I thought GMD was supposed to be the “snarky” media, but it appears that Paul Heintz of Seven Days has that one all sewn up.

Mr. Heintz seems to have not enjoyed his one-on-one with Bernie Sanders last week, since his summary of the interview is bristling with frustration and thinly-veiled ridicule.

Knowing the Senator’s dour personality, I suspect that Mr. Heintz has gotten too accustomed to the Governor’s schmoozy intimacy and feels slighted when Bernie doesn’t crack open a beer and show him his tattoos.

Anyhoo…nice work if you can get it.

Mr. Heinz’s roast does touch upon the truly big news coming out of the Senator’s office:  that, as the newly appointed chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, he is now poised to bring considerably more clout to his campaign for poorer America.

In this new role, Senator Sanders is uniquely positioned to draw upon his independent status and engage Republicans in a conversation that will serve them well with their hawkish constitutents: the care and feeding of the growing number of service veterans whose fortunes rise and fall in tandem with those other vulnerable populations, the poor and the elderly.

Mr. Heintz seems to find it quirky that, unlike most of his colleagues (who have done so much to move the country forward!), the Senator’s primary focus since stepping onto the Senate floor, has been on the economics of poverty in America.

I find it odd that more members of that august body haven’t demonstrated equal interest in the needs of the fastest growing and least served segment of the nation, the downwardly mobile.

Yes, I do wish the Senator had some collateral to spend on other issues, but I suspect he is a pragmatist even more so than a politician; he’d have to be to have ascended so far in a two party system.   He knows his opportunities for impact are limited both by the size of his constituency and the nature of his independence.

In my opinion, he has chosen well what his priority should be.  

I don’t need warm and fuzzy from Senator Sanders.  I need heat in the winter, food on the table and some assurance that I won’t spend my last days sleeping on a park bench

Carry on, Senator.

There are many stories today that merit discussion on GMD, from Bruce Lisman’s attempt to redefine and co-opt “sustainability;” to the ouster of F-35 opponent, Rosanne Greco, as chair of South Burlington’s City Council; but,  before it slips seamlessly into legal precedent, I thought we should consider the case of the so-called “Cannibal Cop” who has been convicted and now faces possible life-imprisonment for his “crimes.”

It is tempting to focus only on the unpleasantly sensational details of Gilberto Valle’s fantasy appetites; and were that the end of things, I would say “Great! One more loathsome potential predator removed from the streets, forever.”

But of course that’s not where it ends, as legal judgments carry the weight of precedent which can have surprising consequences for the rest of society.

Does this judgement open the door, even a crack, to a future in which people will be locked-up just for thinking about committing a crime?

Nevermind that social media has become both the staging area and the mirror held up to every imaginable thought and deviancy, it is still nothing more than words and pictures.

Is it the natural progression of this new form of culpability that it will eventually be used to justify preemptive police action, or something even more sinister…like political imprisonment or assassination?

I  would like to know what some of the legal minds around GMD are thinking today.  Is this conviction as concerning to you as it is to me, or am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

I’m sick and tired of  racing to a ringing phone with dishwater or plaster on my hands, only to be asked by an automated voice to hold for an “important message.”  I’m sick and tired of robo calls altogether.

I always hang up on them; but today I am making it official, and inviting anyone else who feels like joining the boycott to make it official too.

Be it known, far and wide: The Prent household will not be at home to any robo-caller for any reason, whatsoever.

If you want to annoy us with unsolicited messages, at least have the decency to employ a human being in the process.  

With unemployment and underemployment plaguing the nation, it is the height of arrogance and social irresponsibility to expect us to hang on the phone, listening to a message that’s been outsourced to a robot.

No sale; no kidding.

I’ve got better things to do…and so do you.

Vermont’s precious shorelines are under siege from development pressures almost everywhere in the state.

Habitat important to the aquatic environment has little protection as things now stand, where zoning regulations are established by people at the most local level, who most often do not even begin to consider the unique vulnerabilities of a lakeshore ecosystem.

Since the people making those decisions typically lack any eco-science background, when push-comes-to-shove, immediate economic or scenic interests tend to prevail over long term protections for the environment.  

Ignorant of the impacts, landowners frequently strip the shoreline of small trees and shrubs so that their view is unimpeded, thus allowing polluted runoff to much more rapidly invade the waterway, and depriving lakeshore wildlife of the sheltering habitat that maintains a healthy aquatic lifecycle.

A bill that is currently being shaped in the House, H.223, represents a bold effort to save that habitat before it’s too late to do so.

As all of the lakes of Vermont are central to the public good, providing both economic and recreational benefit when their vitality is maintained,  the interests of the people are best upheld when efforts to protect those waters are coordinated on a statewide level and can benefit from the knowledge and training of ANR’s environmental science specialists.

It is with that in mind that shoreland regulation is proposed to

 Protect water quality, wildlife habitat, bank stability…protect the uses and values of lakes such as recreation, angling, tourism; and the property tax base….avoid expensive lake restoration in the future… (and) respond responsibly to economic development along lakeshores.

This bill does not in any way represent an effort to end or limit enjoyment of the lakeshore by landowners who currently live and recreate there.  Nor does it undermine the rich commercial potential of lakeshore properties. It only seeks to establish common sense zoning regulations to protect aquatic assets so that their value may be enjoyed by Vermonters for generations into the future.  

No one wants to spend time on a dead or dying beach.  It is therefore in the best interests of lakshore property owners to support H.223, as it will protect them and their valuable property from destruction and losses that might occur as the result of irresponsible practices  elsewhere on the shoreline.

H.223 is still in the formative stage, but already opponents of regulation are raising the usual alarms, suggesting the bill is  “another” attempt to take away landowner’s rights of self-determination.  Nothing could be further from the truth. It simply recognizes that the lakes belong to everyone.  As lakeshore habitat tends to cross town and county boundaries, impacts of poor management cannot be regarded as the isolated concern of a single town or village.

It is only good sense to establish statewide zoning rules to govern the management of our lakeshore, and to do it now before we get swept up in another building and development boom.

Original post AND COMMENTS are from March 5, 2013. It should be noted that Marilyn has been awarded damages by the judge, which she has contributed to the ACLU.   Can anyone enlighten us as to what took place in Franklin this year?

It’s that time of year again and we would like to know how Marilyn Hackett’s neighbors are treating her these days.  Marilyn, if you’re out there somewhere, we’d love to hear from you, first hand.

__________________________________________________________



Town Meeting Day wouldn’t be complete without a look back on what was Marilyn Hackett’s annual clash with her Franklin neighbors over public prayer. We’ve revisited that drama many times here on GMD.

Last year, prayer was suspended in anticipation of a decision favoring Ms. Hackett’s position. Now that that decision has specifically ended prayer on the premises of Town Meeting, the community faces the challenge

of creating new traditions within the bounds of law.

So once again this year, there was no prayer at Town Meeting.

Instead, Ms. Hackett’s pious neighbors gathered at an interfaith prayer meeting at St. Mary’s church, half-an-hour before commencement of the traditional public meeting at Franklin Central School.

Referring to Ms. Hackett, a defiant Father Roger Charbonneau was quoted by the Messenger as saying

…We decided to have it at church where she can’t interfere with our prayer.  She can’t prevent us from praying in our own churches.

Ms. Hackett’s own response to the arrangements was considerably more gracious:

This is just the right thing for those who feel the need to pray on Town Meeting Day.  I think it’s great.

Nicely said, Ms. Hackett.  

We hope that, in time, the people who gathered today at St. Mary’s  will embrace the freedom from religion for which you fought so valiantly, because it really is the grand bargain that must be preserved in order to protect their own freedom of religion.

When they do, maybe you’ll even get the “thank you” which you so richly deserve.

As Vermont Yankee prepares to refuel once again, it bears mentioning that the prospects of a nuclear energy future for America are looking ever dimmer .

In an interesting blog-post  on the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, it’s deputy editor, John Mecklin lays out the case against any longterm expectations for energy nukes in the U.S.

Mr. Mecklin maintains that it is the very inability of the industry to adapt and reform itself that will ultimately force it to fail.  He quotes former NRC commissioner, Peter Bradford, who wrote the following:

“How to close the US nuclear industry: Do nothing.”

The problem the nuclear industry faces is that, just as the original generation of nukes began to age-out, the catastrophe of Fukushima undermined its plans for quietly negotiating a new generation on the same preferential terms as the originals.

