Mountain Times - Volume 48, Number 23: June 5-11

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 • Opinion The Mountain Times • June 5-11, 2019 OP-ED Population growth is isolated By Art Woolf It’s a well-known fact that Vermont’s population isn’t growing. From 2010 to 2018 the state’s population grew by only 0.1 percent, just a fraction of the national rate of 5.8 percent. New Census Bureau population estimates drill these aggregate population numbers down to the town level and show that more than half of all cities and towns in Vermont had fewer residents in 2018 than in 2010. Chittenden County was the only county in the state where every town gained population. Lamoille was close, with only one town losing population. Only two localities in Franklin County shrank. But even in those towns that grew, population increase was small. Only 11 towns in the entire state, out of 252, grew faster than the national average. In some counties the lack of growth was stark. None of Bennington County’s 17 towns had more people in 2018 than in 2010. Only one of Windham County’s 23 towns added population. That was Townshend, with six more people. Almost none of Vermont’s traditional municipalities exhibited any growth. St. Albans City, Barre, Montpelier, St. Johnsbury, Rutland, Bennington, Brattleboro, White River Junction, Bellows Falls, Woodstock, Vergennes and Springfield all lost population. South Burlington, Burlington and Winooski were the only cities that grew. Although growth was universal in all Chittenden County towns and cities, Burlington and Winooski grew by only 1 percent — and remember that’s over an eight-year period, not per year. The big gainers in Chittenden County were Essex, Williston, South Burlington, Shelburne and Milton. Essex and Williston, two of the largest towns in the county, and indeed in the state, experienced double-digit growth. Although all towns in Lamoille County save Hyde Park also grew — and it shrank by only three people — none of the county’s towns grew faster than the U.S. average and only Cambridge, Morristown and Stowe had any sizable growth. Franklin County was another pocket of growth, with only two jurisdictions losing population — Enosburg and St. Albans City. Fairfax, Georgia and St. Albans Town exhibited some of the highest growth rates in the state, and they are all, by Vermont standards, large towns. Their population growth probably reflects their status as bedroom communities to the Greater Burlington job market, with relatively easy commutes into the job centers of Chittenden County. They also have lower housing prices, or at least provide homeowners more housing value for the price, than houses in Chittenden County proper. Growing Franklin County towns were concentrated along the I-89 corridor. That helps explain why Franklin County towns north of Burlington grew but Addison County towns south of Burlington did not. Commuting from the south along Route 7 is a lot less pleasant than commuting into Chittenden County on I-89. Monkton and Middlebury were the only Addison County towns that grew by any significant amount. Few towns in Washington County reported any sizable growth, with Barre City, Barre Town, and Montpelier all losing people. The only bright spot in the county was Waterbury, but its 1.5 percent growth rate was pretty feeble and only amounted to 78 more residents than in 2010. The Northeast Kingdom performed as one would expect. Only five towns in Caledonia County grew, and none of them added more than 20 people over the past eight years. Only two towns in Orleans County — Jay and Newport Town — grew, Jay probably due to the expansion of the Jay Peak Resort. The inevitability of an impeachment inquiry By Stephen C. Terry LETTERS Change schools to fix climate Dear Editor, To impeach President Donald Trump or to not impeach is the latest political guessing game. Special Counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, appears to have laid out a roadmap for the Democratic House to begin an impeachment investigation. Despite building momentum among House Democrats to have their Judiciary Committee launch an impeachment inquiry, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fears it will fail. Her fear is understandable. The political reality based on history is that even if the House voted to approve Articles of Impeachment, the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate would simply vote against convicting Trump, following the required Senate trial. If this scenario plays out, for the third time in history an American president would avoid impeachment, because the U. S. Senate could not muster the two-thirds required votes to remove him. That was the case in 1868 when President Andrew Johnson survived being kicked out of office