Three in One

Cathy Resmer’s “From the Deputy Publisher” piece [“School Daze,” August 26] was great. And, without realizing it, in that one day, Cathy moved us a tiny bit closer to solving three huge problems in our state. Opening up their home (again) to three younger people, she and her wife are helping with our affordable housing problem. Giving that rent money to their two college-aged kids, they are helping with the student debt problem. And by paying her “fat speeding ticket,” she is doing her bit to help our state budget.

That was quite a day.

State Should Prevail

[Re “Double Duty: Some Vermont Cops Are Paid to Patrol the Border — Despite a State Policy That Bans Collaboration With Federal Immigration Authorities,” August 19]: What was Chittenden County Deputy Sheriff Scott Costella doing in Franklin County, engaging U.S. Border Patrol in a traffic stop? Working for Operation Stonegarden, his call to Border Patrol for a traffic ticket in violation of the Fair and Impartial Policing Policy resulted in trauma to another immigrant family, deportation of Alex Jimenez to Mexico and a weakened policy.

I’m glad to see that Chittenden County Sheriff Dan Gamelin has since suspended his agency’s participation in Operation Stonegarden. That probably took some courage on his part. But suspension is a temporary measure; what effect will that suspension have on the Chittenden County Sheriff’s Office and on the policing policy over time?

I’m sorry to see that Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark supports Operation Stonegarden; she does not appear to understand the conflict between this program and Vermont’s Fair and Impartial Policing Policy, which is required by state statute and necessary for the integrity of Vermont’s law enforcement system.

Thanks to Vermont’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union for standing up for fair and impartial policing! Given that one sheriff’s office wants to weaken the state’s policy, we’re in for a difficult discussion with the Vermont Criminal Justice Council to clarify the relationship between Operation Stonegarden, the Fair and Impartial Policing Policy, and law enforcement.

Immigrants sustaining our dairy farms and other businesses should not have to live in daily terror of being deported.

Feds Are in Charge

[Re “Double Duty,” August 19]: If Sgt. Scott Costella was working and being paid by the federal government on this detail, then Migrant Justice’s issue is with the federal government’s U.S. Department of Homeland Security — although I don’t believe it has a legitimate complaint. As far as Sheriff Dan Gamelin making a statement about this deputy being investigated, my opinion is that Gamelin should’ve told Migrant Justice to take a hike. This gentleman, Costella, was not being paid under Gamelin’s office. The Fair and Impartial Policing Policy is clearly, I’m guessing from the article, not part of Homeland Security’s concerns.

Too Many Trails

I read with interest the article “Rogue Rage” [August 19].

Having been a biker, skier and through-hiker in past decades, I have now settled on ambling trailed and untrailed northern Vermont woodlands. My walks are more like food than exercise. I first noticed random mountain biking trails appearing around here about 20 years ago. Those early trails were not overly wide and were relatively considerate of the landscape.

As one who appreciates the quietude and exquisite details of changing habitat as I walk, I am very disturbed to see the current trend toward ever more extreme and imposing constructs in the landscape. I suppose it should not be surprising given the American attitudes toward nature of extract, impose and dominate, which in the end are proving to be unsustainable.

I also suppose it is unreasonable to expect an understanding and respect for the concept of entering nature for the express purpose of, dare I say, spiritual commune, from those who see it merely as a convenient arena for activity. Their naïve sense of entitled mission is remarkable, with the landscape paying the price.

I am not anti-mountain bike. Having been a biker, I understand the appeal. There are currently abundant, beautiful trails enjoyed by many that never seem crowded. Can’t we keep some perspective on the cost of uncontrolled, inconsiderate expansion?

Unfair Punishment

While the article “Rogue Rage” [August 19] was some of the more fair reporting on the topic that I’ve seen, I think it’s important to look at the larger picture.

Here we have a local who became so enthusiastic about a sport that he dedicated countless hours and spent his own money on tools and materials to create one of the most creative, thrilling and challenging ways to enjoy that sport. Then he took what he learned, joined a local organization and dedicated many more thousands of volunteer hours to building sanctioned, legal trails in Stowe. Then he was punished?

Of course it wasn’t “right” to build the trail on state land without approval, yet we all know how difficult it is to get anything approved by the state, let alone a double-black, expert-only mountain bike trail. But a bike trail is not a road or a ski glade; it’s an 8-by-12-inch-wide squiggly line and 30-inch-wide corridor through the woods. Comparisons to the existing logging roads and clear-cut patches on the very same parcel turn the entire suite of arguments by Mike Snyder and Lisa Lynn into a farcical exercise of hypocrisy, NIMBYism and personal vendettas. People like that make Vermont worse.

Many bike trail networks started as collections of unsanctioned trails built by dedicated enthusiasts. Many, many more backcountry skiing lines were illegally cut and continue to be enjoyed every winter. People like Cyril Brunner are heroes to the rest of us who love the outdoor activities Vermont offers.

Only Takes One

[Re “Rogue Rage,” August 19]: In response to the valid frustration of skiers, bikers and outdoor enthusiasts, Seven Days reports that “State officials say they have improved their processes.”

This is patently false. Sanctioned backcountry ski zones are almost entirely in Green Mountain National Forest, not on state land. Similarly, the visionaries from Vermont Huts & Trails (who are behind the effort to build a bike trail the length of the state like the Long Trail or Catamount Trail), have made huge progress in the national forest but are stonewalled on state land, like when the state refused to allow a parking area off Route 100 in Warren for an essential connection.