The underlying economic fib was inevitably laid bare to public scrutiny; and rationalizations were found wanting.  

Even though President Obama once seemed more than willing to streamline the industry’s access to permits and incentives, the political realities of the situation have intruded a few too many times to be ignored.

Already sensitized to bad news by fall-out from the Japanese events, and mindful of worldwide controversy and pull-backs; Wall Street predictably started throwing stuff overboard and preparing to abandon ship.

The disinclination of the NRC to critical self-examination, exacerbated by sensational public infighting, only served to reinforce the market sense of ill-omen.

Mr. Mecklin points out that  think-tanks at MIT and the Rocky Mountain Institute have been actively running predictive exercises concerning America’s nuclear future.  Both include possible scenarios in which current levels of nuclear power generation would be maintained, and ones in which it would be greatly reduced or phased out by 2050.  

Judging from information in Mr. Mecklin’s comments, not even MIT, which has close industry ties, is including a scenario in which current levels would increase.

In fact, the Rocky Mountain Institute, which is described as

a nonprofit that focuses on efficiency and renewable resources,

suggests that the phase-out of  aging transmission infrastructure, in which the entire grid will have to be completely replaced by 2050, will likely mean the permanent end of nuclear power.  The new transmission system will not be built to accommodate the peculiarities of nuclear generation, but rather to deliver better alternatives in more efficient ways.

With those projections in the mix, how likely is it that the advantages given to nuclear at its inception, half-a-century ago, will be enjoyed by new nuke projects going forward?  And how much longer will the industry enjoy its “insurance holiday”  (Price-Anderson) granted in those early days to make investment more attractive.

As anyone who lives within the evacuation zone surrounding Vermont Yankee will probably tell you, it can’t come soon enough.

I have to apologize to the good people of Vermont on behalf of Franklin County, for having sent Norm McAllister to sit with the big boys and girls in the Senate this year.

Mr. McAllister is clearly setting his sights on the curmudgeon-in-chief position at the Statehouse, because in a singularly ill-advised debut proposal, he has chosen to target bicyclists and tourists for a revenue shakedown.

He proposes a $20. annual registration fee for all those who wish to bicycle in the state of Vermont, whether they live here or not.

Mr. McAllister thinks those free-wheeling Canadians ought to pony-up for more than just goods and services while they are here!

The Freshman Senator is so put out by the enormous amount of money the state invests in wider lanes and bicycle paths that he is declaring pay-back time.

Nevermind that more bicycles translate to less automobiles, which means less wear-and-tear to conventional roadway infrastructure, less pollution and less demand on parking facilities; nevermind that bicycle tourism is one of the things that sustains an important Vermont industry even in years when the snow conditions disappoint.  

So, while other places are trying to find ways to encourage more people to abandon their cars for bicycle travel, Vermont…AKA, the greenest state in America…is supposed to take the road less travelled 😉 and, in effect, penalize cyclists for their eco-friendly mode of transport?

Does Mr. McAllister realize that some cities even provide fleets of bicycles that people may borrow for free?

You have to understand that Mr. McAllister numbers among his constituents some pretty pedestrian-and-cycle unfriendly communities.  

The Selectboard of the Town of St. Albans (not to be confused with the City of St. Albans, where I live) is so fundamentally hostile to basic sidewalk maintenance (nevermind bicycle lanes!) that they have, for years, resisted the elected Planning Commission’s efforts to create a Town plan that would include such frivolous pedestrian amenities.

In fact, that same five-man Selectboard is now attempting a fundamental power grab that would permanently eliminate any opposition from the Planning Commission.  They have proposed a Town charter on the March ballot which, if adopted by voters, will eliminate the elected Planning Commission altogether and replace it with one conveniently appointed by the Selectboard.

And even though the proposed charter would include provision for both a local sales tax and the opportunity to impeach elected officials; there is, for instance, no inclination by the power block to expand the elected Selectboard or to introduce a ward system whereby the different areas of the town and their very different socio-economic demographics would be equally represented at the table.

Past elections have routinely returned the same reactionary slate to power time and time again.  Less than five-hundred people, or only about 12% of the population, have chosen these guys by their votes.  Poor voter turn-out would seem to be to blame for the stagnant situation in the Town.  

