‘Outstanding’ Issue

Congratulations on the outstanding August 27 edition of Seven Days! The paper thoroughly covered four very important issues: homelessness [“Is Homelessness a Local Matter?”]; legal orders for compression of school districts and the hopeful, evolving solutions [“A Map for the Future”]; the problems and benefits of Vermont’s dams [“Power Drain”]; and the terror visited on asylum seekers and the supports Vermonters have offered [“Asylum Angst”].

These stories desperately needed to be told to Vermonters in the comprehensive ways that the paper reported on them. Thank you.

Searching for … the Vanguard

Congratulations on 30 years of helpful, informative journalism supporting Chittenden County and beyond. Your Birthday Issue [September 3] was very interesting.

It made me, a longtime Burlington resident, wonder about the name of the weekly publication prior to you becoming Seven Days. So, I looked to your beginning timeline but found no mention of it, which drove me crazy!

After an extensive online search (why was that so hard?), I can share with other curious readers that the Vanguard Press published a free weekly paper from 1978 to 1990. Phew! Now my brain can move on to something else!

‘We Can Do Better’

It is my opinion that we are stigmatizing those with no place to go [“Tent City,” August 13]. I can agree there are bad apples; I agree there is a drug problem. I also know that the drug problem is alive and well among those with housing. We need to stop punching down and give people a bit of stability to heal, or they will continue to become a public nuisance.

Housing first, because it takes you out of survival mode, then recovery and employment. We have trees. We have land. We have carpenters and companies that could help build micro homes, as they are doing in Asheville, N.C. Why not train incarcerated people to build and learn electrical and plumbing while building for the future? Our problem is not money; it is lack of imagination. Vermont has more than 50,000 summer homes empty. Can we tax them more?

Homelessness causes mental health decline and drug use. I have worked while homeless for years. It can be done, but it’s a tall order for the disabled. Before judging, picture yourself homeless and think about it: food, clothing, medical expenses, water, shelter, weather, on and on. I can tell you it’s not a free ride. It is a high price to pay for survival, with usually $1,000 a month to live on.

Nobody wants this — not the shop owners and not the unhoused. We can do better!

The Cost of Homelessness

[Re “Is Homelessness a Local Matter?,” August 27]: If municipalities are asking state taxpayers for more money — aka “help” — to spend on more homeless services, it would be helpful for Seven Days to report how much is being spent per year already, and for what.

Per Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, Burlington alone is already spending $8 million per year on services for the homeless. That’s 8 percent of Burlington’s 2024 budget.

In July this newspaper reported that Chittenden County had 3,386 homeless people as of January 2025. [“Vermont Has Made Little Progress on Homelessness, Report Finds,” July 30]. Assuming all those homeless are in Burlington, Burlington spent $2,363 per homeless person in 2024.

What was it spent on? How much more does the mayor want to spend on the homeless, and for what exactly? How much spending per homeless will be enough?

These are reasonable questions. Burlington and Vermont taxpayers deserve answers from elected officials before any increase in homeless spending.

Developers Have Done Their Part

Kudos to the developers who took the enormous risk to finally make this happen [“Hope Rises From ‘the Pit’: The Housing and Hotel Project Formerly Known as CityPlace Is Finally Opening — but in a Very Different Burlington,” September 10]. But if the city government doesn’t at long last clean up the drugs, vagrancy, crime and homelessness in the center of Burlington, this entire investment could go bust in spectacular fashion. The stunning setting of Burlington is virtually unique. But the experiment in tolerance of decay has been a failure.

Power Points

The recent article [“Power Drain: Hydropower Facilities Such as the One at Green River Reservoir Are Being Pressed to Make Waterways Healthier — Which Could Mean Less Green Energy,” August 27] certainly grabbed my attention. Three responses jump to mind.

Firstly, the indirect quote attributed to Natural Resources Secretary Julie Moore made me chuckle. She attempts to make tiny Morrisville Water & Light into the boogeyman when it truly is the victim of state government’s regulatory overreach. She claims that had Morrisville collaborated, a compromise “might have been possible.” Might? One should not bet on that. I have to agree with the utility’s general manager, Scott Johnstone, when he said, “The state has decided to regulate Green River out of existence.”

Secondly, powerhouses are meant to be utilitarian, not something from Better Homes & Gardens. The writer compared the one at the Green River dam to an “abandoned home of a deranged hobbit.” Such a comparison to an imaginary creature is a judgmental departure from objective journalism. One expects better.

Thirdly, kudos to Morrisville Water & Light, one of more than 2,000 public power utilities throughout the U.S. As a community-owned, not-for-profit public power utility, it exists to serve its customers. According to the American Public Power Association, “homes powered by public power utilities paid 9% less than homes powered by private utilities in 2022.” Contrast public power with for-profit, investor-owned utilities, which exist to pay quarterly dividends to stockholders.

As we move toward carbon-free power generation, hydro power becomes an important part of the equation. Let’s go forward, not backward.

This article appears in Sept 24-30 2025.

Got something to say?

Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!