Vermont’s rural identity is rapidly shifting—not through legislation debated in the public square, but through a quiet transformation of land ownership, taxation, and access. At the heart of this shift is Act 59, passed in 2023, which commits Vermont to an ambitious plan to “conserve” 30% of its land by 2030 and 50% by 2050. Though framed as environmental stewardship, the practical impacts of this policy are economic, structural, and largely irreversible.
The vision behind Act 59 aligns Vermont with the United Nations’ global “30×30” biodiversity target and sets in motion a sweeping expansion of permanently conserved land. While supporters frame this as forward-thinking and ecologically responsible, the state’s approach raises serious concerns about long-term affordability, land access, and constitutional property rights.
A Shrinking Tax Base
As more land becomes conserved—either through state acquisition, nonprofit partnerships, or conservation easements—the amount of taxable land in Vermont shrinks. Land under conservation typically pays reduced taxes or none at all, depending on whether it’s enrolled in Current Use or owned outright by a nonprofit or government entity.
Currently, Vermont has already conserved over 1.3 million acres, or about 22% of its land area. Meeting the 30% goal by 2030 would require conserving roughly another 177,000 acres. Achieving the 50% mark by 2050 will bring that total to nearly 3 million acres—half the state.
This land is not only removed from future development; it’s removed from the municipal tax base. As the pool of taxable land shrinks, the financial burden shifts to those who remain—typically homeowners, farmers, and small landowners. In 2000, the average tax burden per acre of land in Vermont was around +/- $144. Today, it’s estimated at +/- $391. If current trajectories hold, that number could exceed $1,100 per acre by 2050.
In simple terms: you will pay more because others are paying less—or not at all.
The “Choice” No One Can Afford
Supporters argue that conservation is voluntary, negotiated through willing landowners. But in practice, it often isn’t. With soaring property taxes and an aging population of farmers and landowners, many Vermonters are financially cornered. Unable to sustain the cost of ownership, they are approached by conservation nonprofits offering easements or buyouts—deals they can’t afford to refuse.
Organizations like the Vermont Land Trust, Vermont Housing & Conservation Board (VHCB), The Nature Conservancy, and the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) play a central role. Often backed by state and federal dollars, and regular participants in legislative committees, these groups operate in tandem with regulatory authorities, shaping a long-term land-use map that reflects global conservation goals more than local economic realities. While Vermont property owners, taxpayers, and voters do not.
To be clear: this is not illegal. But it’s not representative government, either. It’s policy by attrition.
Mapping the Convergence
Perhaps the most telling aspect of this transformation is how closely Vermont’s conservation planning now resembles global sustainability corridor models—especially the much-maligned Agenda 21 “Wildlands” map, which proposed large, interconnected tracts of land with minimal or no human use.
A recent comparison of Vermont’s camera site and connectivity block map—produced by the state’s own conservation planners—shows an unmistakable alignment with the original Agenda 21 overlay. Areas marked as “highest priority connectivity blocks” in Vermont match nearly acre-for-acre with the corridor and reserve systems laid out in 1990s-era global sustainability proposals.
Critics were once dismissed as paranoid for pointing to these maps. But now, Vermont’s official documents mirror them, in both language and execution.
From left to right:
Vermont Conservation Design Map showing highest and priority connectivity blocks for long-term conservation and corridor planning.
Reconstructed Agenda 21 Wildlands Overlay illustrating proposed “core reserves” (red) and “buffer zones” (yellow) with restricted or no human use.
Composite Overlay revealing a striking alignment between Vermont’s conservation strategy and global sustainability mapping once dismissed as speculative.
What Does the Constitution Say?
Vermont’s Article 2 states:
“Private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it… whenever any person’s property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money.”
That’s a vague shield. What constitutes “necessity”? Who defines it? And does losing use and value through regulatory pressure—without formal seizure—count as a taking?
Meanwhile, Article 9 offers stronger protections:
“No part of any person’s property can be justly taken, or applied to public uses, without the person’s own consent, or that of the Representative Body.”
But many land-use decisions tied to Act 59 are not voted on by local residents. Instead, they’re driven by agencies and nonprofits, executing global goals with state dollars and administrative authority. Consent is assumed, not granted.
A Future for Whom?
The central question remains: Who is Vermont being conserved for?
If middle-class Vermonters, working farmers, and rural families can no longer afford to live on or hold land here, then the future being preserved is one for tourists, transplants, and nonprofits—not for the people who built this state.
Conservation should not be a backdoor zoning tool. Nor should it be used to displace Vermonters under the guise of climate or biodiversity. Land preservation has a place. But when half the state is being locked up in perpetuity—and the tax burden triples on what remains—it ceases to be conservation.
It becomes control.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontPropertyRights #Agenda21Vermont #TaxedOffTheLand
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