What Ludlow Doesn’t Know … But Should

By Leo Graham

In Ludlow any mention of Acts 60/68, the main funding mechanisms for public education in Vermont is sure to draw angry cries about the unfairness of the whole thing. Ludlow sends about $30 million more to Montpelier than it receives back. They moan fiercely about the injustice of sending so much more than they receive.

On its face this seems a grim inequity. How can it be that a town like Ludlow has to raise $5 – the frequently mentioned number – in taxes in order to spend $1 on education? In my experience it is impossible to have a rational conversation about education funding anywhere in Ludlow – even at that most democratic of places, DJ’s. The regular year-round citizens of Ludlow believe they are being cheated by the State of Vermont. They are wrong.

The untold millions flowing to Montpelier from Ludlow flow from second homeowners in Ludlow. Those second homeowners own, by value, just about 90 percent of Ludlow’s residential grand list. They are, in fact paying millions to subsidize public education in Vermont. Some of them aren’t happy about that but it seems they can afford it. Every so often a group will try to allow second homeowners to vote on local budget matters. Alas, the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Vermont simply won’t  allow it.

The residents of Ludlow feel little sympathy for those second homeowners: if part of the American Dream is tied up with owning a home, then second homeowners are dreaming very sweet dreams indeed. State-wide residents realize that tourism pays a lot of the bills. Years ago, when I was marveling at the beauty of my new found home an old timer said, “Ayup, but you can’t eat the scenery.” Well, maybe you can’t eat it but in still manages to feed many of us.

For a variety of reasons – GE leaving, the collapse of woolen mills throughout New England, and other reasons, the average income of a year-round Ludlow resident is well below the Windsor County average as well as that of the State. It is important to have a discussion about year-round residents because only the year-round residents who have children in the schools.

The perfidious state-wide property tax has provisions in it called “income sensitivity.” It means that if you don’t make enough money (about $80,000 for a family), you don’t pay the full tax on your house and two acres. In truth, relatively few full time residents pay the full rate. It is a little different for businesses but how many more restaurants and Ye Olde Quainte shops can a town sustain?

The citizens of Ludlow pay nowhere near what it costs to educate their children – maybe about 70 percent of what is spent. The data is readily available from the Vermont Department of Education.  By that measure, Ludlow is a receiving town and one on a grand scale.

So the second homeowners are paying the freight once again. Once again, ordinary citizens really don’t care about that. Ludlow is in fact insulated and protected from undue taxation because of the second homeowners. Now, if we can just figure out how to pay service industry workers a good wage everything would be just fine.  

VSAC - Is Its Days Numbered

(Editor's Note:  The following link is a news/editorial comment from VTDigger.org, an online journal.)

False moves led VSAC to brink of insolvency

By Opinion on February 1, 2010

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Nathan Freeman of Northfield.

The Vermont Student Assistance Corporation recently launched a legislative lobby campaign against the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, President Obama’s direct student lending proposal. VSAC, a middle manager for federal loans, is looking to Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders to include language in the bill that will require Vermont students to work with the Winooski office in the application and disbursement of Stafford loans, PLUS loans and the like. Essentially, VSAC wants to maintain the virtual lending monopoly it has created over the last several years.

<Rest of article>

Perception, Beauty, and Taste . . .

(Editor's Note:  The following is a true story, suggested by Bruce Farr, that may be of interest to those who take the time to listen.)

Washington, DC Metro Station on a cold January morning in 2007.  The man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 60 minutes. During that time some 2 thousand people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.

After 3 minutes:
A middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried to meet his schedule.

4 minutes later:  
The violinist received his first dollar; a woman threw the money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.
 
6 minutes: 
A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him; looked at his watch; and started to walk again.
 
10 minutes:
A 3-year old boy stopped but his mother tugged him along hurriedly.  The kid stopped to look at the violinist again; but the mother pushed hard, and the child continued to walk; turning his head all the time.

