Interesting that real estate mogul Tony Pomerleau is pulling out of his role in other real estate mogul Bill Stenger’s EB-5 “Fantasyland” up in the Northeast Kingdom.

Mr. Pomerleau is apparently tired of saying, “Show me the money.”

It isn’t the first hint that things may not be going exactly as hyped by Mr. Stenger, the Governor, and the Governor’s former campaign manager, Alex MacLean, who left the Governor’s office to spearhead Stenger’s pet project.

We on GMD are not at all surprised. Check the comments thread on BP’s 2013 diary! There was much to be concerned about in this all-upside tale of easy money and prosperity for all.  

Could this have anything to do with the 2013 “flapette” in Stenger’s relationship with the EB-5 program?

One can only speculate.

I read once that if the headline of a news story ends in a question mark, the answer is always “No”.

 Really, Free Press?  

Is Emily Peyton the new face of Vermont's GOP?

Let me just assure you, that even without reading their front-page story, the answer is “No”. 

But let me ask a question of my own: Does the Free Press really have so much extra page space they can afford to waste so much of it on a story like this? 

It comes as no surprise to followers of the F-35 “stealth” siting strategy for Burlington, that significant information about sound and safety impacts from the super jet has only seen the light of day after the “decision” was made to accept its location at the urban airport.

The long and short of it appears to be that the Airforce plans to “mitigate” those impacts with exactly the same measures as it has taken for the F-16’s which are currently based at the airport.

Quoted directly from the Plan (attached at the end of this diary, minus the tables):

F-35A aircraft operations at Burlington AGS will use existing airspace units and ranges in a manner consistent with current F-16 operations.

But the F-35 is no F-16.

The F-35 will be up to four-times louder than the F-16; and, when it comes to Burlington airport in 2020, the plane will still be at a significantly increased risk for crashing, due to its lack of air experience.  The F-16 had over a million flight-hours logged before it was sited in an urban center, which substantially reduced that risk for the Burlington community.

In his press release, siting opponent James Marc Leas suggests a number of mitigations that might address some of the increased impacts from the F-35, but do not appear in the plan:

Will thousands of houses be sound insulated? Will air conditioning systems be installed so windows need not be opened in summer? No such mitigation for thousands of families is mentioned in the plan.

Will children and elderly be warned in advance of flights and told not to go outside during those times? Nothing in the plan.

Will potential buyers be notified that property in the high noise zones is considered by the US Government to be “unsuitable for residential use.” Not in the plan.

Will thousands of homes have to be purchased and more communities destroyed–like the part of South Burlington near the airport?

The last remains an open question.

Changes in operational parameters developed by the AF in advance of basing the aircraft in Burlington will inform the 158 FW/F-35PIO as to potential local operational mitigation measures that may be evaluated. Performance and other characteristics may also change as the aircraft is adapted to flying conditions at Burlington AGS. Additional noise modeling will be conducted by NGB after local operations mature,and the resulting noise contours and related impacts will be compared to those in the FEIS.

Small comfort to the communities that have already been persuaded to acquiesce to the siting with promises of overarching benignity.

It appears that South Burlington may have bought itself a pig in a poke.

F-35A OPERATIONAL BASING MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

On 2 December, 2013, the United States Air Force (Air Force) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the F-35A Operational Basing Final Environmental Impact Statement, September 2013 (FEIS) (Federal Register, Vol.78, No.193, EIS No.20130295, pg. 61845, October 4, 2013). The ROD documents the Air Force’s decision to beddown 18 F-35A primary aircraft assigned (PAA) at the Burlington, Vermont Air Guard Station (AGS). The Air Force is mandated by Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 989 (32 CFR 989) to prepare a Mitigation Plan (MP) for each ROD that contains mitigation measures. The 2 December 2013 ROD contains mitigation measures and management actions, which are also referenced in the FEIS. Since these mitigation measures and management actions have the effect of reducing potential environmental consequences, it is necessary and appropriate to ensure these actions are implemented as part of the basing of the F-35A at the Burlington AGS. This plan will be referred to herein as the Mitigation and Management Plan (MMP).

The objective of this MMP is to ensure that actions to avoid or mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts are implemented during construction and operation of the project. In accordance with the requirements of 32 CFR 989.22(d), this MMP was prepared to ensure that mitigation measures and management actions identified in the FEIS and the ROD for this action are implemented in an effective and timely manner and that identified impacts are avoided or mitigated. This MMP identifies organizations responsible for funding and implementing the mitigation measure/management action, and a completion date is identified for each.

The ROD acknowledges that, given the relative immaturity of the F-35 program, identification of new data and information relative to the F-35A may arise and it is possible that the impacts identified in the FEIS (Table 2-12) and the effectiveness of prescribed management and mitigation measures may be different from those expected. Consequently, new information may become available, or the effectiveness of mitigation measures may be different than expected. To accommodate for this, the ROD requires that this MMP incorporate an adaptive management program in accordance with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) mitigation and monitoring guidance, and other legal and generally accepted practices. Section IV of this MMP describes the adaptive management program to be implemented for this action.

I. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

The Air Force, as the lead agency, has overall responsibility for ensuring that commitments outlined in the ROD and this MMP are carried out. In practice, the majority of management actions and mitigation measures will be developed and implemented at the base level, with support as required by the Air Force and the National Guard Bureau (NGB). The 158th Fighter Wing (158 FW) of the Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG) operates at the Burlington AGS, and the 134th Fighter Squadron (134 FS) is the only operational flying squadron on base. The 158 FW incorporates a mature and highly successful active duty association as part of the Air Force’s Total Force Enterprise (TFE).

F-35A Operational Basing Environmental Impact Statement Burlington AGS Mitigation Plan 18 April 2014 Page 1Responsible parties for each mitigation measure and management action are identified in Table 1 of this document. The 158 FW F-35 Program Integration Office (F-35PIO), Operations Group (OG), Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) and Environmental Management (EM) office are the key organizations responsible for implementation of specific actions. The 158 FW leadership will direct, assign accountability for and track the results of mitigation measures and management actions through the base Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Council-Installation Safety Council (ESOHC-ISC) and by incorporation of these activities into the Environmental Management System (EMS) maintained at the base.

II. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

The Air Force will beddown one PAA squadron of 18 F-35As under the 2 December 2013 ROD at Burlington AGS. The AGS is collocated with the Burlington International Airport (BIAP), a civilian airport that operates primarily under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules and regulations. The most significant environmental impacts associated with basing F-35A aircraft at Burlington AGS are anticipated to be related to noise generated during operation of the aircraft. Current mitigation measures and management actions in place for F-16 operations will continue as F-35A operations begin, and additional mitigation measures will be assessed and implemented before and after arrival of the new aircraft. This will necessarily be an evolving process, as the local operating procedures for the F-35A and noise abatement procedures that may be implemented will not be fully developed until the aircraft begins to be flown at the Burlington AGS, which is anticipated to be in the year 2020. Table 1 of this MMP lists the specific mitigation measures and management actions related to noise abatement that are currently employed, and outlines procedures and time frames for evaluation of additional mitigation measures that will be assessed upon arrival of the aircraft at the Burlington AGS. Additional operational changes that may mitigate noise impacts will be evaluated for effectiveness and reviewed to assure they do not result in negative training or safety implications. Management actions for potential environmental impacts not related to noise are also listed in Table 1.

Construction associated with beddown of a total of 18 F-35A aircraft primarily consists of renovations and upgrades to existing facilities and installation of new utilities on previously developed land at the Burlington AGS. Construction is needed to upgrade existing utility infrastructure, aircraft hangars, maintenance shops, simulator facilities and associated work areas. Construction will occur primarily within the highly developed and previously disturbed flight line area and adjacent buildings. F-35A aircraft operations at Burlington AGS will use existing airspace units and ranges in a manner consistent with current F-16 operations.

Pages 5 through 7 of the ROD list management actions to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts, and each is addressed in Table 1 of this MMP.

III. METHOD FOR ACCOMPLISHING MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Noise related mitigation measures fall into two general categories at Burlington AGS: 1) operational measures directly implemented and maintained by the 158 FW (also referred to as “local noise abatement procedures”) and 2) noise mitigation measures that are developed and implemented under the Burlington IAP’s Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) required by 14 CFR Part 150, and administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Local noise abatement procedures are codified in Fighter Wing Instructions (FWIs) and other base level standard operating procedure documents such as the local In-Flight Guide. 158 FW aircraft operations are closely tracked, counted and analyzed and are continually assessed for compliance with established procedures. Local noise abatement procedures can be modified and adapted to some extent as new information is received, including input from the local community. Changes to preferred runway operations, modified ground track departure procedures, and adjusting of pattern operations and altitudes are examples of operational elements that can be reviewed and potentially modified by 158 OG personnel to mitigate noise impacts on surrounding communities. Flight, ground and weapons safety are always considered when assessing potential changes to mitigate noise, and safety cannot be compromised to mitigate noise.

The 158 FW participates in the Burlington IAP’s noise mapping, NCP updates and 14 CFR Part 150 compliance process. In some cases, as referenced in the ROD, voluntary mitigation measures undertaken by military organizations at Burlington AGS are referenced within the NCP update and FAA’s resulting Part 150 Record of Approval memorandum. The 158 FW will continue to participate in the Burlington IAP Part 150 process to the maximum extent required to effectively coordinate, implement and continually assess noise mitigation measures and management actions. It is noted that the 158 FW, NGB and Air Force cannot control the timing or final content of the NCP and Part 150 process, as FAA has jurisdiction over the process.

Non-noise related impacts are also addressed in Table 1, and can be effectively managed using existing 158 FW environmental management, safety and occupational health procedures, and continued compliance with applicable federal and State of Vermont regulations, Air Force Instructions, and Executive Orders.

An adaptive management program as described in the CEQ Memorandum titled, “Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact” dated 14 January 2011, will be incorporated into this MMP, and is described in the next section.

IV. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AMP)

The ROD acknowledges that, given the relative immaturity of the F-35 program, identification of new data and information relative to the F-35A may arise and it is possible that the impacts identified in the FEIS (Table 2-12) and the effectiveness of prescribed management and mitigation measures may be different from those expected. Consequently, new information may become available, or the effectiveness of mitigation measures may be different than expected. Adaptive management techniquewill be utilized to identify additional management action refinement, and will be compared to information provided in the FEIS.

The 14 January 2011 CEQ memorandum referenced above provides guidance to assist agencies in assuring that mitigation commitments are being performed as described in the FEIS and ROD, and advises that an adaptive management program can provide a mechanism to adjust and refine mitigation measures if needed to achieve projected environmental outcomes. The CEQ memo states on page 11, “For mitigation commitments that warrant rigorous oversight, an Environmental Management System (EMS), or other data management system could serve as a useful way to integrate monitoring efforts effectively. Other possible monitoring methods include agency-specific environmental monitoring, compliance assessment, and auditing systems.”

The 158 FW maintains an active EMS that follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 EMS model to monitor and continually improve the Wing’s environmental performance. ISO 14001 is an industry standard management program that provides practical tools for organizations looking to identify and control their environmental impact and constantly improve their environmental performance. The 158 FW EMS targets specific significant environmental aspects of its operations, and annually runs through a cycle of an internal audit by the 158 FW EMS Cross Functional Team (CFT) and a subsequent Management Review by the 158 FW Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Council-Installation Safety Council (ESOHC-ISC). The base ESOHC-ISC consists of all base commanders and other key decision makers and supervisors, and action items that result from annual audits and management reviews are assigned to a responsible party and results tracked at semi-annual meetings. Incorporating this F-35 MMP into the 158 FW EMS will assure that the mitigation measures and management actions listed in Table 1 are implemented, tracked, assessed, and modified or expanded as necessary to meet the intent of minimizing the environmental impacts of the basing action.

As stated above, the 158 FW will continue to participate in the Burlington IAP’s noise mapping, NCP updates and 14 CFR Part 150 compliance process. This process is typically repeated on a 5 to 10 year cycle, and is itself an adaptive process. Noise modeling and mapping done during the Part 150 process will provide the data on which future noise mitigation and management actions will be proposed by Burlington IAP and ultimately approved by FAA as part of an updated NCP. There are well-defined public involvement requirements during the development and implementation of the NCP, and the 158 FW will participate in this public process to the extent requested by the Burlington IAP Manager.

The F-35A aircraft is currently flying under a restricted flight envelope at an early stage of overall life- cycle development. As the Air Force gains more experience flying the F-35A prior to basing the aircraft at Burlington AGS, operational parameters such as airspeed and power setting requirements will be refined. Changes in these parameters will be compared to those used in the FEIS, and the AF and NGB will evaluate how these changes would affect the noise contours calculated for Burlington AGS. Changes in operational parameters developed by the AF in advance of basing the aircraft in Burlington will inform the 158 FW/F-35PIO as to potential local operational mitigation measures that may be evaluated. Performance and other characteristics may also change as the aircraft is adapted to flying conditions at Burlington AGS. Additional noise modeling will be conducted by NGB after local operations mature, and the resulting noise contours and related impacts will be compared to those in the FEIS. Refer to Table 1, item numbers 5 and 6 for more specific mitigation and management actions.

Any changes in the construction schedule would have an effect on completion of the actions for those specific projects (Table 1).

For Immediate Release

For further information contact:

Rosanne Greco 497-0711(o)  301 919-9313(c)

James Marc Leas 802 864-1575

Jim Dumont 802 453-7011(o) 802 349-7342(c)

Air Force “Mitigation and Management Plan” NOT

“Mitigation” plan includes no additional action regarding noise

                   and

“Mitigation” plan is a giant backward step regarding crash

In its just released “Mitigation and Management Plan” for Burlington and in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Air Force admits major additional environmental and health effects of basing and operating F-35 warplanes in Burlington compared to the current F-16 basing.

In the EIS The Air Force admits that thousands more families living in communities near the airport will be in high noise and crash zones and at higher risk of serious harm with F-35 jets as compared with the current F-16 jets.

In the EIS and in the “mitigation” plan the Air Force admits that these risks are so serious that additional mitigation is necessary.