This is largely due to the fact that, with new housing development representing much of the population, the Town has become a bedroom community for people whose working lives play-out in other towns and even other counties.  It will be years before that bedroom community becomes sufficiently invested in what goes on politically close to home to actually make a difference in local elections.

Since the Town has the largest population in the county, similar dynamics of disengagement were largely responsible for sending Mr. McAllister to the Senate this year.

Sun Common came to Franklin County this week, making ours the fourth Vermont county to fall under its umbrella of good news.  In their own words:

SunCommon is a local Vermont business that helps Vermonters go solar with no upfront cost and a monthly payment less than their utility bill. Finally, folks can actually save money by doing the right thing.

Launched as a pilot program by VPIRG, Sun Common became an independent business early in 2012 under the entrepreneurial direction of co-presidents Duane Peterson and James Moore. It operates as a “benefit corporation,” which simply means, “for the public good,” and allows the company to preserve a social or environmental mission without violating the responsibility that a conventional corporation has to maximize profit for shareholders.

On Monday morning, joined by community organizers Jessica Edgerly Walsh (formerly of Toxics Action Center), Dan Conant (formerly of VPIRG), and Clary Franko (a North Carolina transplant), Duane Peterson introduced a gathering of about thirty Franklin County residents to how Sun Common is already making solar affordable, and even a bargain, for average Vermonters in Chittenden, Washington and Addison Counties.  

Supporting speakers included St. Albans City Mayor Liz Gamache, who, as an employee of  the Vermont Electric Coop, has firsthand knowledge of the challenges facing the state’s electric utilities.

Also lending their support were former Democratic Senator Sara Kittell and former Democratic House Rep. Jeff Young.

You’ve got to be pretty darned gutsy to talk solar to Franklin County residents in the middle of February, but,  as far as I was concerned, Mr. Peterson did a great sales job.  

I was more than convinced, and disappointed to learn that the Prent family domicile wouldn’t qualify for the program because slate roofs are beyond impossible.  

Even without a slate roof, not all homes will be suitable for roof-top solar installation.  In order to qualify, a south-facing roof must be available.   Mr. Peterson estimates that roughly 60% of all houses in Vermont could support roof arrays.

That’s okay; there’s good news even for us non-qualifiers; because a collateral benefit of my neighbors going solar will be a lessening of the load on the overall grid…on which my household must depend.  Aging infrastructure and increased demand challenge both the cost and reliability of that grid for all of us.

…And other options do exist, including ground-mounted arrays; and small shared utilities can be created by linking a number of  homes to a single suitable installation.

The objective is to reduce the cost of solar so that all Vermonters can participate.  There are a variety of purchase and loan options, but the idea is that the cost of equipment and installation is distributed over twenty years; and, at minimum, fully offset by savings in electrical bills.  

Mr. Peterson took the St. Albans opportunity to announce that New England Federal Credit Union has just offered unsecured loans at 6% to homeowners who wish to take advantage of Sun Common’s program but have no other option for financing.

Sun Common visits each home, at the owner’s request and free-of-charge, in order to assess the way solar panels can best be utilized to serve that user’s consumption patterns in order to achieve a “net O” goal that holds the cost to a set figure for twenty years, and is no greater than the homeowner’s current electricity costs. In some cases it may be even less expensive.

If I have gotten any of this wrong, I encourage the Sun Common folks to join in here and set me straight.  I was extremely impressed by the presentation and am eager to see the program adopted widely in Franklin County.

The old notion that we can negotiate our way out of the climate crisis without drawing a line in the sand, persists like the undead through eternity.  It is routinely resurrected to make a goodwill appearance on behalf of one pol or another, in the form of vehicles such as carbon credits and carbon taxes.

This time, the well-meaning sponsor of the idea is our own Bernie Sanders, who, together with California’s Barbara Boxer, has once again proposed carbon taxes as a way to offset the trade advantage enjoyed by countries whose cheap products come from industries operated in environmentally dirty ways.  The idea is to leave it to the market to bring about an international diminution of fossil fuel use.

On the surface, it is a nice idea; but in reality, it does nothing to directly curb polluting industries and establish timetables for ending our dependence on fossil fuels.  And…just wait until the speculators get their hooks into the fine print!

