( – promoted by odum)

We must finally ween ourselves from the truism that “growth” is synonymous with prosperity.  This anachronistic concept must join the sacred cows like “trickle-down economics” and “free markets are fair markets” for it’s turn on the reexamination table.  Worldwide pressures on food, water, fuel and infrastructure give ample evidence that we must finally abandon “growth” in favor of “sustainability” as the model for achievement in the twenty-first century.  Every day in some new way, we are reminded that the planet is at a tipping point: too many people, too few resources.

Here at home in Vermont, the same flawed assumption that growth equals prosperity informs Governor Douglas’ campaign to neutralize Act 250.  The Governor  characterizes his goal as “streamlining” the permit process, but it amounts to a broadside aimed at  environmental restraints.  He would like to give economic considerations equal weight in the Act 250 process; and these economic considerations would no doubt be shaped by that old totem, that growth necessarily brings prosperity.  By careful manipulation of the time-frame and cherry-picking the statistics, a developer can easily represent his project as economically “beneficial” to the community, thereby relaxing or releasing him from environmental restrictions.  Exclude the long-term negative impacts on infrastructure and community resources and  many questionable projects look awfully good  to local reviewers in towns struggling with budget shortfalls.

The Governor also seeks to remove some of the review hurdles that large-scale developers must negotiate to get their projects approved. What this might mean to Vermonters is an end to their right of direct participation in the permit process for large-scale development, and a reversion to the bad old days of full-bore, developer-driven sprawl.  Act 250, and the opportunities it provides for interested parties and groups to effectively join the discussion, is the one safeguard we have against permanent damage to our most valuable community resources: the land, the environment, and local economies.  It is a citizen’s interface, unique to Vermont, that recognizes the irreversible impact of land-use decisions, and the fact that all Vermonters are trustees of our collective future.  Once our waterways go beyond a critical point of contamination, and once our farmable tracts of prime agricultural soils are all gone, no amount of public investment may reclaim them.  More valuable than gold and precious metals,  these are the resources that are necessary for human survival.

To see the vital role that Act 250 plays in holding-back the floodgates of unregulated sprawl, one need look no further than the current struggle in St. Albans over a proposed  Wal-Mart superstore,  which would involve a tract of prime agricultural soil, three-tenths of a mile from the most vibrant organic farm in the region.   There are ongoing appeals in the Environmental Court with regard to this project, not just addressing the environmental and economic implications; but also citing numerous instances where conflicts of interest contaminated the permit process.  Had those conflicts not occurred, it could be argued that the project might have been rejected or altered before it became necessary for the Court to intervene.

If Governor Douglas truly wants to “reform” the permit process, let him take the first step by advocating for specific rules governing conflict of interest; and for stiff penalties against those who violate these rules.  Eliminating conflicts of interest  would go a long way toward reducing the number of appeals in Environmental Court,  without prejudicing the citizens’ right to due process.  So long as conflicts of interest are ignored at both the local and state levels, the taint of illegitimacy will crowd the Environmental Court docket with multiple appeals.

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

More than 100 Vermonters protesting Gov. James Douglas’ proposed budget cuts were met with heightened security at the Statehouse on Tuesday.

Mandatory bag checks at entrances, a bomb-sniffing dog on the first floor and an increased presence of security guards changed the atmosphere at the Statehouse as a coalition of organizations continued pressing lawmakers to reject Douglas’ cuts.

The article describes the security for the event as “vastly different than the same-sex marriage protest at the Statehouse last week,” which strikes me as funny because, despite what we’re told, same sex marriage is apparently not as scary as advocating for children.

Yes.  You heard me.  The protesters yesterday were advocates for children.  The group protesting was “Voices for Vermont’s Children.”

So here’s my question: in a budget crunch, with an economy that has the potential to cripple this state, how exactly do we determine how much money we’re going to spend on security?  Is this a wise use of our limited and dwindling funds?  Because it really doesn’t sound to me like this is about protecting anyone as much as it is about intimidation.

What is this all about ? No  pies were sighted in the crowd ?Who judges the “threat” level ?

Sergeant-at-Arms Francis Brooks, a former Montpelier lawmaker, is in charge of security at the Statehouse. He said Tuesday that there was no specific threat, but that he felt the heightened security was necessary because of the size of the protest group.

“A lot of people were coming, including some we don’t know,” Brooks said.

While the crowd was large Tuesday, there were no signs of violence. Security officials told members of the media not to photograph their faces as camera crews recorded the protestors move inside the building.

The security scene at the Statehouse was similar to occasions when Douglas would address the Vermont Legislature, such as his budget address last month. But it was vastly different than the same-sex marriage protest at the Statehouse last week, which attracted a crowd roughly twice as large.

“They shouldn’t be punished for their passion,” said Allen Gilbert, the executive director of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Visitors to the Statehouse shouldn’t be treated differently just because they are new faces.”

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…