Vermont finds itself in a peculiar dilemma. On the one hand, the state is grappling with a housing crisis, often lamenting the lack of affordable homes. On the other hand, state funds and resources are being used to conserve vast swaths of land, effectively removing it from potential development. This paradox raises important questions about how Vermont allocates its resources and whether there are better ways to tackle both environmental and economic concerns.
The Vermont Housing and Conservation Board’s Role in Conservation
At the heart of Vermont’s conservation efforts is the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB), a state organization tasked with promoting both affordable housing and the preservation of natural resources. Each year, VHCB receives millions of dollars in funding, much of it from the Property Transfer Tax (PTT) and federal grants. In FY2024, for example, VHCB was allocated $11.5 million from the PTT, a large portion of which is directed toward conserving agricultural, forest, and recreational lands (Vermont General Assembly)(Vermont General Assembly).
While the aim of preserving land is noble—protecting biodiversity, maintaining forest cover, and ensuring public recreational spaces—this effort often results in land being locked into long-term conservatorships. These lands are frequently transferred to organizations like the Vermont Land Trust and the Nature Conservancy, where they are removed from economic activity, including housing development.
The Conservation Dilemma: Protecting Land vs. Housing Shortages
The irony here is striking: as Vermont continues to conserve more land, it simultaneously faces a shortage of land available for housing development. This is particularly concerning given the growing demand for affordable housing, which the state has been struggling to meet. According to reports, Vermont needs to build at least 5,800 new homes by 2025 to meet demand. However, as the state locks up more land for conservation, it further restricts the pool of available land on which new housing could be built.
The 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 initiatives, which aim to conserve 30% of Vermont’s land by 2030 and 50% by 2050, exacerbate this problem. While these goals are designed to protect the environment, they come at the cost of land availability for housing, agriculture, and other economic activities (VTDigger).
Missed Opportunities: Housing and Economic Growth
Ideally, the state could take a step back and focus on reducing taxes, allowing individuals to keep more of their own money. This would empower citizens and the private sector to address housing and land use issues independently, likely resulting in more efficient outcomes. A freer market would enable private investment in housing, better land management, and increased economic activity without state intervention.
However, though it would be better if the state didn’t spend precious tax dollars on buying up land in the first place, if Vermont feels compelled to continue playing a direct role in land use and housing, a more constructive alternative would be for the state to redirect its conservation funds toward building affordable housing. Instead of using millions to acquire land that is then taken out of circulation for housing or agriculture, Vermont could allocate those resources to develop homes and sell them to private buyers. By doing so, the state could help alleviate the housing shortage while generating long-term benefits like increased property tax revenue and boosting economic activity.
For example, imagine if the state used its $11.5 million PTT allocation to fund the construction of affordable homes rather than purchasing conservation easements. These homes could then be sold to private buyers, generating property tax revenue for the state. This would create a win-win situation: addressing the housing crisis while also bolstering the state’s financial health through increased tax revenues. In contrast, conserved lands often generate little to no tax revenue, as they are either exempt or significantly reduced in taxable value due to conservation status (Vermont General Assembly).
The Impact of Conservation on Agriculture and Self-Sufficiency
Another significant concern is the impact of land conservation on Vermont’s agricultural sector. As more land is conserved, the amount of land available for farming decreases, which could undermine Vermont’s ability to be self-sufficient in food production. Organizations like the Northeast Wilderness Trust and Trust for Public Land play a role in these efforts, conserving vast areas of land that, once protected, cannot be used for farming (The Nature Conservancy)(VTDigger).
This trend could have serious implications for Vermont’s rural economy, which relies heavily on agriculture. As farmland becomes scarcer, it could drive up the price of available agricultural land, making it more difficult for new farmers to enter the market. Moreover, it could reduce Vermont’s ability to produce its own food, increasing reliance on out-of-state sources.
A Two-Tiered System?
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of Vermont’s land conservation efforts is the disparity between how land use decisions are treated depending on their purpose. If a private developer wants to build a new housing development, the project faces intense scrutiny, including environmental reviews, public hearings, and Act 250 approval processes. Yet, when land is conserved, often the public is unaware of the long-term implications of these decisions. Lands conserved through deals with organizations like the Trust for Public Land or The Nature Conservancy often quietly disappear from the pool of available land without the same level of public engagement (The Nature Conservancy)(The Nature Conservancy).
This creates a two-tiered system in which private development is heavily regulated, while land conservation—despite its long-term impact—often escapes public scrutiny. This lack of transparency is problematic, especially given the scale of the housing crisis Vermont faces. Shouldn’t there be more public discourse about the trade-offs involved in locking up land for conservation versus using it for housing and economic growth?
Conclusion: A Better Way Forward?
At its core, Vermont’s land conservation efforts are rooted in the desire to protect the state’s natural beauty and environmental health. However, in the face of a housing crisis, it’s worth asking whether the state’s current approach is the best way forward. Rather than spending millions of taxpayer dollars to take land out of economic use, Vermont could focus on solutions that balance environmental preservation with economic growth.
If the state insists on playing an active role in land use, it should consider investing in housing development rather than conservation alone. This approach would not only help address the housing shortage but also generate new tax revenues for the state. It would allow Vermont to grow in a sustainable way that benefits both current and future generations, ensuring that the state remains livable, productive, and economically viable.
Ultimately, Vermont must weigh the benefits of conservation against the urgent need for housing and economic growth. By rethinking its priorities, the state could create a more balanced approach that serves both its environmental and economic goals.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontHousingCrisis #LandConservationDebate #AffordableHousingSolutions
Support Us for Just $5/month—Become a Committed Supporter!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply