Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is totally delusional. Vermont isn't nationally competitive in agriculture. The dairy business is down to 700 farms, a 27% drop since 2010. Nobody wants a 365 day per year 12 hour day business that barely does better than break even. There's no economy of scale. Any other kind of agriculture is even less competitive. Walmart isn't going to stock Vermont agriculture products at 3x the price that won't sell and Vermonters largely shop in those big box stores where almost nothing comes from Vermont. With an agrarian economy, you're putting Vermont household income levels incredibly low. There would be no tax revenue to fund infrastructure. Close the public schools. The roads would decay back to the mud bogs of the Civil War era you seem to pine for. Anyone with talent would flee to places with more economic opportunity. That already happens but it would be magnified if you rolled Vermont back to the agrarian dark ages.
Vermont could only wish it had a wealth and income stratification problem. There simply aren't the opportunities in the state outside of Chittenden County to create wealth.
I'm not proposing VT tries to compete in the national cash-based economy with federally subsidized corporate farms in California or the midwest. I'm proposing a state policy of maintaining self-sufficiency. If you haven't been paying attention, water shortages are going to create a bleak future for the industrial farms of the west coast. I've been out there, I've seen the thousand acre orchards of dead trees because they had no water to irrigate. Local small farms are going to become increasingly important for food security as droughts, climate change, peak oil eventually, and increasingly the ineffectiveness of chemicals used by the big farms makes that model entirely unsustainable.
You're looking at things from a completely different mindset than I am. You have completely bought into mainstream American capitalism with an emphasis on money, money, money. A society that has brought with it hard drug use, extreme levels of violence and poverty, class warfare, etc. You don't seem to believe there's any other way to make a society work. Our past shows otherwise. There are lots of small time farmers around VT who would love to do small scale agriculture full time but are forced by things like the property tax to hold jobs. For instance as I get things set up at my own place, I could produce 90 percent or so of everything I need on my own property as far as food and fuel go. But I have to come up with cash every year for the property tax to retain control, which is a bit of a trap because to go to a job for even part of the year you need a vehicle up for that level of driving to get there, the fuel for it, etc., and then you have less time to do your own work at home increasing your reliance on the outside world.
As far as things like road work or schools go, I suggest you read some newspaper articles from a century or so ago. You'll routinely come across "so and so and so and so are working on the road crew today repairing the road at_____." My great great grandfather's journals are filled with that, work on the roads, work on the schoolhouse, etc. Things did get done quite well without a lot of cash running around in the economy. There was a level of community involvement in VT that has gone away but which was on full display when Irene hit.
There is indeed an inequality problem today in VT. It's on full display when you see all the large houses and condos and so forth owned by people who use them a small part of the year. And everyone else, who actually lives and works in the state year-round, is struggling to pay exorbitant rents or mortgages on small places, due to the price increases caused by big money coming into the state.
The Vermont economy would sink without the 15% vacation home ownership and all the money the tourist industry injects into the state. All those expensive vacation homes are paying the commercial Act 68 state school tax rate with no means testing like Vermont residents get. They're funding your school system. Their sales and meals tax dollars are funding a big chunk of the state budget. Their spending creates tens of thousands of jobs. Without that money, Vermont would be a northern version of West Virginia.
I agree wholeheartedly. What VT has to offer the rest of the country is maple syrup, astounding natural beauty, and an unsurpassed live and let live culture that makes for an oasis in an otherwise polarized and stressed out world.
If housing, and rentals in particular, is deemed too expensive for average people, it is our friends in Montpelier to blame. VT is sparsely populated and buildable land is abundant. The problem is Act 250 goes overboard in trying to force growth to be only in existing town center areas. The bureaucracy out of Montpelier is what is not allowing apartment complexes and singe family housing subdivisions to get built where it is economically feasible to build. I understand wanting to keep the countryside as countryside, but at present they carry things to an extreme that results in limited supply and higher prices. What does get built is what is beyond Act 250's jurisdiction...... one off custom built homes that the average person can't afford.
I agree wholeheartedly. What VT has to offer the rest of the country is maple syrup, astounding natural beauty, and an unsurpassed live and let live culture that makes for an oasis in an otherwise polarized and stressed out world.
If housing, and rentals in particular, is deemed too expensive for average people, it is our friends in Montpelier to blame. VT is sparsely populated and buildable land is abundant. The problem is Act 250 goes overboard in trying to force growth to be only in existing town center areas. The bureaucracy out of Montpelier is what is not allowing apartment complexes and singe family housing subdivisions to get built where it is economically feasible to build. I understand wanting to keep the countryside as countryside, but at present they carry things to an extreme that results in limited supply and higher prices. What does get built is what is beyond Act 250's jurisdiction...... one off custom built homes that the average person can't afford.
I'd add that Vermont also has a very valuable brand. Vermont == Green and socially progressive/aging hippie. BenJerrCo capitalized on that brand and took a business from a converted gas station in Burlington staffed by hippies to a national brand and millions in wealth.
You missed the Act 68 state school tax impact on Vermont's rental housing stock. When you tax it at a very high commercial rate, that has to be passed on to the tenants and it's a huge drag brake on ever building new rental housing units. Even if you can jump through the Act 250 hoops to build high density housing, the return on investment math doesn't work except for the loathed New Jersey-ish part of Vermont in Chittenden County where there is a critical mass of affluent renters.
I really regret that I have to challenge you on this, but I lived in the area affected, have historical photos, wrote a book, and have made presentations to a historical society on that period. I literally have the most historical data on the dam at Bolton Falls of anyone in existence. If you did part of your thesis on this, you may have referenced some of my work, or that of one of my sources, like Bill Gove or B. Lindner.
The flood of 1927 that devastated Waterbury came primarily from the Black River and upper Winooski watersheds. The clear cutting on Hunger Mountain and the Worcester Mtn range had minimal effect on direct flooding in that town, as the Waterbury/Little River enters the Winooski about a mile downstream. It did add to the problem, but only incrementally.
In point of fact, while Waterbury was isolated from Montpelier and Burlington because of the flood damage, the road from Stowe, across Gold Brook and the lumbering area and another road through one of the notches in the Jericho area were passable immediately after the flood. I know this both from historical sources and because my grandfather drove them from Jeffersonville and took photos of the destroyed dam as soon as the flood waters had receded and before clean-up efforts had started. I also have photos of Hunger Mountain from that time showing the small patches of clear-cutting.
The reason Irene wasn't another flood of 1927 was less because of the difference in forestation and more because of flood control dams upstream on the Black, and the Waterbury dam, which eliminated almost ALL backpressure from the Waterbury/Little River. Even so, the water levels in Waterbury village were only about ten feet lower in Irene than 1927, and had the Waterbury dam not been in place, could have matched or possibly surpassed the 1927 levels. Compared to 1927, Irene was different - in that a LOT more water came from the Mad River watershed - which is almost fully forested. Nobody ever put a flood control dam on the Mad. You can thank environmental sensitivity in part for the Irene damage in Waterbury.
You make an understandable error thinking that the bulk of denudation of trees in Vermont was from lumbering and clearcutting. However, the primary loss was from agriculture and early settlers. The hopeful farmers had to clear land for fields, and they cut the trees, burned most of them, and sold the potash, which was valuable and more easily shipped. Once the fields were established, a primary crop for a while was sheep. Sheep will strip land and are far more aggressive grazers than cattle. That is why many of the photos of Vermont from the late 1800s show fields and pastures with almost no overgrowth.
In Vermont, the Winooski River was only barely suitable for floating logs at best, with log jams occurring at the rocks at Bolton Gorge. The river outlet is Lake Champlain, which meant loading the lumber processed in Burlington and then shipping it at considerable expense either north or south. Large projects of clear cuttig were not practical. The Northeast Kingdom in Vermont and (primarily) northwest New Hampshire had a far larger lumbering presence - massive in comparison. Logs were initially floated on the Connecticut in a direct route, and then the railroads took over.
Early railroads likely had as much or more effect on forest in Vermont than lumbering. Trees were needed for railroad ties, and the early inefficient engines burned cords and cords of wood. Farmers could strip almost all wood near a railroad and get extra income.
Sawdust in the rivers??? Sawdust was sold for animal bedding and other uses. The original thundermills might have had sawdust in the brooks, but most of those died early on. In the late 1800s, sawmills in Vermont were steam powered and far enough away from waterways that flooding was unlikely to interrupt operations.
The lumber industry eliminated the deer??? Go ahead and pull the other one. The damage deer do to forests is eating bark in the deeryards during winter when forage isn't readily available. Now what is it that deer do to crops like corn and other row crops? The farmers killed and ate the deer to protect crops. Along the way, they also finished off the bear and moose in the area. Bucolic farming has a dark side.
So what did cause the flooding in Waterbury in 1927 and Irene? Without proper upstream flood control, the flow of water through the gorge at Bolton, just above the dam, is a natural choke point for the river. It is narrow and solid rock that rises 30 feet or more on either side. In a flood, the water backs up from it onto (wait for it...) the flood plain. If it gets above a certain level it washes down the railroad cut beside the gorge, but that cut is high enough that it is not a natural preventative sluiceway. Waterbury village was built on the floodplain, pure and simple. The original business block on Stowe Street was built with that in mind, but the railroad station and need to expand brought commerce down bank hill.
Richmond had LESS damage because of the gate effect of the gorge at Bolton, and it undoubtedly saved the big mill in the city of Winooski, although the highway/streetcar bridge in front of it was washed away.
Oh yeah, you do know that the ski trails were logged to start the state ski industry in one of the final logging episodes in Stowe? Perry Merrill orchestrated that.
I also have photos of the flooding of the Lamoille in 1927 and other floods, where much of the damage was to the railroad embankments.
The 1938 storm was more of an issue for southern New England. IIRC, Katharine Hepburn was caught up in it and had a quite a scare at her home in Connecticut.
As I write, this area is in a flood alert, and the Wilson Dam is releasing millions of gallons of water a second to limit flooding damage along the Tennessee River. Floods are reality checks that we need to be smart when dealing with nature, and dams save lives.
I am not going to dispute you on anything. I wrote that thesis about 20 years ago and I was trying to recall some of what I wrote. I'm sure I probably didn't recall all of my facts accurately. When I said that I did part of my thesis on it, I didn't really do much after the Civil War-I only referenced the Flood of 1927 when I was talking about clear-cutting the forests because I remember one of my references did. I can't recall my reference to that and I'm too lazy to look it up.
My thesis was on the effects of the Industrial Revolution on the Second Great Awakening in Vermont from 1820-1860. So, some of the industry that I mentioned was the lumber, canals, the sheep farming, the marble/slate, & the railroads. That was only one half of the paper and I only touched on each industry.
I am sure you have more knowledge that I do on this subject-and I will submit to your expertise.
I'm not proposing VT tries to compete in the national cash-based economy with federally subsidized corporate farms in California or the midwest. I'm proposing a state policy of maintaining self-sufficiency. If you haven't been paying attention, water shortages are going to create a bleak future for the industrial farms of the west coast. I've been out there, I've seen the thousand acre orchards of dead trees because they had no water to irrigate. Local small farms are going to become increasingly important for food security as droughts, climate change, peak oil eventually, and increasingly the ineffectiveness of chemicals used by the big farms makes that model entirely unsustainable.
You're looking at things from a completely different mindset than I am. You have completely bought into mainstream American capitalism with an emphasis on money, money, money. A society that has brought with it hard drug use, extreme levels of violence and poverty, class warfare, etc. You don't seem to believe there's any other way to make a society work. Our past shows otherwise. There are lots of small time farmers around VT who would love to do small scale agriculture full time but are forced by things like the property tax to hold jobs. For instance as I get things set up at my own place, I could produce 90 percent or so of everything I need on my own property as far as food and fuel go. But I have to come up with cash every year for the property tax to retain control, which is a bit of a trap because to go to a job for even part of the year you need a vehicle up for that level of driving to get there, the fuel for it, etc., and then you have less time to do your own work at home increasing your reliance on the outside world.
As far as things like road work or schools go, I suggest you read some newspaper articles from a century or so ago. You'll routinely come across "so and so and so and so are working on the road crew today repairing the road at_____." My great great grandfather's journals are filled with that, work on the roads, work on the schoolhouse, etc. Things did get done quite well without a lot of cash running around in the economy. There was a level of community involvement in VT that has gone away but which was on full display when Irene hit.
There is indeed an inequality problem today in VT. It's on full display when you see all the large houses and condos and so forth owned by people who use them a small part of the year. And everyone else, who actually lives and works in the state year-round, is struggling to pay exorbitant rents or mortgages on small places, due to the price increases caused by big money coming into the state.
So set the Flux Capacitor in the DeLorean to 1885, get it up to 88 mph, and live in a Vermont that won't ever exist again. 625,000 Vermonters can't live off the land. There isn't enough arable land.
Those large houses and condos that give you the frothing class envy are limited to a tiny fraction of the state. That 15% of housing units that are vacation homes are concentrated in 5% of the state. A Goldman Sachs investment banker isn't going to be buying a house in the Northeast Kingdom or Springfield. A physician at UVM Medical can certainly afford a house at Stowe. A Vermont family at median income certainly can't. That's also true in the other 49 states where affluent people invariably cluster together.
Usually I spend 4-6 weeks in the Pyrenees in Southern France between July and August. For a change I'd like to rend in VT during the same period this year and see if I could settle down during my summer months there. But I'm not sure.