This action was repeated by several other children. Every parent, without exception, forced their children to move on quickly.
 
45 minutes:
The musician played continuously.  Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while.  About 20 gave money; but continued to walk at their normal pace.  The man collected a total of $32.

1 hour:
He finished playing and silence took over.  No one appeared to notice; no one applauded nor was there any recognition.
 
No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million. Two days before, Joshua Bell sold out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.

This is a true story.  Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people's priorities. The questions raised:  In a common place environment, at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty?  Do we stop to appreciate it?  Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?
 
One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this:  If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made ... How many other things are we missing?

A Fascinating History - Listers in Vermont

The following is reprinted from the December 2009 edition of the VLCT News, published by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.  It was prepared and researched by Carol Hammond, a Lister in Vernon.

Listeriana

Ever wonder how the duties of a lister have evolved over the years? Vernon lister Carol Hammond did. And her research led her to assembling the following “listeriana.”

The position of Vermont lister was established before Vermont became a state and has undergone many changes and revisions since its inception. Although listing practices have changed over the years, one thing remains the same: listers list.

• In 1778, “An Act Directing Listers in their Office and Duty” was the first act aimed at securing an appraisal of property for purposes of taxation. All inhabitants were required to submit in writing to the listers “a true account of all their listable polls and their ratable estate.”
• In the days before statehood, justices of the peace could nominate people to serve as listers. Those nominated were obligated to serve or pay a penalty.
• The early grand lists included:
 1. All males between the ages of sixteen and sixty were rated at six pounds and later at twenty pounds each. (There were exemptions for ministers, schoolmasters, and those incapacitated by sickness.)
 2. All livestock was listed by category and valued by age.
 3. Money on hand, over and above debts owed, was assessed at six pounds for every hundred. By 1787, the assessment was raised to twenty pounds per hundred.
 4. Household clocks not made of wood, gold watches, pianos, pleasure wagons, sleighs, dogs, swarms of bees, stock in corporations.
 5. Land that had been improved for at least a year.
 6. Doctors and lawyers based on their “faculties” and size of practice.
• Failure of a property owner to declare his list of taxable property in a timely manner resulted in “twofolding.”
• If no list was returned, the listers made out a list based on their own judgment.
• Listers had the power to “fourfold” which meant they could add to the lists according to their judgment if they felt the lists were not accurate. Half the amount arising from these fourfolds went to the listers.
• People who appealed the “fourfolding” were required to take an oath that they were telling the truth. Further appeals could be made to the selectmen and another oath would be required.
• A parent or guardian of a minor in military service was granted a deduction of $20 with an additional deduction of $13.50 if he was in the cavalry. But no deduction would be allowed until it was proved that the equipment and horse actually belonged to the parent or guardian and not just borrowed for the purpose of satisfying the listers’ inspection.
• In 1819 reappraisals were required every three years.
• A separate assessment of a dwelling and two acres began in the early 1800s – the forerunner of our “housesite.”
• The grand list was very complex in the early 1800s. Each category carried a different percentage until 1841, when all categories were listed at 1%.
• Since a person’s wealth was determined by what he owned, all property owned outside a township was also included in the listing of the township.
• If a town didn’t submit a grand list to the state at the appropriate time, the state could “doom” the town and then assess it for any amount it chose.
• In 1801, all persons were commanded to tell the listers the total number of sheep shorn each year.
• Because the state didn’t know how to tax intangible assets, listers had unlimited power to assess at what they believed to be the actual value. The state gave this power to the listers to correct deficiencies in the listing laws.
• After 1825, appraisals were every five years; in 1872, appraisals were required every four years.
• Stock held in banks by taxpayers was reported to the listers by the bank cashiers. If not reported, the cashier was fined.

For more than two hundred years, many patches and band aids have been applied to listing laws due to general dissatisfaction. Some things never change!

