A Legacy of Natural Growth
In Vermont, the idea of planning has taken on a life of its own. Walk through any Vermont downtown — with their tightly packed historic buildings — and you can almost feel the pulse of a city that once grew not by top-down decree, but by necessity and ambition. Before there were professional planners, zoning overlays, and design charrettes, Vermont’s cities and towns built themselves. Farmers, merchants, railroaders, and entrepreneurs carved out Main Streets one brick storefront at a time, driven by market demand and human need, not regional master plans.
The Shift to Structured — and Costly — Planning
Today, that organic growth model has been replaced with something far more structured — and costly. Regional planning commissions (RPCs) now oversee much of the land use and development conversation across Vermont. Technically, municipalities aren’t forced to join regional planning commissions. But practically speaking, if they want access to a wide range of state and federal funding — for infrastructure, housing, community development, and even emergency aid — membership and compliance are expected.
According to Vermont statutes, municipalities may voluntarily establish local planning commissions and may choose to join a regional commission. Participation is not mandated by law. Yet if a town wants to apply for grants like the Municipal Planning Grant (up to $30,000) or larger programs such as the Vermont Community Development Program or hazard mitigation funding through FEMA, having a state-confirmed municipal plan and working within the regional planning structure becomes a near-requirement.
This “soft mandate” approach allows Vermont to maintain the appearance of local control while effectively funneling millions of dollars through a structured network of planning commissions. But at what cost?
High Costs, Low Returns?
Regional planning commissions do not operate for free. In fiscal year 2024, the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission reported expenses of about $1.5 million, of which approximately 45% went to administrative expenses. In Rutland, the Rutland Regional Planning Commission spent about $1.6 million — with virtually all of it dedicated to staffing, office operations, and general administration.
Unlike Chittenden County’s Regional Planning Commission, which boasts a 10-to-1 return on investment thanks to large federal infrastructure dollars tied to its federally mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) status, the rest of Vermont’s RPCs do not have a similar multiplier effect. They are not MPOs. They do not control major federal funds. The vast majority of their revenues cover office overhead and staff.
In Rutland’s case, this is strikingly clear. While $27,000 in municipal dues were paid into the commission in FY24, only about $62,951 was passed through to outside projects. Even if that modest amount were entirely allocated back to member towns — which it is not — it would average just a few thousand dollars per municipality. In reality, the pass-through dollars may be spent on specific projects, consultants, or administrative contract support that only tangentially benefits the towns paying into the system.
The return on local investment is not 10-to-1. It is not 1-to-1. Towns pay in, largely to sustain the existence of the commission itself.
Without major federal programs flowing through them, these commissions function more like administrative service providers — assisting with grant writing, zoning questions, and data management — than economic drivers delivering returns back to the communities. Their role has quietly shifted from unlocking outside dollars to maintaining bureaucratic infrastructure.
Codifying the Obvious — and Charging for It
There’s an irony in all this. Much of what modern planners now promote — walkable downtowns, mixed-use development, traditional village patterns — were not invented by planning commissions. They evolved organically as people built what made sense for how they lived and worked. In many ways, planning has become a process of identifying these natural human patterns, formalizing them into design guidelines and zoning codes, and attaching a price tag to administering them.
What was once intuitive and driven by local conditions is now repackaged as professional expertise, supported by layers of grants and regulatory structures.
Supporters See Order, Critics See Bureaucracy
Supporters argue that regional planning is necessary to coordinate growth, prevent sprawl, protect environmental resources, and ensure equitable development. Without it, they warn, municipalities might make short-sighted decisions that harm neighbors or the broader region. Regional commissions provide technical expertise that small towns often can’t afford on their own, guiding infrastructure development, housing plans, and hazard mitigation.
Yet critics point to states that operate differently — and arguably more efficiently. Delaware, South Dakota, Wyoming, and others lack formal statewide regional planning associations. In these states, municipalities handle their own zoning and planning, with direct support from state agencies when needed. Funding flows more directly to towns without a layer of regional bureaucracy taking a share off the top. Local needs dictate local decisions, rather than being filtered through regional priorities.
There’s no evidence that cities and towns in those states are descending into chaos. On the contrary, local zoning boards, planning commissions, and town councils — closer to the voters they serve — manage development based on the character and needs of their communities.
Natural vs. Synthetic: Rethinking the Model
Planning commissions were born in an era when professional management of growth seemed necessary to avoid the haphazard sprawl seen elsewhere. But Vermont’s towns and cities were never sprawling metropolises. Instead, they evolved naturally — shaped by terrain, transportation, and the steady hand of market demand and community values.
Today, much of the planning conversation feels synthetic by comparison. What once emerged naturally is now repackaged into formal processes and imposed through regulatory frameworks. This shift from natural growth to synthetic planning raises important questions about whether these bureaucratic layers serve communities — or primarily sustain themselves.
Looking Ahead: A Case for Simpler, Smarter Planning
As Vermont looks to the future — and particularly as smaller towns grapple with shrinking budgets, aging infrastructure, and a changing economy — the time may be ripe to reconsider whether the old top-down planning model still fits.
Perhaps it’s time to trust the same forces that built Merchants Row — human ambition, local knowledge, and a shared investment in place — to shape the Vermont of tomorrow.
If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #vermont #regionalplanning #localcontrol
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