There is a collateral affect from such a taxation system, which has the potential to unleash even more harmful material on the environment.

Creation of a carbon tax scheme such as the senators propose would significantly bolster the prospects of nuclear energy investors to keep that particular zombie alive; an unfortunate development,  just as the world begins to get wise to the twin economic and scientific illusions that have been perpetuated to paint nuclear an “affordable,” “clean” alternative energy source.

Taxing carbon emissions without establishing any timetable for eliminating them altogether could have the effect of legitimizing them into a tolerable vice, like smoking or alcohol consumption; one that will ultimately choke the entire planet rather than just the indulging individual.

Furthermore, establishing taxes has a way of making the state reluctant to eliminate the source of revenue. The state would become sort of a junior partner in pollution-enabling rather than reduction.

I’m all for making the fossil fuel industry pony up, but not if it grants them carte blanche to continue polluting indefinitely, so long as they contribute to the tax base; and not when it reanimates the creaking and corrupt nuclear industry, just as we might see it finally succumb to its own folly.

One can’t help but wonder if news of the carbon tax effort might have encouraged Entergy.  Just days ago, it sounded like they might be forced to close Yankee due to non-confidence from the investment community.  Now suddenly, they’re planning on refueling next month.

I commend both Senators Sanders and Boxer for their good intentions.  It’s tough enough to get anything going on climate change in the United States of Anti-Science.  But is this really the best we can do on climate legislation?  

Anything short of a timeline to eliminate carbon emissions, reinforced by a program of bold investment in clean technology,  will be limited in its impact and could unexpectedly serve as an enabling rationalization.

I would love to hear what other GMD folks are thinking on this.

It is a well-known fact that I am a vocal opponent of big box retail in Vermont.  

When I sat down to my e-mail this morning, it was bristling with links sent by helpful friends to a single feature piece by James Howard Kunstler.  

Recounting the arc of “irrational exuberance” that described the big box store era in America, Mr. Kunstler proclaims that era to be finally at an end, having reduced the nation significantly from an economic, environmental and social standpoint.

America made itself hostage to bargain shopping and then committed suicide. Here we find another axiom of human affairs at work: People get what they deserve, not what they expect. Life is tragic…In a now permanently contracting economy the big box model fails spectacularly. Every element of economic reality is now poised to squash them.

Well said, Mr. Kunstler; and the realities of big box failure have begun to turn off Wall Street, as well.

But with JLD Properties making ground-breaking noises for Walmart, in both St. Albans and Derby,  Vermont seems poised to serve as the final resting place of the big box retail dinosaur.  Could we really be that stupid?

Could Walmart really be that stupid?  

I suppose they could be; after all, since the 1970’s Walmart’s overarching game-plan was to become its only competitor.  Like a cancer it grew uncontrollably, sapping life-giving energy from everything around it: other businesses, suppliers, labor and customers; until, inevitably, its success has turned on itself and is in the process of consuming the host.

For his part, I have long suspected that JL Davis operates on the principle of self-fulfilling prophesy. You know… ” If I build it, they will come.”  “They” being Walmart.

Walmart is probably not averse to lending its brand to a loyal accolade of its expansion, such as Davis has certainly been over the years.  Thus equipped, Davis can make his pitch to St. Albans or Derby  with some legitimacy even before Walmart is truly on the hook.

I suspect Walmart is never truly “on the hook” for properties it does not own, until the developer achieves that certain “sweet spot” on behalf of Walmart, where the retail giant gets to operate on precisely the terms it currently finds most profitable.  If that is never achieved, all bets are off.

It is in light of those suspicions that I received the news that, in St. Albans, Mr. Davis is quietly requesting that his permit be amended to eliminate 115 parking places.  He is also asking that the parking space requirement be reduced from five spaces per 1,000-sq. ft. of retail space to four.  At five spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., those 115 parking places equal roughly 23,000 sq. ft. of retail space.  At four spaces per, they equals almost 30,000 sq.ft. of retail space!

It is reasonable to wonder, what exactly is going on there?

I’ll leave you with that tantalizing question and a piece of advice to the good folks of Derby: Run.  

Run just as fast as you can to avoid being struck by the economic comet that is coming to wipe-out Walmart.