Let’s pause for a second and look at 50 years of Act 250 from the perspective of a Vermont professional civil engineer, and Act 250 Land Use Consultant. I did my first land use project in 1973.

The first question, what went wrong in the first 50 years? My opinion, Act 250 killed housing and precluded most of Vermont from having a chance for a vibrant economy.

Vermonters understand the value of balance. We want to protect our forests, fields, rivers, and wildlife. We also want our children and grandchildren to be able to afford a home, find a job, and build a life here. Good public policy should recognize both realities. That is why the debate over Act 181 matters.

The law was intended to strike a grand bargain: encourage more housing and development in designated growth areas while tightening protections for ecologically sensitive parts of the state (conservation more or less). On paper, that sounds reasonable. Direct growth where infrastructure exists. Reduce sprawl. Protect natural resources. Streamline permitting where Vermont wants development to happen.

But as often happens in government, what sounds straight forward in theory can become much messier in practice.

S. 122, passed by the Vermont House and Senate in 2025, focuses on enhancing economic and workforce development through targeted funding, task forces, and new commissions.

Last week both the Vermont House and Senate continued discussions regarding the importance of the reciprocal trading relationship with Canada, spanning over two centuries. The Vermont-Quebec trade relationship has been a significant source of economic development for Vermont, with foreign direct investment from Quebec playing a crucial role in job creation and business expansion. 

We are mixing up our format a little bit this week (let us know what you think!). But don't worry, we are still bringing you in-depth coverage on a wide range of topics.

The most important update (in our view) is that the bill dealing with the Ethics Commission's oversight authority passed a key vote in the Senate this week. The Senate's version would delay the implementation of the Ethics Commission's new powers for two years. While we are still disappointed in this outcome, it is better than the House Version which would have removed independent oversight of the Legislative and Judicial branches of state government permanently.

Major initiatives in areas such as education, housing, and health care are nearing the finish line this week as key committee votes take shape. Most notably, the Senate Education Committee advanced the education reform bill in a key vote on Friday. While there is much work left to do, the Senate version (so far) seems better than the House's and the vote keeps the effort on track to kick off the reform process this year.

I testified this week in the Senate Government Operations Committee, urging them not to close the door on independent oversight for the Legislative and Judicial branches of State government. As I am sure you are aware, the House passed a bill that would remove a requirement that these two branches consult with the statewide Ethics Commission; this is a concerning step backwards in the progress we have made in the last decade around Vermont ethics reform.

There was lots of activity this week across multiple fronts as legislators push to get their priorities across the finish line before the end of the session, which is rapidly approaching. Legislative leaders have already indicated that they expect to come back in late May for a veto session, so they are currently targeting the second weekend in May for adjournment; this effectively gives Committees two weeks to get bills back to the floor, if they are to pass this year.

The recent imposition of tariffs is likely to create a significant struggle for businesses in Vermont and Canada, causing widespread concern about the potential loss of jobs, revenue, and the survival of small businesses. The economic damage is evident, affecting everything from manufacturing to retail.

This week the Judicial branch jumped on the H.1 bandwagon, saying that if the Legislature is going to exempt anyone from ethics oversight, it should be them!