growth in the medium term.

The Boston Globe mused that Vermont Representative Becca Balint was so aligned with the “squad,” a group of eight Democrats who advocate for progressive policies, that she might join the group. But while the squad unanimously rejected a bill to ban Tik Tok because of language that could lead to broad overreach by the executive branch, Balint voted in favor of the bill. Balint said she voted for "The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act" or H.R. 7521, because of her concerns about the potential national security risks posed by TikTok, citing its Chinese ownership and the possibility that the Chinese government could access user data. But the bill has raised legal concerns about giving the President excessive power to control American social media companies. Critics argue that the legislation would grant the President unprecedented authority to censor online speech. Legal interpretations of H.R. 7521 argue that the bill's language is too broad and could potentially be applied to individuals "controlled by" a foreign country. This raises concerns about the potential for abuse of power and the ability of the President to determine how the bill is applied. It is not unthinkable that a president could target social media platforms, apps, and news outlets by claiming they are being influenced by a foreign adversary, which could be the biggest step towards censorship that the United States has taken. Vermont's Senators Welch and Sanders have not stated their position on H.R. 7521, and did not respond to the question from Compass Vermont. One thing is clear: while the bill aims to address national security concerns related to TikTok, it has sparked debate about the potential for the President to gain too much power over American social media companies and beyond.