News that the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission (CVRPC) and Central Vermont Economic Development Commission (CVEDC) are considering a merger sailed into my mailbox this morning with a note from a friend.

“Terrible idea,” was all he wrote.  That was all he needed to write, because I know exactly what he means.

While planning commissions and economic development commissions must find ways to work together for the greater good of the communites they serve; each should be aware of its distinct mission.

The mission of an economic development commission is to pursue opportunities for economic growth in order to grow the tax base and bring new jobs to the community.

The mission of a planning commission is to ensure that growth occurs only in the places where infrastructure exists to support it, where the community believes it will best fit into their long-term needs, and to protect the community’s greater quality of life for future generations.  

Sometimes doing the right thing for the long-term best interests of a community, means a planning commission should recommend against a project that has potential to grow the tax base and even create some jobs in the short-run, but will negatively impact the quality of life for residents, in the long-run.

Just because these conflicting interests  seem to rarely assert themselves in Vermont doesn’t mean that they haven’t, nor that they won’t do so increasingly in the highly competitive future.

The struggle over Walmart locating on prime agricultural soil at the perimeter of St. Albans is an excellent example of how the long-term best interests of Franklin County have been subverted to the impulse for “growth at any cost” and jobs of any quality.

When presented with the Walmart project, the Northwest Regional Planning Commission at least attempted initially to discharge its mission through the normal channels, voting in its Project Review Committee not to support the project for a number of reasons.  

When external pressure was exerted by a powerblock representing the Town of St. Albans, the Commission ultimately caved and created an “ad-hoc” committee to overturn the Project Review Committee’s decision.

This was a failure of mission on the part of the NRPC;  which coupled with failures of process in ACT 250 to allow a project that violates nearly every principle of that environmental law to go forward, nonetheless.

Had the Northwest Regional Planning Commission and the Franklin County Office of Economic Development been operating as a single entity, the arguments against the project would most likely never have been made.

Have a look at the “Services” provided by the CVEDC to businesses:

•We maintain an inventory of industrial sites, buildings and land available for development.  

•We provide new and existing businesses with information or resources needed for decision-making, problem-solving, site location or business expansion.

• We help new and existing businesses obtain financing through the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), conventional banks or through alternative lending programs.

•We provide liaison for businesses with the State and Federal governments for permits, grants, lobbying and environmental issues.

To put it more simply, one of the key purposes of the Economic Development Commission is to aid businesses in moving their projects through the permit system.  This is an advocacy role which is in direct conflict with the role of a planning commission.

To join them in a single harness assumes that they can simultaneously represent the interests of the local community and of a business seeking to locate in that community.

That is a recipe for undermining the sustainable living model that Vermont has uniquely been trying to build.

If all that matters is short-term economic growth, we might as well get used to the idea of the small remainder of prime agricultural soils in Vermont being permanently erased of their productive potential, just so that they can be developed into a series of short-lived retail models, rising up only to be abandoned as fashion favors a newer retail alternative.

If money is the only driver of our planning decisions, we might as well sell our local water systems ( and with them, the bottling rights to our own aquifers) to the Coca-Cola corporation so that they can fulfill their professed ambition to own most of the water of the world.

Think about it.  We have a lot to lose on behalf of future generations of Vermonters.

News that the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission (CVRPC) and Central Vermont Economic Development Commission (CVEDC) are considering a merger sailed into my mailbox this morning with a note from a friend.

“Terrible idea,” was all he wrote.  That was all he needed to write, because I know exactly what he means.

While planning commissions and economic development commissions must find ways to work together for the greater good of the communites they serve; each should be aware of its distinct mission.

The mission of an economic development commission is to pursue opportunities for economic growth in order to grow the tax base and bring new jobs to the community.

The mission of a planning commission is to ensure that growth occurs only in the places where infrastructure exists to support it, where the community believes it will best fit into their long-term needs, and to protect the community’s greater quality of life for future generations.  

Sometimes doing the right thing for the long-term best interests of a community means a planning commission should recommend against a project that has potential to grow the tax base and even create some jobs in the short-run, but will negatively impact the quality of life for residents, in the long-run.

Just because these conflicting interests  seem to rarely assert themselves in Vermont doesn’t mean that they haven’t, nor that they won’t do so increasingly in the highly competitive future.

The struggle over Walmart locating on prime agricultural soil at the perimeter of St. Albans is an excellent example of how the long-term best interests of Franklin County have been subverted to the impulse for “growth at any cost” and jobs of any quality.

When presented with the Walmart project, the Northwest Regional Planning Commission at least attempted initially to discharge its mission through the normal channels, voting in its Project Review Committee not to support the project for a number of reasons.  

When external pressure was exerted by a powerblock representing the Town of St. Albans, the Commission ultimately caved and created an “ad-hoc” committee to overturn the Project Review Committee’s decision.

This was a failure of mission on the part of the NRPC;  which coupled with failures of process in ACT 250 to allow a project that violates nearly every principle of that environmental law to go forward, nonetheless.

Had the Northwest Regional Planning Commission and the Franklin County Office of Economic Development been operating as a single entity, the arguments against the project would most likely never have been made.

Have a look at the “Services” provided by the CVEDC to businesses:

•We maintain an inventory of industrial sites, buildings and land available for development.  

•We provide new and existing businesses with information or resources needed for decision-making, problem-solving, site location or business expansion.

• We help new and existing businesses obtain financing through the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), conventional banks or through alternative lending programs.

•We provide liaison for businesses with the State and Federal governments for permits, grants, lobbying and environmental issues.

To put it more simply, one of the key purposes of the Economic Development Commission is to aid businesses in moving their projects through the permit system.  This is an advocacy role which is in direct conflict with the role of a planning commission.

To join them in a single harness assumes that they can simultaneously represent the interests of the local community and of a business seeking to locate in that community.

That is a recipe for undermining the sustainable living model that Vermont has uniquely been trying to build.

If all that matters is short-term economic growth, we might as well get used to the idea of the small remainder of prime agricultural soils in Vermont being permanently erased of their productive potential, just so that they can be developed into a series of short-lived retail models, rising up only to be abandoned as fashion favors a newer retail alternative.

If money is the only driver of our planning decisions, we might as well sell our local water systems ( and with them, the bottling rights to our own aquifers) to the Coca-Cola corporation so that they can fulfill their professed ambition to own most of the water of the world.

Think about it.  We have a lot to lose on behalf of future generations of Vermonters.