But the Air Force “mitigation” plan fails to include any actual additional mitigation measures. In fact, a key mitigation measure that was adopted for the F-16 appears not to be taken for the F-35 with regard to crash risk.

Despite the Air Force admission that the F-35-A will be more than four times louder than the screechingly loud F-16 no reasonable additional mitigation measures are included in the “mitigation” plan.

“The plan is not a real mitigation plan. At best it is a plan to plan,” said James Marc Leas, an opponent of F-35 basing who lives in South Burlington. “It is a pretend plan.”

The plan calls for waiting until the F-35-A arrives before deciding on mitigation. Tempering any hope of effective mitigation, the plan expressly states that mitigation takes a back seat to flight ground and weapons safety (page 3). The plan includes no commitment for effective mitigation after the plane arrives.

1. Noise

According to the “mitigation” plan, the Air Force says it is already taking measures to mitigate F-16 noise and it will do the same for the F-35.

But a chart in the Air Force Final EIS (page BR4-23) states that the noise level of the F-35 is 115 dB compared to 94 dB for the F-16. The Final EIS (page C-2) also states that a 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as a doubling of the sound’s loudness. Thus, the 21 dB higher sound level of the F-35 means the F-35 will be more than two doublings, or more than four times louder than the F-16. “If it was not a pretend plan, the mitigation plan would include actions to mitigate that much-higher noise level,” said Mr. Leas. “But it does not. Not a word.”

As written, the mitigation plan does not specify any measures beyond those already implemented for the F-16. It is all left to the future to figure out. “This is a serious flaw in view of the Air Force saying the F-35 is more than four times louder than the F-16 and the Air Force saying that thousands more families will be living in high noise zones that are harmful to human health,” said Mr. Leas.

Questions about noise

If, as the mitigation plan says, the Air Guard is doing all it can to mitigate F-16 noise–and the F-16 is still screechingly loud as jets take off over Winooski, Williston, Burlington and South Burlington–why does the supposed “mitigation plan” not list additional measures that will definitely be implemented to mitigate the F-35 noise? Why is it all left until after the F-35 warplanes arrive?

Will thousands of houses be sound insulated? Will air conditioning systems be installed so windows need not be opened in summer? No such mitigation for thousands of families is mentioned in the plan.

Will children and elderly be warned in advance of flights and told not to go outside during those times? Nothing in the plan.

Will potential buyers be notified that property in the high noise zones is considered by the US Government to be “unsuitable for residential use.” Not in the plan.

Will thousands of homes have to be purchased and more communities destroyed–like the part of South Burlington near the airport?

2. Crash

“The best way to mitigate crash risk is to do what was done with the F-16 before the F-16 was based in Burlington: accumulate a million fleet flight hours,” said Mr. Leas. “If safety were truly a priority–as it appears to have been for the F-16 basing–the time for basing in Burlington would not be set before one million fleet flight hours were accumulated.” The time for basing has been set at 2020.

Although plenty of F-16 jets have crashed over the years, one factor in the F-16 safety record here in Burlington is that enough fleet hours were flown and enough bugs were fixed that the crash rate was significantly lowered before the F-16 was allowed to be based in the middle of communities with thousands of families.

The supposed mitigation plan includes no mention of F-35-A fleet flight hours anticipated to be accumulated when F-35-A warplanes arrive in Burlington in 2020 compared to the number of F-16 fleet flight hours actually accumulated–over one million hours–when F-16 warplanes arrived here.

So far the Air Force says that all three models combined, F-35-A, F-35-B, and F-35-C, have only accumulated 15,000 flight hours, a tiny percentage of what is needed.

“Safety is denied if the number of F-35-A fleet flight hours anticipated to be accumulated when F-35-A warplanes arrives is significantly lower than one million hours,” said Mr. Leas. “Basing before then will be a giant step backward in safety mitigation compared to F-16 basing.”

“The ‘mitigation’ plan fails to mitigate the crash risk if it fails to include a provision that no F-35-A planes will be based in Burlington until the F-35-A fleet has accumulated a million flight hours, just like the F-16,” he said.

Question about crash

Will the Air Force and the National Guard still allow basing of the F-35-A in Burlington in 2020 if the F-35-A fleet has not flown a million hours, as the F-16 did worldwide before it was based in Burlington?

—30—

The multi-tool of Vermont journalism, Pete “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld, has been up to his ears in coverage of the Legislature’s waning days… and yet he somehow found time to break a bit of political news:

Bruce Lisman, the former Wall Street executive and founder of Campaign for Vermont, confirmed Friday that he’s “seriously” considering a run for governor.

… “I think about it now because so many people ask me, and the numbers of people asking me have escalated,” Lisman said.

Ooh ooh ooh! Please please PLEASE, Bruce, pleeeease run! If you do, I will never have been happier to be dead wrong in all my life.

