First, let me make clear that I have absolutely no inside information on Shumlin Administration plans to rebuild or replace the state office complex in Waterbury. I only know what I read in the papers (or websites, ahem). But from what I’ve seen, there seems to be significant consideration of a partial move away from Waterbury. The leading candidate to receive some of the displaced appears to be Barre.
Well, it is if you believe Thom Lauzon, Barre’s Battlin’ Mayor. He’s all up in the pages of Seven Days, touting his plan for a new downtown office building and bragging of his “direct line to the governor and his deputies.”
That made me shiver a little bit, although it may simply be Lauzonian hyperbole. Just like his line about Barre being on a “bit of an upward trend.” I’ve been hearing lines like that for a decade or more, going back at least to the ill-fated opening of the Farmers Diner. And I’ve rooted for every tiny signal of a turnaround; I’d love to see a stronger, more vibrant Barre.
Plus, the move of a state agency to Barre would be a bit of payback for the routine (if unplanned) dumping of large numbers of parolees and former inmates on Barre. Lauzon’s been right to complain about that. But I have two big objections to Lauzon’s current dream: one is logistical, and one political. Please stay with me after the jump…
Logistical: Barre is simply not that easy to get to. It’s “only a 15-minute drive” from Montpelier, but that’s a 15-minute drive along the slow and crowded Barre-Montpelier Road. And then a stately crawl into downtown Barre on its jampacked Main Street. (Which would be exacerbated by a few hundred more state commuters.) But sure, 15 minutes isn’t that bad — if you’re starting from Montpelier. But how many of Waterbury’s state workers live in the Burlington area? For them, a relatively painless commute to Waterbury would become an onerous 75-to-90-minute one-way trip.
(By the way, did Barre not get screwed in a tremendous way when I-89 was built? It glides practically to the front door of the Statehouse in Montpelier, but it bypasses Barre by several miles. Exits 6 and 7 are only somewhat helpful. Considering all the granite traffic there used to be when they were laying out the freeway, and the fact that Barre was a much larger and livelier town than Montpelier at the time, why didn’t I-89 go closer to Barre? It’s been a significant drag on the city’s economy ever since.)
And in terms of the daily business of governing, Barre is awfully distant. In politics, proximity equals power, and if I headed a state agency, I’d fight tooth-and-nails against a move to Barre. The Seven Days article posits the Agency of Natural Resources as a candidate for relocation; if so, what would that mean for its ability to influence the course of environmental policy?
Political: While I’d love to help Barre, the fact is that it has a Republican Mayor who’s openly salivating at the prospect of running for statewide office. Peter Shumlin has already given a big leg up to Phil Scott and Neale Lunderville by giving them significant responsibility and touting their leadership skills. He really doesn’t need to do the Vermont GOP any more favors by elevating another potential Republican candidate.
To the good people of Barre, that’s harsh. I would like to see Barre get a fairer shake. But this is a case where politics trumps policy. And I don’t want to lend any more credibility (or any more “bipartisan” cred) to another potential Republican candidate for higher office. Shumlin’s already done enough of that.
Logistical, your main point of contention seems to be the bm road. Most people, as you note, coming from the greater burlington area, would never touch the bm road. They’d get off at berlin, head down the hill to north main. As for your driving timeframes, I work in Sobu and live in Montpelier. It takes me about 45 minutes. I’d say your 75-90 minute label would probably be a bit extreme unless someone was coming from the backwoods of Hinesburg or Georgia. I’d wager most of the workers live somewhere near a main artery if they’re that far from Waterbury. Heck, if they’re in Winooski, Sobu, BTV, Essex, Shelburne, or Williston, they’re most likely within 15 minutes of the interstate anyway. I’d say most of them are probably 65-70 minutes from Barre City. How-far-is-too-far is a pretty good question though. I can tell you my 45 minute commute sucks, but it sure is good for catching up on podcasts.
As for the political side, the governor seems to have his own math as evidenced by Lunderville and other such things. In this case, the vote calculus of how many votes one could expect to win in Barre by being visibly for a move of some jobs to Barre may be weighed larger than the risk of propping up Lauzon. And to be honest, I don’t think he has much to fear from Lauzon. Lauzon is probably a democrat’s dream opponent. The Times Argus has already done the opposition research. The guy isn’t exactly a gaffe a minute, but there are enough stories (like throwing a councilor’s phone against the wall, the policy of shutting off water to buildings punishing tenants when slumlords don’t pay, or more humorously the cats on a leash thing) that wouldn’t exactly make for a solid electability case when trying to convince people he has shown the leadership deserving of promotion.
My guess on what will eventually happen: Most jobs stay in Waterbury, a department or two moves to Barre. Shumlin will save face in Waterbury by saying something like “the entire complex couldn’t be saved. It wouldn’t have been a financially prudent thing to do, but I recognize the value your community provides to our state employees and we managed to find a way to keep most of the jobs here.” Then we have a ticket tape parade in Barre as a few hundred jobs wind up in a new building on N Main St. Shumlin will tout the boost of the Barre economy in his next campaign, maybe pull a few hundred more votes from the denizens Barre. Everyone wins.
much attention and it may even be getting too little considering the stakes but Mayor Lauzon owns an awful lot of commercial property in Barre.There doesn’t have to be anything wrong with that but it’s worth thorough examination.
It’s unfortuante that this conversation, as it applies to Waterbury, is seen as a zero sum game. The issue should be how can we redevelop the site to enhance Waterbury’s historic downtown/Main Street to be even better than it was. That means not just or only by putting everything back exactly as it was, but planning for a new and better downtown — which could include bringing increased real estate tax generating use or uses so that Waterbury does not have to depend so much on PILOT payments. This is an amazing opportunity that is in danger of bsing lost to unfortunate narrow vision of the opportunity.