Judicial Ops Commision's Rpt "Unsupported"

Letter submitted by William Boardman, Windsor County Assistant Judge

To the Editor:  

Recent reporting on the recommendations of the Commission on Judicial Operations takes too many of the commission’s unsupported assumptions at face value, leaving the shortcomings of the commission’s work largely unexamined.  

Testifying without contradiction at the final hearing, Caledonia County Probate Judge Tobias Balivet pointed out that an honest study would have started with hard data, but the commission’s final report fails to develop a reality-based argument.  

The final report provides no comprehensive overview of the Vermont court system.  The commission’s final report provides no budget overview for this year or recent years.  The commission’s final report does not even offer a clear picture of the geographical distribution of court facilities and personnel around the state, when geography is one of the fundamentally challenging realities for the judiciary.  

These and other omissions make it impossible to come to an independent assessment of the commission’s conclusions, because the report comprises mostly a self-serving reiteration of the Supreme Court’s institutional agenda going back 70-plus years -- to the similar conclusions of the “Report of the Special Commission to Study the Judicial System of Vermont,” in February 1937.  

“A sound process would have yielded credible results,” Judge Balivet told the commission, adding, “you haven’t honored your mandate.”  

At the same hearing, Washington County Probate Judge George Belcher testified that the commission had misused the limited data it had by drawing conclusions from an invalid comparison. 

It’s like comparing frozen food to cornfields when the commission uses one urban, fulltime probate court in Chittenden as the standard for thirteen other, part-time, rural probates courts in the rest of Vermont.  Judge Belcher called the commission’s analysis “simplistic, hopeful, and wrong.”  

The commission proposes to eliminate all 13 rural probates courts, replacing them with four “regional” probate courts.  Somehow – the commission doesn’t say how – the efficiencies of an urban court’s population density can be duplicated in rural courts with much larger districts and more dispersed population.  That’s a numbers-on-the-page folly unhinged from the way Vermonters live outside of Burlington.  

Those who say the court system has never been looked at so closely are propagating a myth.  The commission has produced a level of detail and persuasiveness that should be embarrassing – especially when compared to the “Judicial Operations Management Study” produced by former Sen. Edgar May and his team in 1992.   The May report has a rigor and intellectual honesty that the current commission  achieves only occasionally.

An Open Letter to the Vermont State Democratic Party

By Ralph Pace

One of the things I always loved about the Democratic Party was its willingness to display its dirty laundry in open conflict, throw it in the washing machine, drying it, and ultimately selecting a chosen battler to be adorned in it, wrinkles and tatters ironed out.  It always seemed to reflect a more honest reality than simply crowning someone as the opposition was inclined to do.

However, I think the Democratic Party of Vermont is allowing this messiness to get out of hand at a time when it cannot afford the luxury of all this infighting.  Specifically, it has too many people seeking to be anointed as its nominee for Governor.

It is a mark of real achievement and stature to have the likes of Deb Markowitz, Doug Racine, Susan Bartlett, Peter Schumlin, and Matt Dunne throwing hats into the proverbial ring.  (It’s rumored that even others are considering this hat toss.)

It will be a mark of unfortunate “slings and arrows” if their hats remain in the ring at primary time.

All five bring high levels of experience, voter appeal, and desirable common sense to the campaign, some more than others.

However, given the demands of a political campaign that a candidate separate himself/herself from the opposing candidates, each is going to have to create an image that distinguishes them from the others.  This process, like it or not, ultimately depends on establishing negatives about the opponents.  If the candidates did not do this, there would be no practical way for a voter to separate them based on platforms or beliefs.  A candidate who says the opposition is as good as he or she is a defeated candidate.

This is a particularly critical election for the Democratic Party in that a long standing Republican governor is not seeking reelection, the economy is in a mess, and the voters will likely be receptive to change in the hope that it will prevent a free fall economically.

