News and Updates

Vermont Sustainable Design - Aid for a more sustainable world

What can Bring development to Fairlee?

By Jon at 8:40 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2008

This was the question posed to the local State Rep. Sarah Copeland. This article highlights a recent Selectboard meeting in Fairlee, VT.

The article discusses fundamental discussion of development and what infrastructure is required for it, but also, the basic premise - what type of development is desired?

“… the lack of a sewer has turned several potential tenants away from Bradford’s industrial park and curtailed the development of a bigger grocery story, pointing out that more acreage is needed for a business to install the required septic system and backup.”

“Short of a sewer, the next best draw would be high-speed Internet,”

The creation of a sewer system makes sense - as well as allowing dense development rather than very spread out rural development necessary for proper septic design.

See the rest of the article here.

Filed under: Government, building, vermont Leave A Comment »

VTI - Appropriate Response to Rising Gas Prices

By Jon at 12:40 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2008

This great handbook provides some quantitative research on difference approaches to dealing with the significant rise in gas prices our affliction of asking the government to come to the rescue…

Appropriate Response To Rising Fuel Prices
This paper evaluates public policy options for responding to rising fuel prices. Price-minimization policies tend to harm consumers and the economy by encouraging transportation system inefficiency.

Filed under: Government, Transportation, sustainable development Leave A Comment »

More good news from the courts

By Jon at 7:31 pm on Thursday, December 13, 2007

Guest Post from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Court Rules Against Automakers; Defends California Tailpipe Law
Fed Court Rules States Can Regulate Tailpipe Emissions BERKELEY, California (December 12, 2007) — Today a federal judge threw out an auto industry challenge to a California law requiring automakers to cut vehicle global warming pollution. Federal District Court Judge Anthony Ishii in Fresno rejected U.S. automakers’ claims that federal law pre-empts the state standards.

“Three strikes and you’re out,” said Patricia Monahan, deputy director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “With today’s decision, three federal courts have now ruled against the auto industry’s bogus claims.”

“This historic ruling comes on the heels of two other recent court decisions supporting the regulation of vehicle global warming pollution. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vehicles’ global warming emissions are pollutants that can and should be regulated. In August, a federal judge in Vermont ruled against the automakers by upholding states’ rights to regulate vehicle global warming pollution.

Regardless, the Bush administration has stepped up its efforts to undermine federal and state efforts to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. Most recently, the administration has threatened to veto energy legislation that directs the Department of Transportation (DOT) to raise fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The administration claims that these fuel economy standards would conflict with existing efforts to regulate vehicle global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act.”

Great job - lets continue to push the envelope to reduce our VMT as well as improve our efficiency!

Filed under: Climate Change, Government, Transportation Leave A Comment »

President’s do Planning

By Jon at 11:11 pm on Sunday, December 9, 2007

- post from the Planetizen Blog -

Considering the Smart Growth President

 

Oregon Smart Growth

By Jon at 11:21 pm on Tuesday, November 20, 2007

 

Oregon has been the first state to officially experiment with Smart Growth. - since then it has been a wild road of planning efforts, repeals, and now laws that put planning back in the limelight. Here is an article written by Dave Hunnicutt from the Oregonians in Action, the primary sponsors of Measure 37 which repealed the zoning laws initially in place to encourage smart growth urban development.

One step back on an irreversible path

One step back on an irreversible path

Page link

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

T he passage of Measure 49 marks another chapter in Oregon’s long struggle with land-use planning.

The dark side of last week’s vote is the impact it will have on the 7,500 families and Oregon businesses who filed Measure 37 claims. But despite the fact that Measure 49 is a bitter disappointment to many, its passage puts Oregon on an irreversible path toward greater protection of individual property rights.

Why? Because for the first time in Oregon’s 34-year-old experiment with statewide centralized land-use planning, its most zealous advocates have acknowledged that there is a need to balance the rights of the individual property owner with the desires of the planning community, and that Oregon’s system has done a poor job of balancing those competing interests.

In the past two months, these land-use advocates have spent nearly $5 million to pass a measure that explicitly recognizes that Oregon’s experimental land-use laws have created unfair hardships on many Oregon property owners.

