Voting records show the strongest support came from the counties best positioned to benefit.
As Vermont’s new land-use framework moves from legislation to implementation, the question is no longer what the system does on paper, but who supported it—and what that support looks like when mapped against economic reality.
Act 59 and Act 181 were sold as modernization: housing reform, conservation alignment, and predictability in a system long criticized as slow and uneven. But when the voting record is examined alongside county-level income, housing values, and draft Tier 1B growth eligibility, a consistent pattern emerges—one that raises uncomfortable questions about who benefits, who bears the cost, and why some of the state’s poorer regions voted in favor anyway.
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
A Top-Heavy Voting Coalition
A review of the “yes” votes on Act 59 (House/Senate) and Act 181 (House/Senate) shows a striking geographic concentration. Chittenden County alone accounts for 43 affirmative votes—roughly one-third of all yays still associated with legislators counted in the dataset. Windsor County follows with 16, Washington County with 15, Windham with 13, and Addison with 11. From there, the numbers drop sharply.
This distribution matters because it closely mirrors Vermont’s economic geography. Chittenden County leads the state in median household income and median home prices by a wide margin. Windsor and Washington sit in the upper middle tier. Windham, while less affluent, includes hub towns with relatively concentrated political influence.
By contrast, counties with lower median incomes—Orleans, Caledonia, Rutland, and Essex—produce far fewer yes votes, even though they are likely to experience the most restrictive effects of the new land-use regime.
Growth Eligibility Tracks the Vote
That imbalance becomes more consequential when overlaid with draft Tier 1B eligibility. The same regions that supplied the largest share of yes votes—especially Chittenden County—also show the largest share of land eligible for streamlined growth under the new framework.
Chittenden’s draft Tier 1B footprint exceeds 10 percent of regional land area. Most other RPCs fall between one and three percent. In the Northeast Kingdom, eligibility drops below one percent.
The correlation is hard to ignore: the counties best positioned to use the new system voted for it in the greatest numbers. The counties with the least growth capacity voted less—but not zero.
Why Did Poorer Regions Vote Yes?
That raises the central question now facing policymakers and constituents alike: why would representatives and senators from lower-income or lower-growth regions support a framework that appears to constrain their long-term economic flexibility?
The voting record suggests several explanations.
First, many legislators appear to have voted on the basis of statewide objectives rather than local incidence. Housing production, Act 250 reform, and conservation planning were framed as collective problems requiring uniform solutions. For legislators operating within majority caucuses, breaking ranks on foundational bills can be costly.
Second, the economic consequences of the new framework were not fully visible at the time of the votes. Tier 1B eligibility is determined later, through regional mapping and Land Use Review Board approval. The distributional effects only become clear once those maps are drafted—and by then, the statutory framework is already locked in.
Third, hub-based logic dominates state-level policymaking. Representatives from county centers such as Rutland City, Middlebury, or Brattleboro may reasonably prioritize housing and infrastructure needs in those towns, even if the surrounding satellite communities face tighter constraints and fewer offsetting benefits.
Party Alignment and Voting Discipline
Party breakdowns reinforce the pattern. Among legislators from the lowest-income counties who voted yes, the overwhelming majority were Democrats. Only a handful of Republicans and independents appear in that group.
That does not imply coercion, but it does suggest caucus alignment mattered. Acts 59 and 181 were coalition priorities, and for many legislators, the choice may have been framed as advancing housing reform now, with regional concerns to be addressed later.
What is notably absent from the legislation, however, is any clear mechanism to compensate regions with limited growth eligibility—no revenue offsets, no rural investment guarantees, no automatic tax-base stabilization for towns left outside designated growth areas.
The Structural Outcome
Taken together, the charts tell a consistent story. The same regions that dominate yes votes are wealthier, have higher housing values, and receive larger growth envelopes under the new system. Regions with lower incomes and smaller growth footprints supported the legislation in smaller numbers, but still enough to help carry it.
Whether that reflects optimism, miscalculation, or deference to statewide priorities is ultimately beside the point. The outcome is structural: a land-use system shaped by, and favoring, Vermont’s most economically insulated regions.
As implementation proceeds, the political question will shift from why legislators voted the way they did to how the system responds when its costs fall unevenly across the map—and whether those who voted yes are prepared to address the consequences for the places left with the least room to grow.