It is a time when the Democrats need to present a team for governor and lt governor, not a multiple choice question.  With the likelihood of a mid-August primary – which may mean a lower than usual voter turnout, the party cannot afford to see its resources eaten up by an expensive primary battle that produces a “wounded” nominee with a depleted war chest.

Yes, I’ve always liked the “dirty laundry” aspect of the Democratic Party.  But this is just too much.  It’s time for the party leadership to get these five (or more) people into a room and talk common sense.  Failure to do this will probably ensure that Brian Dubie is our next governor.

Why Do We Continue to Ignore the Obvious . . .

By Ralph Pace

Every once in awhile I reach that point where I've just got to get something off my chest.  I've noted that despite who occupied the Oval Office or controlled the Congress, these matters are never seriously addressed (well, health care is apparently being addressed now . . . but only time will tell how seriously).

• Why are we so afraid of adding a nickel to our gas tax so that we can address the critical maintenance needs of our highways and bridges?  We have an Interstate System that was designed  to promote transportation.  We eagerly use this system to support public, but mainly private ends (much to the detriment of a much-maligned rail system).  Yet we fail to maintain the system with basic funding to make roadways and bridges safe;

• When will this country realize that transportation is a vital national requisite supporting  both our capitalistic structure and potential national security needs, not something that has to be profit-driven in itself?  We have a highway system (see above) in a state of disrepair and an airline system using antiquated control devices;

• For that matter, why are we so afraid of considering nationalized health care programs?  Has it become the new third rail of American politics?  We’ve never really had an independent, non-biased analysis of European or Canadian programs; nor does it appear likely that our current legislative/executive branches will permit such an objective study;

• When will we have the sense to recognize - in spite of the NRA - that the right to bear arms does not necessarily include semi-automatic weapons or grenade rocket launchers?  Most Americans have no problem with hunters owning shotguns or rifles.  Why not limit the kind of weapons that may be used for hunting or personal protection?  It still is not contrary to the second amendment;

• Is there ever going to be a time when we will recognize that nuclear energy, properly-controlled, is the soundest immediate means to reducing our dependency on imported oil and becoming more environmentally friendly?  Why don’t we start the same kind of program that led us to putting a man on the moon to address how to deal with nuclear waste.  Look at all the side benefits derived from the NASA moon efforts; why not do the same with nuclear?; and

• In a more parochial vein, will the legislators in Montpelier ever have the guts to do what is so obvious to everyone else when it comes to public education and enact consolidation programs so that local property (and state) taxes will not continue to increase in inverse relationship to our student population? 

There are a few other items I might mention but I'll be happy if just one or two of the above are honestly addressed.

Letter to Editor: Alleged NH Brutality

Submitted by William Boardman

To the Editor,
 
Should there be some way to charge a town with attempted murder? 
 
If it's the Town of Whitefield, NH, there should be. 
 
The town "leaders" took a dislike to one of the town residents some years back, a 65 year old handicapped man who needs a wheelchair to get around and has diabetes and high blood pressure and stomach ulcers.  He lives with his son, 40, who is also disabled, with a heart condition.  The town "leaders" took a dislike to the son, too. 
 
In April, the town "leaders" sent a police officer to the old man's house for a "welfare check" and the officer promised that he was there to help the old man and his son with.  The next day the police chief, who is also the acting town health officer evicted the old man and his son from their home os 20 years.  The chief persuaded the fire chief to go along, but the notice posted was unsigned by any town official. 
 
Instead, the chief forced the old man to go to a motel in a nearby town, not even allowing him to get all his medication. 
 
When the matter came to court in September, the judge threw it out because the town was unable to defend its actions as legal, never mind humane. 
 
Meanwhile, the chief also filed an animal cruelty complaint against the old man -- for leaving his pet dog and cats alone when he was evicted. 
 
The court threw out this charge, too. 
 
But winning in court has taken time and done the old man and his son little good so far.  Both have suffered emotionally and physically from the baseless ordeal infl;icted on them by town "leaders."  The old man has had at least two strokes for which he was hospitalized, as well as a hospitalization for bleeding ulcers. 
 