They’ve sent mail pieces, run television ads and given speeches assuring us all that it’s only fair that these longtime property owners finally see a return on their lifetime investment that has been slowly and systematically stripped from them by one new land-use rule after another.

They’ve worked hard to pass a measure that claims to provide protection to Oregon property owners if state or local governments adopt new land-use regulations in the future.

What a topsy-turvy world.

Of course, there’s a simple reason why land-use planning advocates are finally acknowledging that the system needs to change. That reason is Measure 37.

As the Bend Bulletin wrote in its editorial in favor of Measure 49, “The Legislature wouldn’t have approved Measure 49 if voters hadn’t supported Measure 37 first. If lawmakers have demonstrated anything when it comes to land-use reform, it’s that it takes a bulldozer to move them an inch.”

No kidding.

Prior to Measure 37, every effort to change the Oregon land-use system to correct some of its most glaring inequities was met with opposition by the same urban legislators and groups who supported Measure 49.

But thanks to Measure 37, those inequities are no longer being ignored. Finally, there seems to be universal recognition that our laws must change. It took 34 years, but the time has arrived.

Thanks to Measure 37, the governor, Senate president and speaker of the House formed the “Big Look” task force to review Oregon’s land-use laws and recommend changes. The task force was well into its work in doing just that when its funding was mysteriously cut by the Legislature. Funding for that Big Look should be fully restored.

So now is not the time for gloom and doom. Today, despite the passage of Measure 49, Oregon property owners have far more property rights than they did a decade ago, thanks to Measure 56 (land-use notification), Measure 7 (compensation), Measure 37, and Measure 39 (protection from eminent domain). Now is the time to hold Measure 49’s proponents to their word.

Measure 37 was a giant leap forward. Measure 49 is a small step backward. That’s a win. If we keep fighting, better days are ahead.

Dave Hunnicutt is president of Oregonians in Action, sponsor of Measure 37.

Filed under: Government, Land Use, sustainable development Leave A Comment »

Transportation Funding Discussions

By Jon at 9:52 pm on Sunday, October 28, 2007

Tonight the local Chittenden County crowd was treated to a discussion with Senator Bernie Sanders at the 2007 CCMPO Annual Meeting. Sanders brought the rather progressive discussion from the Executive Director Scott Johnstone up a level by providing some legitimacy of federal policy and probably more importantly ..dollars to the discussion.

Much as the ULI’s annual meeting discussed transportation as it relates to land use - the more fundamental discussion is based on finding money to pay for transportation infrastructure that pretty much everyone agrees is necessary. The ULI discussion highlights comments from John Horsley from AASHTO discussing the VMT method of fees - but says it is out of reach for 10 to 20 years…

John Horsley, executive director of the American Association State
Highway and Transportation Officials, pointed out the impending crisis
at the federal level, a consequence of rapid increases in the price of
materials needed in construction and a flat gas tax per gallon which
has not been raised in 14 years. The highway trust fund is expected to
generate less income than planned spending by 2009, a deficit which
would cause sharp reductions in funding to states. New approaches for
charging drivers, such as by miles driven, may be more effective in the
10-20 year period, but for now AASHTO is calling for a 10-cent increase
in the federal gas tax to restore its buying power.

Come on… 10 to 20 years for a sustainable funding mechanism to be established? This could be established much sooner than that if people are willing to move forward and face the future.

Senator Sanders discussed his future role in the next transportation bill and mention that impacts from global warming, supporting transit, and moving people from their SOVs are intentions - however - given the recent reports from AASHTO and ASCE of the inadequacy of our current transportation infrastructure - significant pressure is being placed on highway infrastructure replacement. While this is of course an extremely important area we much address - but, perhaps first we need to decide … when is it time to NOT replace some infrastructure. The Operation and Maintaince of our current system is tremoundous, and the costs of maintaining it will only continue to increase given the future demand for oil based materials will increase in cost.

I urged the Senator to use the term Sprawl in his discussions in the next transportation bill. This term should be used to denote the unsustainable land use and development patterns leading to inefficient transportation systems (only one significant cost of sprawl).

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: Burlington, Government, Transportation, vermontComments Off