Vermont's Rural Betrayal

The rural-urban divide in Vermont has been exacerbated by historical and ongoing legislative decisions that disproportionately favor urban areas, leaving rural communities marginalized and underrepresented. This issue is rooted in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1960s rulings that established "one person, one vote," intended to ensure equal representation. However, this principle has led to a concentration of political power in urban centers like Burlington, which wields significant influence over state politics and policy decisions. This imbalance often neglects the unique needs and challenges faced by rural communities.

One of the most pressing issues for rural Vermonters is the economic disparity created by policies that prioritize urban development. Burlington, as the state's largest city, benefits from policies that support business development, tourism, and higher education, while rural areas struggle with declining agricultural revenues, insufficient infrastructure, and limited access to healthcare and education. This economic neglect translates to real, daily hardships for rural residents who feel their voices are unheard in Montpelier.

Moreover, the Vermont Legislature’s fiscal policies have become increasingly onerous. Property taxes in Vermont are set to rise significantly. The Vermont Department of Taxes originally projected an average property tax increase of 18.5%, but this was later adjusted. The most recent projections indicate an average increase of 13.8% in property tax bills, driven by a 12% rise in education spending among other factors. This steep rise in taxes disproportionately impacts rural residents who already face economic challenges. The legislature's decision to override Governor Phil Scott’s veto of the property tax "yield bill" solidifies this average projected increase, further straining rural taxpayers.

Vermont’s education spending is among the highest in the nation. According to the Vermont Agency of Education, the per-pupil spending in FY2024 is among the top in the country, yet the educational outcomes do not necessarily reflect this high investment. The state spends significantly more per pupil compared to the national average, but student performance metrics, such as standardized test scores, do not consistently justify this expenditure. This raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the state’s education funding model.

Adding to the fiscal burden are the environmental policies enacted by the legislature. Green energy mandates and carbon taxes, while aimed at combating climate change, place additional financial pressure on rural residents who have fewer resources to adapt to these changes. These policies are seen as urban-centric, prioritizing environmental goals at the expense of rural economic stability. The push for Vermont to sue oil companies for climate damages, while symbolically significant, does little to address the immediate needs of rural communities struggling with high taxes and underfunded services.

Furthermore, the decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs has created complex social issues. While the move has reduced enforcement burdens, it has also led to increased usage among young people. Studies have shown that marijuana use can negatively impact mental health and cognitive development, particularly in adolescents. The long-term societal costs of these policies are reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s impact, raising concerns about potential future health crises and the possibility of class-action lawsuits similar to those faced by tobacco companies.

The overarching question is: when can we hold the legislature accountable for its actions? The continuous cycle of imposing new taxes, decriminalizing drugs without adequate public health measures, and neglecting rural needs calls for greater accountability. Vermont residents should consider whether a class-action lawsuit, similar to those filed against the tobacco industry, could address the harm caused by these legislative decisions.

To rectify these issues, Vermont’s legislature must ensure that rural voices are heard and represented. This involves engaging more with rural communities and prioritizing their unique needs in policymaking. Allocating more resources to improve rural infrastructure, such as healthcare, education, and internet access, is crucial. Scrutinizing the financial impact of legislative decisions and minimizing unnecessary costs will help maintain trust and fairness in governance.

The costs incurred by the extended legislative session are more than just a financial burden—they symbolize the broader neglect and inequity faced by rural Vermonters. It’s time for the legislature to acknowledge these disparities and take concrete steps to ensure fair and just representation for all residents of the state. By addressing these issues, Vermont can work towards a more balanced and equitable governance structure that serves both its rural and urban populations effectively.

 

Matt Swenson is a a conservationist, mental health facilitator, and compelling storyteller, as well as a member of CFV's Advisory Council.

Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

Donate Volunteer Reduce Property Tax Burden

connect

get updates