And the town continues to resist their efforts to repair and return to their house. 
 
This is how Whitefield has treated Frank Lovely and his son, Kris, during the past six months.  Why they have chosen such cruel and harmful tactics against these men is anyone's guess, but Whitefield has failed to justify its actions in court. 
 
Brutality as public policy should be an offence to any decent person, especially in a country that thinks as well of itself as the United States.  The sad disgrace of this story is that almost all the local people have stood quietly by while the "leaders" of Whitefield perpetrate their unlawful cruelties. 
 
William Boardman
Woodstock, Vermont

Shand Responds to Vermont Journal Editorial

(Note: The following letter was emailed to Black River Today by Ernie Shand, VT House member representing Weathersfield and Cavendish in Montpelier.  It is in reference to a constituents reaction to an editorial in the Vermont Journal published June 10, 2009 which may be read by clicking HERE.The letter was also addressed to the Editor of the Vermont Journal.  A search of active bills in Montpelier revealed that H.568 was not in the legislature's database.)

I have received a call and an e-mail from one of my very upset constituents who is also a reader of the Vermont Journal.  He is concerned about H.568, a House bill that was introduced during the last biennium (2007-2008).  H-568 was assigned to the House Committee on Commerce by the Speaker of the House. I am the ranking member of the House Committee on Commerce. H.568 was pinned on the wall in the committee room and no action or testimony was taken. H. 568 died when the 2007-2008 biennium completed its work  in the spring of 2008.
 
The article also reports that  my salary is $174,000  per year. I believe that the author has me confused with the Representative from Vermont to the United States House in Washington, D.C.. My salary is under $11,000 per year.
 
My phone number is 802-674-502 if I can be of any assistance or you wish to discuss these issues.
 
Sincerely,
Ernie Shand
Representative to Cavendish & Weathersfield

Letter Against Drive Thru Zoning Request

Letter to the Editor:

On July 7th the voters of Ludlow will have an opportunity to vote for or against the Champlain Oil Company request for a change in the towns zoning.

I think several items need to be addressed and considered prior to anyone making a decision.

1. The petition circulated by Champlain Oil is a request for spot zoning which would give only their location the right to have a drive through restaurant window thereby eliminating any competition from having an equal business opportunity. 
2. People who signed the petition in support of this spot zoning told me that Champlain Oil would pull the tanks from the corner of 100 & 103 (their now abandoned location) and give or sell the property to the town of Ludlow at little or no cost.  This has not been verified in writing or even verbally in any Planning Commission or Select Board meetings by Champlain Oil. 
3. We’ve been told that Champlain Oils request for a gas station and multi-use building with drive thru window will provide jobs for Ludlow.  The fact is the current zoning allows a gas station and restaurants (not with drive thru window) so jobs could be created without a special zoning amendment.
4. Also on the subject of jobs we need to consider the impact a McDonalds (yes, that’s what they have said the restaurant will be) would have on existing restaurants.  Would a loss of their customer base cause a loss of jobs??  Would these restaurants suffer from the addition of a fast food restaurant?  Personally, I feel our breakfast restaurants would see a sever decline in business.
5. The subjects of traffic, safety and litter have been addressed by others.  I mention them as a reminder that these should be part of each voter’s considerations.
6. I was told tonight that some voters want the gas station because it will provide another source of diesel fuel.  Again, I point out that Champlain Oil can open a full service gas station on the requested site without special zoning.

And finally,
7. The Planning Commission unanimously voted against amending the areas zoning.  It reported to the Select Board that it felt the Champlain Oil request was in conflict with several areas of the town plan.

I hope the voters of Ludlow will turn out in great numbers on June 7th and will carefully consider their vote and the impact it will have on Ludlow.

Sincerely,
Christine Fuller
Ludlow, Vermont