I’ve insisted for some time that Lisman is too smart to run for Governor: he’d have to know that, aside from his Wall Street fortune and the self-generated buzz of publicity around Campaign for Vermont*, he’d bring very little to a campaign against Governor Shumlin. He lacks charisma, he’s a lousy speechmaker, he has no political experience whatsoever, he has no relationships within any of Vermont’s political parties. Indeed, he’s pissed off a fair share of top politicos due to Campaign for Vermont’s relentless self-promotion and credit-grabbing. Plus, of course, he’d be battling an entrenched incumbent with a very strong party machine, a record-breaking warchest, and a lengthy record as a winning politician. In a state that virtually always re-elects incumbents.

* A buzz primarily limited to the political classes of Vermont. Even though Lisman made a big show of putting on CFV events around the state, I seriously doubt that the vast majority of potential voters have any idea who he is.

But hey, if Lisman has that bad a case of Rich Man’s Self-Delusionary Syndrome, then by all means, let him run. I will happily shout it from the housetops: “I WAS WRONG!”

Because, by swooping in and hogging the anti-Shumlin spotlight, he could do so much damage to the VTGOP, the conservative movement, and the faux-centrist movement. It’d be the best thing to happen to the Vermont Democratic Party since, oh… since Lenore Broughton entrusted her fortune to Tayt Brooks, International Man of Mystery.  

Lisman’s self-absorbed musing has already tossed a monkey wrench into the plans of a close political ally, State Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, who’s been edging toward a gubernatorial candidacy of her own. Indeed, I’ve heard that she was all set to announce — until Lisman started his little Hamlet act. As I’ve said before, Scheuermann’s only hope to run a competitive race is if Lisman gives her a big financial boost. And if he’s running, he won’t be supporting her campaign.

But Scheuermann’s ambitions would be the least of the collateral damage from a Lisman run. He would, in one fell swoop, deal a potentially fatal blow to his own advocacy group AND to Lt. Gov. Phil Scott’s effort to drag the VTGOP into the 21st Century, handing control back to the Darcie Johnstons and John MacGoverns of the world.

Let’s take those one at a time.

First, Lisman has assiduously tried to position Campaign for Vermont as a nonpartisan organization, willing to consider any and all ideas for improving state government. He has trumpeted the fact that CFV’s membership includes conservatives and liberals, Republicans, Democrats, and Progressives. (And downplayed the fact that the conservatives and Republicans vastly outnumber the liberals.) But if he launches a gubernatorial campaign immediately after stepping out of CFV leadership, he will lend credence to the idea that CFV was never serious about policy — it was just a stalking horse for Lisman’s personal political plans. And, whether he runs as a Republican or an Independent, his main target will be Governor Shumlin — which means he will have to campaign against Democratic Party policies, which will make him look like a Republican even if he doesn’t run as one.

He’s already in danger of shredding CFV’s credibility with his recent spate of Republican contributions: at least $35,000 to Republican groups this year alone (plus his top-ticket presence at December’s Chris Christie fundraiser) and Jack Diddly Squat to Democrats.

Second, Phil Scott and his allies have promoted the idea that the VTGOP must broaden its appeal. This is such anathema to the conservative true believers that they were willing to vote for proven loser John MacGovern as state party chair rather than accept Scott’s choice. (David Sunderland, who ain’t exactly a liberal himself.) If Lisman runs as a Republican, he hijacks the centrist movement, turning it into an instrument of his own objectives — further demonizing it in the precincts of the right.

And if Lisman runs as an Independent, he’ll give the VTGOP two choices, both of them bad. Stay out of the race and support Lisman, in which case the True Believers may sit on their hands in November and never forgive Scott and the centrists; or run a Republican candidate, splitting the anti-Shumlin vote and ensuring the Governor’s re-election. Either way, Lisman loses, and he sows further discord in Republican ranks.

Postscript. This being a story about Vermont Republican politics, Hirschfeld was legally obligated to get a quote from Darcie “Hack” Johnston, political grifter, consistent loser, and current paid official of a campaign in Arizona, for God’s sake. (She does have the advantage of always, ALWAYS being available for comment. Handy for busy reporters.) The Hack told Hirschfeld that she welcomes Lisman’s financial support for Republican causes, but that his potential candidacy points out the failure of current VTGOP leadership.

“Leaders of the Republican Party have failed to stand up and support candidates within the party that offered Vermonters real opportunity,” Johnston said. “And as a result, Bruce Lisman is able and willing to step into that vacuum.”

Ahem. If the Hack would assign blame for a shortage of Republican candidates for Governor, I suggest she consult a mirror. It was, after all, the abject failure of the Randy Brock campaign (expensively managed by one Darcie Johnston) that gave potential Republican candidates the very strong idea that running for Governor was a sure ticket to political oblivion.  

You know the old joke about the kid who wakes up on Christmas morning and finds a pile of manure under the Christmas tree? And he’s so optimistic that he starts digging through the shit, exclaiming “There must be a pony in here somewhere”?

Yeah, well, meet Art Woolf, the guy who sees a pony and starts looking for the manure pile.

The weekly bleat from Vermont’s Loudest Economist™, published in the Thursday Freeploid, considers the news that our unemployment rate has been plunging of late — hitting 3.4% in March, down a half-percent from January and a full point lower than October’s rate.

Good news, right?

Not so fast, says Art Woolf, Horseshit Whisperer.

It’s almost too good to be true. And it may not be.

Get that: “it may not be.” He then explains that he can’t explain the drop. And since the problem can’t possibly be Woolf’s lack of insight or imagination, the figure must not be real. He surmises that the 3.4% may be “due to sampling problems” and may be revised upward in the future.

On the basis of precisely zero evidence. Because, I guess, the world ought to have the decency to conform with Art Woolf’s expectations.  

He acknowledges that even if the rate is revised, it’ll remain pretty darn low. But even so, he insists, it must be bad news one way or another. And he offers some suggestions:

— It might be a sign of an aging demographic, with fewer people in the workforce and more benefit-sucking laggards draining our Body Politic of its life essence.

— If, perchance, 3.4% is accurate, Woolf asserts that the rate is TOO LOW for a healthy economy. It’s a sign of a worker shortage, which means higher costs for employers. Yeah, we need a steady supply of desperate job-seekers to make life easier for business.

And then Art puts it all together in the Manure Pile Of His Mind:

With higher training costs on top of a potentially higher minimum wage, and higher payroll taxes on the horizon to fund Vermont’s new health care initiative, businesses should be nervous, uncomfortable, and worried about their future.

Yeezus H. Christ, Art. That’s a helluva lot of pessimism in a brief paragraph. And all founded on your evidence-free assumption that a low unemployment rate is an evil omen.

This is all too typical of the pro-business outlook in Vermont, not just from surface-skimming “experts,” but from conservative politicians and industry lobbyists. It’s like they’re hoping for failure. This may be politically expedient — if liberal policies produce a sound economy, it puts the lie to decades of Reaganite dogma — but it’s also a constant shower of cold water on Vermont’s prospects.

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the then-owner of the Detroit Tigers, renowned Catholic insane person (and founder of Domino’s Pizza) Tom Monaghan, was lobbying furiously for a new ballpark to replace the venerable Tiger Stadium. He and his chief minion, Bo Schembechler (former Michigan football coach and then President of the team), railed on and on about the decrepit ballpark and its unsafe surroundings.  At one point, Schembechler gave an angry speech which included the famous line, “It’s unfair for you to think that you can shackle us to a rusted girder in Tiger Stadium…”

Well, between that consistent drumbeat of gloom and the fact that Monaghan mismanaged the team into a lengthy period of consistent losership, attendance fell precipitously. Team officials were telling their fans that the stadium and the neighborhood were downright dangerous, and the fans rightly concluded that maybe they should stay away.

Eventually it worked: a new ballpark was built. The canyonesque, soulless Comerica Park.

Contrast that with the John Henry-era Boston Red Sox, who embraced the equally decrepit Fenway Park and turned it into a bustling temple of baseball — and an extremely profitable one, to boot.

Henry was all about the pony; Schembechler was complaining about the shit.

For all his flaws, Governor Shumlin is taking the John Henry route: emphasizing the positives about Vermont and making a case for investment and growth based on our strengths. People like Art Woolf, Phil Scott, George Malek et al., persistently talk Vermont down. Which is good political tactics, but horrible strategy. When you constantly harp on Vermont’s negatives, real or imagined, what message does it send to potential businesses and investors?

When you say “businesses should be nervous, uncomfortable, and worried about their future,” what kind of atmosphere are you creating?  Especially when, in the case of Woolf’s latest bleat, it’s fueled by speculation based on his preconceived notions and lack of insight into the real strengths of Vermont and how they might actually be creating a positive environment for business, even if it’s not via the traditional “cut taxes and regulation” route. Which is, in Art Woolf’s limited mind, the only way forward.

I realize I’m not a tenured professor of economics and creator of a $150-per-year newsletter. But it seems to me that Woolf should put his thinking cap back on and try to Say Something Good About Vermont.

I’ve even got some suggestions.

— Thanks to our relatively small population, our financial-services market is relatively unpenetrated by giant banks. Locally-owned banks and our numerous credit unions are relatively open to small-business lending, which spurs entrepreneurship.

— Our retail sector is also relatively unconquered by giants. This leaves a lot of space for small retailers. And, more importantly, it provides openings for small producers. It’s much easier for, say, a specialty food maker or a craft brewer to earn a place in locally-owned stores and co-ops. In other states, small producers are in an uphill battle for shelf space with big corporations.

— We have a strong entrepreneurial spirit in some untraditional fields. But Vermont’s entrepreneurs are inspired by the products they make, rather than turning a quick buck. We don’t have Wall Street-style sharks, but we have a lot of folks willing to work hard and make things worth buying.

— We do, of course, have a relatively unspoiled natural environment. That’s the motor for our vital tourism industry. (And our thriving local-food sector.) And it makes Vermont just a darn great place to live.

From the way people like Art Woolf talk, you’d think that it’s time for “The last one out, turn off the lights.” But in fact, a whole lot of people choose to live in Vermont in spite of the fact that they could find greater financial rewards elsewhere.

Sure, we’ve got work to do and problems to solve. But the relentless doom-and-gloomism is (a) inaccurate, and (b) not helping.  

So, WCAX-TV has this daily interview program called “The :30.” A couple weeks ago, noted Vermont climatologist Alan Betts was scheduled as a guest to talk about his work on climate change and its implications for Vermont.

Emphasis on “was.”

From Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz at Seven Days…

…just hours before Betts was slated to appear, [WCAX producer Alexei] Rubenstein canceled. In an email, the producer explained that station “higher ups” had spiked the interview due to a lack of “opposing views.” In a separate phone call, Betts says, Rubenstein “said it’s because management is afraid of the hostile reactions they get.”

Profiles In Courage, Republican broadcaster style.

Former GOP functionary and current WCAX news director Anson Tebbetts had a different explanation:

“We were overwhelmed with material yesterday and wanted to do something more thoughtful and have a bigger discussion with those involved,” he says.

… Tebbetts says the station wasn’t necessarily looking to match Betts with a climate change denier. Rather, he’d like his audience to hear from representatives of the sugar and ski industries, and others affected by climate change.

Nope, sorry. Not buying it.

Rubenstein specifically said the cancellation was due to a lack of “opposing views.” (“Bob Hartwell, please pick up the fire-engine red courtesy phone.”) The sugar and ski industries would be “complementary,” not “opposing” views. In fact, I daresay those two industries are well aware of climate change and its existential threat to their businesses.

And even if Tebbetts is telling the truth — as opposed to frantically trying to cover his own ass — he’s missing the point. “Balance” and “context” isn’t something required of each and every single program or segment. It’s something to be achieved in the complete context of a media outlet’s work. You don’t have a Democrat on the air every time you have a Republican, and vice versa; but over time, you try to achieve some kind of balance.

As Heintz reports, “Betts was shocked” by the cancellation. He’s been studying climate change for three decades and given numerous talks and written commentaries around Vermont, and:

Never once, he says, has a news outlet demanded an “alternative viewpoint” to a phenomenon almost universally agreed upon by mainstream scientists.

Yeah, well, Mr. Betts, meet WCAX-TV, traditional supporter of conservative causes.  

I’ve been visiting family in Oregon.  While I was gone, a very dear friend who was a keen reader of GMD passed away.  

Although she was born in St. Albans City 87 years ago, and ended her life in the same town, the passing of this tireless civic volunteer will not be marked by the City in any way other than with relief; for Marie Limoges was the articulate and scolding voice of civic and environmental responsibility, whose letters to the editor seldom failed to find their mark.

We, her many friends and co-advocates will gather to remember her at her home this Saturday afternoon.

My tribute sent to the Messenger:

With the passing of Marie Limoges, I have lost a hero.  

She was one of the most intelligent and perceptive people I’ve had the pleasure of knowing. It was to Marie that I turned countless times in the recent past to discuss ideas large and small and benefit from her keen observations.

Through a lifetime of personal challenges, Marie raised a family on her own, had an impressive career in the civil service and never ceased to educate herself, remaining current to the end of her life.

She was particularly devoted to the study of history and archaeology, and she was always proud to be an adventurous outlier.

Some of her best personal stories reached back to her days living overseas in postwar Japan, where she was not content to remain cloistered on the base like a typical officer’s wife, but ventured out into the community to make new friends and learn about the lives of the Japanese people.

That was typical of Marie, who never chose the path of least resistance, but rather plunged headfirst into new ideas and experiences.

Her interests were grounded in human history, and she even worked archaeological digs later in life; but her mind was evergreen and razor sharp.

Marie’s zeal as a sustainable living activist only grew with age and physical incapacity.  She embraced her own mortality and sighted along the lines of the future, concerning herself with our quality of life long after she has left us.

Access to the internet breathed new-life and possibility into Marie when she was no longer physically well enough to move about freely.  It allowed her to remain informed and in lively conversation with her many friends and colleagues in the

Responsible Development movement.  Her frequent letters-to-the-editor were exemplary, both for their vigor and for their articulation.

If she leaves us with one single lesson, it is that we are never too old to have a stake in the future.

Being in municipal government, and having a partner involved with affordable housing, I read this Bennington Banner article with significant interest:

A request to defer repayment on a loan made by a local housing project so it can work on stemming rising heating costs did not pass at a Select Board meeting Monday.

Applegate Housing Limited Partnership, which manages Applegate Apartments, requested that the town defer for one year repayments to a Community Development Block Grant, which is awarded though the Vermont Community Development Program 16 years ago. Last year it had requested, and received, a one year extension.

One Board member, Justin Corcoran, voted 'No' because he had “questions”, though it's clear that what he really means is he doesn't like these grants and how they work (despite voting for the deferral last year).  The rejection is unfortunate because it will lose the community a great deal of money, so I'm hopeful that folks knowledgable in community development will be able to educate the Board in a couple weeks and obtain a better result.

The bottom line:

“Essentially the way the programs work, while they're called a Community Development Block Grants, they're set up as loans through the community,” [Bennington Economic and Community Development Director Michael Harrington] said. “The reason they're set up as loans is there's not necessarily an expectation that money will get paid off or get paid back to the community. The reason they're set up that way is because it allows the community to have equity in these affordable housing projects within the community.”

The grant came with an automatic 15-year deferral period, he said. Typically such projects are given between 15 and 30 year deferrals. This allows the community, through the board, to ensure the development is meeting the needs it was built to address and is up to standard.

Some confusion might stem from the multiple levels of government involved and the structure of the funding.  The monies do initially come from a grant (the CDBG program), and are distributed in a variety of ways including loans through municipalities.  In this case the Feds have given money to Vermont, and through a competitive process the State provided a grant to Bennington, who in turn loaned funds to the non-profit developer and its local partners.

The CDBG loan in question can only be used for housing, reflecting the State's policy priority.  Since Bennington never really had this cash–acting merely as a conduit for funding community development–the Town doesn't actually get it back to use however it wants.  What's more, a percentage of the money paid back returns to the statewide pool for reallocation to other projects.  

A key concept here is “community equity.”  If there were a natural termination point for a given project, I guess it would make sense to ensure repayment of the CDBG loan to free up funds for other useful work elsewhere.  However, the intention here is to keep applying the funds to a pressing, on-going community issue, such as providing affordable housing for residents.

The Applegate development currently has a high occupancy rate (102 out of 104 units, with roughly 3 persons in each on average), so it's clearly filling an important need in Bennington.  As the Banner article notes, skyrocketing heating costs have created an operating loss and without deferral of the $4300/month loan payment, “the group [will not be] able to pay all of its bills.”  

That's actually a very circumspect way of saying they'd be forced into foreclosure.  Which would be bad.  For everybody.  

The most immediate problem from a civic duty perspective, of course, is that you'd be at best cutting essential programs and at worst pushing 300+ citizens into homelessness.  These are mostly low-income working people who spend most of their money locally (which is partly why the economic multipliers associated with affordable housing are so high).

Bennington would also lose over $100k in payroll, real estate and other local taxes until it was able to somehow occupy/redevelop the property.  And given the size of the property, a not-insignificant amount of money is presumably spent locally just for maintaining Applegate.

On the flip side, deferring the loan supports reinvestment that will provide affordable housing for some of Bennington's most vulnerable residents, who then can keep working and spending in the community.  Plus upgrading Applegate will pump even more money into local businesses–the article notes overall costs will be $3.5M, so there's about $2.9M of additional funding that will flow to the project.

Vermont has a long history of such investments, with exceptional stewardship of money fostering successful projects to the benefit of all.  So from where I sit, this is a no-brainer, and I'm optimistic that the Board will properly reconsider its decision.  I mean, really, do you want to cut your community development money in half and turn away millions of dollars the local economy could use, all while throwing people onto the streets?  That would be as financially misguided as it is heartless.

ntodd

How Big?  Well, it could be BIGGER if folks sponsoring it would POST THE GODDAMN INFO on THIS SITE in a timely way.  HELLO???  I got the email last week, and it’s all over Facebook.  There are big color posters up all over Montpelier.

It’s all about Workers’ Rights.  The VERMONT WORKERS CENTER and VT. AFL-CIO are two of the sponsors.  Other groups are involved.  BUT, not good that whoever is doing PR for this (and this has happened with other ACTIVIST events in the recent past) has not POSTED IT HERE.

This will be the last time I will stick my nose in the ACTIVIST MOVEMENT’S ‘casual inability’ to REACH OUT TO PEOPLE .  Let me just say that people in Lefty Activist Movements need to use ALL THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE to get the word out on Rallies, Marches, and Events.  The RIGHT knows how to get the word (and the bodies) out.  The INSIDER pipeline just doesn’t cut it.

So, Noon today, Thurs., May 1, at the Statehouse Lawn.  Be there.  Thank you.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.