by only one vote after the Senate failed to reach a two-thirds vote for conviction. Thirty-five senators voted to convict Johnson of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” while 19 senators voted to acquit. In 1999, President Bill Clinton was acquitted on two impeachment charges as the Senate’s vote was far short of the needed two-thirds majority. After his acquittal, Clinton’s favorability increased among the American public. Speaker Pelosi is very concerned that an impeachment effort without Senate Republican support would fail for the third time and propel Trump to a second term in 2020. That is the political calculation being weighed by some Democrats in Washington. Other Democrats argue that politics should be ignored and the Congress should focus on its Constitutional responsibilities given evidence uncovered by Mueller that points to Trump having engaged in obstruction of justice. I find the current discussion about schools and closure frustrating. The “problem” trying to be solved is short-sighted at best. Our perspectives shape how we solve problems and “our” perspective on this issue seems to boil down to money. To that end, I’d like to point out that no one’s property taxes are going to go down as a result of any choice we make. Quite the opposite — our taxes will be going up. The state may offer us more money as an incentive, but ultimately all options mean spending more, and whether it be from the state’s pool or locally, it’s still our money. An investment of this size requires careful consideration to all it will effect. Money, equity, community, and feelings are not all of what’s at stake. There’s an elephant in the room. It’s been here for some time. Decades. Climate change. All of my adult life we have been warned of dire consequences and the need for action and yet ... Ultimately we have done nothing. Baby steps are a joke when the finish line is hundreds of miles away and we only have a short time to get there. The agreed upon global narrative is that “we” have until 2030 to cut our carbon emissions in half and until 2050 to be at net zero emissions. From what I’ve learned about climate change this is a gross understatement. Mass extinction is already underway, there is enough carbon already locked in our atmosphere to exceed 2 degrees of warming, and trends are no longer linear, they are exponential. The U.N. panel of climate scientists has said we need radical change in every facet of life to cut emissions. So, with this perspective in mind, I ask: What does our school system look like at net zero emissions? How do we get at least halfway there within 10 years? Bigger still, how do we cut all of our emissions in half with the intent of getting to net zero? In our households, at work and how we get there, food, energy and so on? It is on all of us enact change at every level of society. Voting, signing pe- Pop growth, page 9 Impeachment, page 9 Letter, page 14
The Mountain Times • June 5-11, 2019 CAPITOL QUOTES • 9 CAPITOL QUOTES On clean water... “Our goal is to have clean water in every watershed in the state. The bill focuses on restoring our most polluted waters while also prioritizing prevention projects throughout the state. It brings us together to meet our clean water goals,” Said Rep. Amy Sheldon (D-Middlebury). “Funding clean water is essential to ensuring our state’s economic future. This bill contains a total of $50.5 million in new and existing funding in fiscal year 2020 for clean water. To achieve our goal of providing a long-term funding source, we reallocated a portion of the meals and rooms tax from the Education Fund to the Clean Water Fund, generating $7.7 million for the Clean Water Fund,” Said Rep. Janet Ancel (D-Calais). “Our natural resources, especially our waterways, are the economic engine and ecological legacy of our state. While Vermont is heralded as one of the cleanest, most environmentally pristine areas in the country, water pollution threatens our economy, environment, quality of life, and tourism industry. At the start of this session, we committed to identifying and enacting a longterm funding source to improve our state’s streams, rivers, and lakes,” Said Rep. Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero). Pop. growth: continued from page 8 Newport Town is another matter. It topped the scales, with a 2018 population 75 percent higher than in 2010. I don’t believe it. Sometimes the Census Bureau’s methodology leads to weird results. This is one of those cases. Newport may have grown since 2010, but not by anywhere near that amount. Hardly any towns in the four southern Vermont counties exhibited any population growth. None in Bennington County did. Only six towns in Rutland County grew, and none by more than 1 percent or 20 people. Only one town in Windham County grew and only six in Windsor County, and none by more than 3 percent. Nearly all the population growth in Vermont is in towns that are within 50 miles of downtown Burlington. Just about every town outside that circle has lost population in the past eight years. Those population changes are due to deep-seated structural changes in people’s preferences about Impeachment: continued from page 8 This is reminiscent of the issues President Richard Nixon faced in 1973 and 1974 in his effort to cover-up Watergate break-in crimes. Those in Congress today, reluctant to act, or simply refusing to entertain the impeachment question, should look back and reflect on a Nov. 7, 1973 speech delivered in the Senate by Senator George D. Aiken, R-Vt. Aiken was reacting to cries for Nixon’s resignation. Others were urging members of Congress that there should be no impeachment or resignation. Aiken said the Congress could not ignore the public controversy dominating the country by late 1973 over Nixon’s conduct. “Congress tasks are to legislate and to hold the President and the executive branch accountable for administering laws. These are highly technical tasks, demanding above all else cool heads and strict adherence to established procedures. Submission to the politics of righteous indignation makes it impossible for Congress to do its job. It tends to make us look foolish and incompetent, “ Aiken declared. Aiken said it was his view that the judicial branch of government was looking to the Congress to do its job and to decide whether the President should be removed. “It is the clear duty of the House, through whatever procedures it chooses to frame charges of impeachment, and to set itself a deadline for the task. If no agreement can be reached by that deadline, the leaders of the House should tell the American people that no charge could be found. If a charge is framed and voted, the Senate’s clear duty is to proceed to a trial with all deliberate speed,” Steady in some towns where they want to live and to job and other opportunities outside of the Chittenden County area. Paying people to move to rural Vermont towns, committing state resources to downtown development, bringing highspeed broadband to isolated areas, and other economic development policies may provide limited benefits to the communities these programs affect. But most of the policy proposals that attempt to reverse these population changes are unlikely to have any measurable impact on those towns or counties. Most Vermont towns had fewer residents in 1960 than they had in 1860. We may be seeing the beginning of that trend repeating itself in the 21st century. Art Woolf recently retired as an associate professor of economics at the University of Vermont. He served for three years as state economist for Gov. Madeleine Kunin beginning in 1988. Members of Congress differ on reasons Aiken said. Aiken was not among those asking Nixon to resign in November, 1973. However, Aiken reversed himself by August, 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment, and the Watergate tapes, ordered made public by the Supreme Court, revealed that Nixon personally directed the coverup. Aiken’s basic message to his Congressional colleagues was to not let your emotions guide your actions, and to rely on your obligation of your oath of office AIKEN’S BASIC MESSAGE… WAS TO NOT LET YOUR EMOTIONS GUIDE YOUR ACTIONS, AND TO RELY ON YOUR OBLIGATION OF YOUR OATH OF OFFICE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. to protect and defend the Constitution. Aiken was urging them “to do your duty” and to begin an impeachment inquiry. The old Vermonter’s call to action, delivered in the Senate in 1973, is a useful reminder today for Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt , and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. The time is now to follow the Constitution to determine if this President is fit for office. It is now as urgent as it was in 1974 when President Nixon finally resigned from office in order to avoid impeachment. Stephen C. Terry was Legislative Assistant for Senator George D. Aiken from 1969 to 1975. He is currently writing a book about Aiken which covers the issues of impeachment during the Nixon Administration and of the Vietnam War. He lives in Middlebury.
Page 1 and 2: MOU NTA I N TI M E S Volume 48, Num
Page 3 and 4: The Mountain Times • June 5-11, 2
Page 7: The Mountain Times • June 5-11, 2
Page 29 and 30: Columns The Mountain Times • June
Page 33 and 34: SERVICE DIRECTORY The Mountain Time
Page 35 and 36: PETS The Mountain Times • June 5-
Page 39 and 40: REAL ESTATE The Mountain Times •

Mountain Times - Volume 48, Number 23: June 5-11

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?