An effort to build a Vermont hut in the Bolton area, approved slowly by the Agency of Natural Resources, was stonewalled when one state bureaucrat opposed the Act 250 application (which the state could do as the abutting landowner). At Waterbury’s Perry Hill, a landowner generously offered his land for a new trail. The state required a bear study to go across 100 yards of state land. When the state didn’t like the result, it required another bear study, which killed the project.

This is not land stewardship; it is depriving taxpayers of a public resource. To build recreational resources that everyone can enjoy, it takes a village: professional trail builders, thousands of volunteer hours, money and advocacy. But it only takes one person at the state to kill a project.

Union Mad

A number of readers responded to Aaron Calvin’s August 12 article “Labor Pains,” about Healthy Living’s appeal to the National Labor Relations Board to block recognition of its union. Find more letters at sevendaysvt.com.

It’s really sad to see a company that I once respected going to such great lengths to crush the will of its workers. The regional labor board’s decision to dismiss the company’s objections outright should have been where this ended. The company’s decision to appeal to the Trump-controlled federal board amounts to an extremely expensive temper tantrum that shows just how out of touch the owners of Healthy Living truly are.

At a time when national support for unions remains around 70 percent, the owners are alleging that the only way workers at their store could possibly support a union is if they were paid “infiltrators” or “disabled.” Most times when workers organize, it is out of a sense of solidarity with their coworkers and a belief that, together, they can make their company better for everyone involved.

I hope the company can recognize that in its own workers and begin bargaining.

The recent article on Healthy Living’s attempt to overturn the union election misses the impact its actions have on workers, including myself. As one of the workers accused of being a “union plant” in the company’s 700-plus-page manifesto to the Trump-appointed National Labor Relations Board, I have some thoughts to share.

It was increasingly difficult for me to go into work knowing that Healthy Living owners and their entire HR team had been actively surveilling many of us inside and outside the workplace.

Their appeal, in a major violation of our privacy, includes alleged political activities, personal data and photos of us from social media. None of this information is pertinent to the validity of our union (and it is often incorrect), and it is disturbing to think about the resources they invested into developing a massive conspiracy theory that will amount to nothing except wasted time and money.

They have shown just how detached they are from the economic and political landscape in which they do business, and they have disrespected all of us on a deeply personal level.

Despite everything, the union campaign gave me a great sense of solidarity with my coworkers and my community, and that is what kept me going back every day. I hope the owners know that it is never too late to do the right thing and negotiate a fair contract, because this process will make Healthy Living a better workplace for everyone — including them.

The idealistic union representatives who recently organized Healthy Living should exercise their right to start their own business instead of telling others how to run theirs. Then they could pay their employees whatever they want, give them the benefits they want and never terminate anyone. It would be everything they’re asking of Healthy Living.

The socialists need to wake up to the fact that robust businesses are the cornerstone of a healthy economy and the source of success, professional growth and personal fulfillment for workers. I find it impossible to imagine how the Workers United folks can feel good about grabbing the steering wheel from a local family who have worked their tails off for 40 years to build a business into a local institution, providing a great service to the community and hundreds of good-paying jobs. Disgusting.

I worked at the South Burlington Healthy Living this winter, and now they’ve doxed me (and my references!) in their appeal to Trump’s labor board. After reading Healthy Living’s newest appeal and this article, it is even more apparent how out of touch the owners are with their workers and the working conditions at their stores. The claims they make about me and my past coworkers in their appeal are so out of touch as to be laughable and only indicate their ignorance of any of our real lives and situations.

I moved to Vermont after some major life changes accumulated, and it was time for me to leave the place I’d been living in New York for the past decade. My manager, with whom I had a great relationship, actually knows me and knows my story. The owners claim I moved here from a place I haven’t lived in 12 years. Because they don’t know me. And they don’t really know what it’s like to be a worker in their stores. Which is why they can’t accept that there is a legitimate majority of people who work at their stores (and produce the value that they benefit from!) who want better protections and treatment in the workplace.

The owners claim to have an “open-door policy,” but when a group of their workers organizes and seeks to dialogue and negotiate with them around concerns of wages, understaffing, safety, etc., they go running to Daddy Trump.

It was very disappointing to read about Healthy Living’s decision to fight its workers instead of bargain with them. It seems clear that the union wants a collaborative relationship, and the company is choosing to make it contentious. I’ve been on both the union and management side of the negotiating table, so I can say firsthand that the bargaining process doesn’t have to be divisive and can, in fact, be an opportunity to collaborate on solving problems in a way that benefits all parties.

As a member of the union bargaining committee at Partizanfilm, I’ve experienced firsthand what it’s like to have a respectful and productive bargaining relationship with management. After voluntarily recognizing our union, management at Partizanfilm met with us about five times, and we hammered out a contract that was fair for everyone. Since finishing our contract, we’ve received countless positive comments about the union from patrons of the movie theater. It is obvious that Burlington residents view unionization as something they are proud to support.

I sincerely believe that once Healthy Living owners choose to respect the voice of their workers, they will not only start to repair their public image but will also have the opportunity to address problems with their workers collaboratively. For the workers’ sake, and the company’s, I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

Correction

An August 19 news story, “Winooski Man Charged in Fatal Downtown Burlington Stabbing,” misstated the age of the victim, Deng Dau. He was 23 years old.

This article appears in September 2 • 2026.