Acronym bills come HOME

2023-05-06

Dear friend,

The landmark 1970 law that governs land use and development in Vermont is called "Act 250" simply because it was the 250th bill passed into law that year.

And that's about as creative as we get in your Vermont Legislature.

When we introduce bills, we name them with a brief description. For example, I co-sponsored H.111, called "An act relating to workforce housing."

We tend to leave it to the U.S. Congress to use creative bill names like The Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act (COVFEFE Act), or the gold standard of bill acronyms, the USA Patriot Act. The post-9/11 bill is formally known as "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act."

Now and then a big-ticket bill like S.5 gets a name like the Affordable Heat Act, but it does so not in the name of the bill but in Section 1 of the bill itself. That's where it says, "This act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Affordable Heat Act.'" (See why I'm disappointed in the Governor's veto of S.5 here.)

But I'm happy to report that S.100 gets Vermont in the name game.

Called "An act relating to housing opportunities made for everyone," it took me a while to realize that someone had snuck in the acronym HOME into the name of an important housing bill. (Housing opportunities made for everyone.)

It's going to take something special to loosen the reins that Act 250 holds over development in Vermont.

In 1970, subdivisions were jumping from one hillside to another and gobbling up prime farmland and forest across Vermont. Many considered development to be out of control, and on pace to turn Vermont's rural landscape into endless suburbs.

In response, Governor Deane Davis, a conservative Republican, established a state commission on environmental control, with a focus on examining abuses in the vacation home industry. That commission outlined the public, quasi-judicial process that became Act 250.

Despite opposition from the real estate and development industries, the bill passed the House and the Senate by large margins, and Gov. Davis signed it into law.

Broadcaster Frank Balch, Federal Highway Administrator Rex Whitton, Governor Deane Davis, and Gerald Love attended a rainy ribbon-cutting ceremony that marked the grand opening of Interstate 89 during the fall of 1970. (Vermont State Archives / Woody Grimes)

And while we can thank Act 250 for preserving Vermont's character, we can also thank it for making Vermont less and less affordable.

Excess housing stock has dried up, and few are attempting to build new multifamily housing. That's pushing people of all walks of life out of our state. The labor shortage is further hurting us in education, healthcare, and public safety. It's hurting us in public health, as thousands of Vermonters prepare for a homeless summer.

On the campaign trail last year, I heard many residents again and again ask for Act 250 reform. There was broad consensus that it has simply become too expensive, too unpredictable, and too burdensome to attempt development.

No one wants to see unbridled development overtake our hills and hollows. But we also would like to see fully staffed schools. We'd like to see more new businesses like those in Jacksonville village.

Families in West Halifax would like to have access to more childcare and after-school opportunities right in the village, but childcare is incredibly hard to staff across Vermont.

Many senior citizens end up with bigger, higher-maintenance houses then they need. They would love to stay in Whitingham and Wilmington rather than go to a nursing home somewhere else, but there isn't much small, multi-unit housing suitable for them. Residents who want to build such housing are agog at the permit requirements and uncertainty of Act 250.

***
S.100, the HOME Act, isn't going to fix all that. But it's a start.

After much work in the Energy & Environment committee, I'm looking forward to supporting S.100 when it comes to the House floor this week. It has already passed the Senate and I'm optimistic for it to pass in the House and even get the Governor's signature. (Though Gov. Scott vetoed an Act 250 reform bill a year ago.)

Here are five foundational Act 250 reforms we're trying to bring HOME.

(1) Requiring that towns allow density of five units per acre in areas served by municipal sewer and water.

(2) Reducing excess parking requirements so that space and dollars go to build housing, not unnecessary parking spaces. Specifically, in areas served by sewer and water that allow residential development, municipalities may not require more than one parking space per dwelling unit. In areas not served by sewer and water, and in areas more than one-quarter mile from municipal parking, towns may require 1.5 spaces per unit.

(3) Allowing developers building affordable housing a 40% density bonus, which may include an extra floor in downtown areas with sewer and water.

(4) Allowing duplexes anywhere a single-family home is allowed.

(5) A “By Right Provision” prohibiting zoning boards from appeasing neighbors by whittling down a proposal that complies with the zoning bylaws.

***
S.100 also includes the following items to strengthen the rights of affordable housing and housing shelters to not be singled out by restrictive municipal zoning:

-- For development with an affordable housing element, a finding by the zoning board that the projects comports with the character of the area is not appealable.

--Adding emergency shelters to a list of building types, including churches, hospitals, and schools, whose operation may not be unduly restricted by municipal zoning.

--In designated downtowns, growth centers, and NDAs, S.100 eliminates the cap on priority housing projects.

***
There's more.

Act 250 has a key "10-5-5" rule that triggers an Act 250 review when an individual developer builds more than 10 units within 5 miles in a 5 year period. Since an Act 250 review is so expensive, this puts a ceiling on what developers can do.

S.100 changes that to a 25-5-5 threshold (25 units, within 5 miles, in a 5 year period) for a period of time that will help Vermont more fully utilize time-limited ARPA and Infrastructure dollars.

The construction of four units or fewer of housing in an existing structure shall only count as one unit towards the total number of units for the 25-5-5 threshold. This would make it easier for a large single-family home, for example, to be converted into apartments.

***
Would your Windham-6 Representative prefer to do away with all this red tape in favor of something simpler? I would. But this complex language has been how various groups have been able to find compromise.

I came into the State House assuming that there would already be a consensus around relaxing zoning restrictions for multi-unit development in already-dense areas.

I was wrong. Plenty of people don't want towns like Whitingham, Wilmington, or Halifax to have new tools to build new housing. If you find that hard to believe, here's one entertaining analysis of some of the special interests: I’m Sorry, But I’m Not Taking Smart Planning Advice From the People Who Enabled This.

I've added my voice to those in the State House asking for a bill that will help us build more housing. S.100 doesn't do everything I'd like, like reining in the unpredictable decisions coming out of Act 250 Commissions whose members often have no expertise on development.

But it's a start.

In fact, there's a lot more in S.100 that relates to funding for housing development.

I'll come back to that in another update.

Have a great weekend!