Vermont’s Act 59, officially known as the Community Resilience and Biodiversity Protection Act, is now law. While it is heralded as a bold step toward combating climate change and biodiversity loss, the law has far-reaching economic implications that Vermonters cannot afford to ignore. Here’s an in-depth look at Act 59, its economic ramifications, and a proposed countermeasure to ensure fiscal responsibility.
What Is Act 59?
Signed into law in June 2023, Act 59 sets ambitious goals to conserve 30% of Vermont’s land by 2030 and 50% by 2050. These targets align with the international “30 by 30” initiative but extend Vermont’s commitments even further by setting a 50% benchmark for mid-century.
The law tasks state agencies like the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) and the Agency of Natural Resources with implementing strategies to meet these conservation goals. These strategies include:
- Public Land Acquisitions: Expanding state-owned lands.
- Voluntary Conservation Easements: Incentivizing private landowners to preserve land.
- Partnerships: Collaborating with land trusts and conservation organizations.
The vision behind Act 59 is to preserve Vermont’s biodiversity, enhance landscape connectivity, and build climate resilience. However, this comes with a price.
Who Voted It into Law?
Act 59 was passed by Vermont’s Democrat and Progressive supermajority, which dominated the House and Senate until November’s election. Critics argue the supermajority pushed the law through without adequate consideration of its long-term economic impacts on taxpayers and local economies.
The new balance of power in the legislature following the November election signals growing concerns among Vermonters about one-sided policymaking and its consequences.
The Economic Ramifications
While Act 59’s conservation goals are commendable, its implementation raises serious concerns about Vermont’s financial future. Here are the key economic issues:
1. Loss of Taxable Property
As land is conserved and removed from development, it often becomes tax-exempt or subject to reduced property taxes. Property taxes are a primary source of funding for Vermont’s public services, especially education. With 30% of land removed by 2030 and 50% by 2050, Vermont stands to lose a significant portion of its tax base.
2. Increased Tax Burden
To offset the loss of property tax revenue, the state will likely increase income, sales, and other taxes. This places a disproportionate burden on middle- and lower-income residents who are already feeling the strain of rising living costs.
3. Stifling Economic Growth
Removing land from potential development could limit housing availability, reduce opportunities for business expansion, and slow rural economic growth. While proponents argue conserved land offers indirect benefits like tourism and ecosystem services, these may not fully compensate for the lost revenue and stifled development.
4. Equity Concerns
Wealthy landowners are better positioned to participate in voluntary conservation programs, benefiting from tax incentives and state grants. Meanwhile, average Vermonters will shoulder the burden of filling the revenue gap, raising questions of fairness and equity.
Proposed Solution: The 30 by 30/50 by 50 Reduction Act
To ensure fiscal sustainability while pursuing ambitious conservation goals, Vermont needs to align its government size with its shrinking tax base. The 30 by 30/50 by 50 Reduction Act proposes proportional reductions in the size and cost of state government by the same percentages as Act 59’s land conservation targets.
Key Provisions of the Reduction Act:
- Government Downsizing
- Reduce state government operations by 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050 to reflect the smaller tax base.
- Efficiency Audits
- Conduct comprehensive audits to identify inefficiencies, redundancies, and non-essential programs. Consolidate overlapping departments.
- Privatization
- Shift non-essential services to private entities or public-private partnerships, reducing the operational burden on the state.
- Zero-Based Budgeting
- Require state agencies to justify their budgets from scratch annually, funding only critical programs.
- Legislative Streamlining
- Reduce the number of state legislators and administrative departments in line with the shrinking tax base.
- Taxpayer Accountability
- Tie government spending to revenue generated from remaining taxable property, ensuring fiscal discipline.
The Case for Proportional Accountability
If Vermonters are being asked to support ambitious conservation goals that remove land from the tax rolls, it is only fair that the state government shares in the sacrifice. The 30 by 30/50 by 50 Reduction Act offers a balanced approach: as the tax base shrinks, so should the cost and size of government. This ensures taxpayers are not left to bear an unsustainable financial burden.
Conclusion
Act 59 represents a bold environmental vision, but its economic implications demand scrutiny. Without proportional accountability, Vermont risks overburdening its taxpayers, stifling economic growth, and creating long-term financial instability.
The 30 by 30/50 by 50 Reduction Act is the answer. By reducing the size of government in tandem with land conservation efforts, Vermont can achieve both environmental and fiscal sustainability. Let’s ensure a balanced approach that respects both our natural heritage and our taxpayers.
For more information about Act 59, visit the Vermont Legislature’s official page:
Act 59 Text and Summary
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #act59 #vermonttaxes #governmentreform
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!
Leave a Reply