Here's my question.
Why is VT so much more expensive that Southern France in the Summer? Twice as expensive, at least!
I mean, the region of France where I go, called Ariege, is not even close to be a dump, as you can see on the link below.
WTF is going on with VT? I've been torn between Southern France and VT because as of now, I've built my life in the US since 1990 and would love to give VT another shot and eventually move there in the next 10 years, but frankly, It's so dissuasive! I just spent an hour on Airbnb to check VT prices for this summer and these people renting places, and you should see what they want to rent, got to be kidding.
Can somebody help me so I keep giving VT a chance! I want it so much! https://youtu.be/Nc-1A1L-ZNo
Welcome to my world. I live 8n northern VT my entire life and it is extremely expensive to live here. I'm not sure why either. And it's getting worse every year.
Dawn
My theory is because wages are not too high in Vermont but yet, expenses are high. People have to make up the difference somehow. Also, I'm sure a lot of it depends on WHERE in Vermont. I'm sure areas close to ski hubs are more expensive than say some place like Newport.
Cat
I live about 20 minutes from NPT. Trust me, it's expensive here too. I worked at the Superior Court as a docket clerk and only made $14/hr. Yet, gas prices are still high and food is very expensive too.
Ski is irrelevant in the summer.
I'm looking at both daily rates and what it'd cost to rent for a month.
Jay Peak also has built a swim theme park amonst other things. Burke mountain also hosts downhill mountain nike races and use the ski lift to bring riders and bikes up the mountain.
Harvard Tuition and Fees... far more than $18,000 a year.
2018-2019 2017-2018
Tuition $46,340 $44,990
Fees $4,080 $3,959
Room $10,609 $10,300
Board $6,551 $6,360
Subtotal - billed costs
$67,580 $65,609
Estimated personal expenses
(including $800-$1,200 for books) $4,070 $3,991
Estimated travel costs $0-$5,000 $0-$4,000 Total billed and unbilled costs $71,650-$76,650 $69,600-$73,600
* In addition, health insurance is required at a cost of $3,364 (for 2018-19) unless you are covered under your family’s health plan.
I am not going to dispute you on anything. I wrote that thesis about 20 years ago and I was trying to recall some of what I wrote. I'm sure I probably didn't recall all of my facts accurately. When I said that I did part of my thesis on it, I didn't really do much after the Civil War-I only referenced the Flood of 1927 when I was talking about clear-cutting the forests because I remember one of my references did. I can't recall my reference to that and I'm too lazy to look it up.
My thesis was on the effects of the Industrial Revolution on the Second Great Awakening in Vermont from 1820-1860. So, some of the industry that I mentioned was the lumber, canals, the sheep farming, the marble/slate, & the railroads. That was only one half of the paper and I only touched on each industry.
I am sure you have more knowledge that I do on this subject-and I will submit to your expertise.
Peace.
Cat
Peace as well to you. Your posts are informative and smart. As I said at the beginning of my response, I hated to challenge you. It however is an area where I have a large depth of knowledge and resources acquired over years and at considerable expense of money and time. As a fun aside, logging did leave an interesting lasting effect in the state that most don't know about. If you canoe the Winooski east of Waterbury near the palisades, you can still see the grooves and smoothing of the rock river bed that was created by the early log drives.
Lumbering and the sawmills did contribute somewhat to the environmental issues at Burlington Harbor. AFAIK, that was about the most concentrated problem. A combination of factors protected much of the state from excesses. Relatively late settlement, low population levels, cost of transport from rivers going the wrong way, STRONG pressure for many years by much cheaper Canadian lumber, and mountains with difficult access and slopes all conspired to keep significant amounts of forest largely untouched. Much of that is now National Forest land. Vermont fared better than surrounding areas.
RE your thesis, good choice of subject matter. Lots of meat there, shifting of some women to the mills in Mass, and then an influx of French Canadians to the Winooski area to labor in THOSE mills. The interplay of Catholicism and Protestant, I can think of a number of areas of interest. Well done.
Shifting us back on-topic, monetary pressures making the state a difficult one to survive in is a cruel gatekeeper, but very effective at weeding out those not willing to commit to the more rural areas. The resort towns concentrate a lot of development that would in other states be more higgaldy-pggaldy.
I've no magic answer on what might work in the state, and the thread is one of the better ones on the forums, exposing different views and honest assessments of the issues. Shalom
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The farmers killed and ate the deer to protect crops. Along the way, they also finished off the bear and moose in the area. Bucolic farming has a dark side.