The Yes Votes For Act 59 and/or Act 181 Still In Office
Representative Matthew Birong(D – Addison-3)
Representative Peter Conlon(D – Addison-2)
Senator Ruth Hardy(D – Addison District)
Representative Jubilee McGill(D – Addison-5)
Representative Robin Scheu(D – Addison-1)
Representative Amy Sheldon(D – Addison-1)
Senator Seth Bongartz(D – Bennington District)
Representative David Durfee(D – Bennington-3)
Representative Kathleen James(D – Bennington-4)
Senator Scott Beck(R – Caledonia District)
Representative R. Scott Campbell(D – Caledonia-Essex)
Representative Angela Arsenault(D – Chittenden-2)
Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin(D – Chittenden-19)
Senator Philip Baruth(D/P – Chittenden-Central District)
Representative Daisy Berbeco(D – Chittenden-21)
Representative Alyssa Black(D – Chittenden-24)
Representative Tiffany Bluemle(D – Chittenden-13)
Representative Erin Brady(D – Chittenden-2)
Representative Jana Brown(D – Chittenden-1)
Senator Thomas Chittenden(D – Chittenden-Southeast District)
Representative Brian Cina(P/D – Chittenden-15)
Representative Leonora Dodge(D – Chittenden-23)
Representative Karen Dolan(D – Chittenden-22)
Representative Abbey Duke(D – Chittenden-17)
Representative Golrang “Rey” Garofano(D – Chittenden-23)
Representative Edye Graning(D – Chittenden-3)
Senator Martine Larocque Gulick(D – Chittenden-Central District)
Representative Troy Headrick(I – Chittenden-15)
Representative Robert Hooper(D – Chittenden-18)
Representative Lori Houghton(D – Chittenden-22)
Representative Emilie Krasnow(D – Chittenden-9)
Representative Jill Krowinski(D – Chittenden-16)
Representative Martin LaLonde(D – Chittenden-12)
Representative Kate Lalley(D – Chittenden-6)
Representative Kate Logan(P/D – Chittenden-16)
Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons(D – Chittenden-Southeast District)
Representative Brian Minier(D – Chittenden-11)
Representative Kate Nugent(D – Chittenden-10)
Representative Carol Ode(D – Chittenden-18)
Representative Phil Pouech(D – Chittenden-4)
Representative Barbara Rachelson(D – Chittenden-14)
Representative Trevor Squirrell(D – Chittenden-3)
Representative Mary-Katherine Stone(D – Chittenden-14)
Representative Chris Taylor(R – Chittenden-Franklin)
Senator Tanya Vyhovsky(P/D – Chittenden-Central District)
Representative Lucy Boyden(D – Lamoille-3)
Representative Saudia LaMont(D – Lamoille-Washington)
Representative Daniel Noyes(D – Lamoille-2)
Representative Philip Jay Hooper(D – Orange-Washington-Addison)
Representative Monique Priestley(D – Orange-2)
Representative Larry Satcowitz(D – Orange-Washington-Addison)
Representative Mary E. Howard(D – Rutland-6)
Representative Eric Maguire(R – Rutland-5)
Representative Conor Casey(D – Washington-4)
Representative Ela Chapin(D – Washington-5)
Senator Ann Cummings(D – Washington District)
Representative Anne B. Donahue(I – Washington-1)
Representative Kate McCann(D – Washington-4)
Representative Marc Mihaly(D – Washington-6)
Senator Andrew Perchlik(D/P – Washington District)
Representative Thomas Stevens(D – Washington-Chittenden)
Representative Dara Torre(D – Washington-2)
Senator Anne Watson(D/P – Washington District)
Representative Theresa Wood(D – Washington-Chittenden)
Representative Michelle Bos-Lun(D – Windham-3)
Representative Mollie S. Burke(D – Windham-8)
Representative Leslie Goldman(D – Windham-3)
Senator Wendy Harrison(D – Windham District)
Senator Nader Hashim(D – Windham District)
Representative Emilie Kornheiser(D – Windham-7)
Representative Emily Long(D – Windham-5)
Representative Michael Mrowicki(D – Windham-4)
Representative Laura Sibilia(I – Windham-2)
Representative John L. Bartholomew(D – Windsor-1)
Representative Elizabeth Burrows(D – Windsor-1)
Representative Kevin “Coach” Christie(D – Windsor-6)
Senator Alison Clarkson(D – Windsor District)
Representative Esme Cole(D – Windsor-6)
Representative Alice M. Emmons(D – Windsor-3)
Representative Rebecca Holcombe(D – Windsor-Orange-2)
Representative James Masland(D – Windsor-Orange-2)
Representative Kristi Morris(D – Windsor-3)
Representative John O’Brien(D – Windsor-Orange-1)
Representative Kirk White(D – Windsor-Addison)
Senator Rebecca “Becca” White(D – Windsor District)
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X | Facebook | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontPolicy #PropertyRights #LandUse
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply to H. Jay EshelmanCancel reply