Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger was on the job at Nunyuns Bakery & Cafe in the Old North End just after 8 a.m. on a recent Thursday. Wearing a suit but no tie, the mayor, who likes to meet informally with constituents over coffee, laid out the referendum questions on this year’s city ballot — including two intended to enable the massive Burlington Town Center redevelopment. He explained why each is important and then took questions from the dozen or so attendees.
The informational session was one of many Weinberger has attended in advance of Election Day to promote a $250 million project he says is crucial to the city’s future.
Ballot item No. 3 would change a downtown zoning ordinance, establishing a district that would allow developer Don Sinex, the mall’s owner, to build to a height of 14 stories — 160 feet. Item No. 4 would authorize $21.8 million in tax increment financing for public infrastructure around the Sinex project. (See related story.)
At every turn, members of a group called the Coalition for a Livable City have dogged the mayor — and the project. Members say the height is out of scale with low-rise Burlington.
At least three coalition members listened as the mayor spoke at Nunyuns. Albert Petrarca, one of Weinberger’s fiercest detractors, held up a sign with “TIF” and “MALL” circled and crossed out in red ink. When Petrarca got a chance to speak, he asked a loaded question and called the ballot items a “gift” to a millionaire developer.
“Given how immoral you have been as a human being in terms of social policy, in a town that considers itself quite progressive,” Petrarca thundered, “how do you look at yourself in the mirror every day, and have you ever asked yourself, maybe you’re not a good fit for this town?”
The intense questioning — and personal attack — did not seem to rattle the pragmatic Weinberger, who has faced similar scrutiny at other times during the four-plus years he’s been in office. A former developer with the Hartland Group, Weinberger has been a frequent target of critics and activists who claim his goal is to pave over a vibrant, eclectic city.
Everyone agrees the new mall would forever change downtown Burlington. The debate is whether that would be a good or bad thing. After almost a year of public wrangling, both sides are making final pushes to convince Queen City residents to see things their way.
Coalition members often shadow the mayor and his allies at various informational sessions and ask questions or comment on the project. The group has organized its own events, run ads in Seven Days and distributed thousands of leaflets urging residents to vote “no.”
The coalition has made itself heard, dominating the public comment sessions during meetings and hearings. Its lobbying has led to better environmental building standards.
Whether it’s been effective at influencing voters is another question, but the two-term mayor is taking no chances. He’s in full-on campaign mode, devoting countless hours before, during and after the workday — not to mention weekends — to the cause.
“A couple other times I’ve pushed hard for a variety of ballot items,” Weinberger told Seven Days. “We’ve had a good track record of actually being able to explain them well, and the people of Burlington have supported the direction. I’m hopeful that’s going to happen here.”
Weinberger has created an alliance of his own. He proudly ticks off some of its members: the Champlain Housing Trust, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and former Progressive mayor Peter Clavelle, an influential figure in Burlington who describes himself as dedicated to smart, sustainable development.
Weinberger last month announced support from several environmental groups, including the Conservation Law Foundation.
“A group famous for killing projects all over the state … stood with us,” Weinberger boasted more than 10 hours after Nunyuns, at an evening meeting with Ward 5 residents. “So the leading environmentalists in the state are saying, ‘Put environmental benefits squarely on the positive side of the scale.'”
City councilors were empowered to have the final say on the zoning change. But the Coalition for a Livable City planned to circulate a petition and force a special vote on it. To preempt the petition, Weinberger asked the council to vote on letting residents decide. By an 8-3 tally, councilors agreed to support the zoning change and put it on the November 8 ballot. Progressive councilors Max Tracy and Selene Colburn and independent Sharon Bushor voted “no.”
All but one — Tracy — also green-lighted the mayor’s tax increment financing strategy by agreeing it should also be on the ballot. Vermont law dictates that voters must approve any TIF spending.
Opponents of the proposed project compare it to the waterfront development scheme known as the Alden Plan, which failed in 1985 after residents voted down a bond. That project would have put condos on the Burlington waterfront instead of the parks and public features there today, according to Tracy.
“There may be other options out there, and we can do better,” he said.
Council president Jane Knodell, a Progressive, has been one of Weinberger’s most ardent allies, as has Joan Shannon, a Democrat. Both have been enthusiastic participants in almost every informational get-together and have made their own short videos explaining why they believe residents should support the mayor’s ballot initiatives.
Weinberger has been strategic in rounding up votes. Because the project would feature 80 housing units for Champlain College students, he trekked up the hill to the University of Vermont. At an October 11 Student Government Association meeting, the mayor encouraged students to support the ballot items.
His pitch resonated, SGA president Jason Maulucci told Seven Days, because fewer Champlain students looking for housing downtown could ease the costs — and free up housing stock — for UVM kids.
“There’s precedent in Burlington where 10 votes can make a difference,” Maulucci said, referring to Bernie Sanders’ unlikely 1981 mayoral victory. “So if students can turn out in support of this, I think it could move the dial.”
Weinberger is using a political action committee to fund literature, events and ads. He revived the Partnership for Burlington’s Future, a PAC he created in 2012 to help pass several ballot items that year, including a fiscal stability bond to consolidate debt stemming from the Burlington Telecom fiasco. He used it again in 2014 to secure a winning vote for tax increment financing waterfront improvements such as building the skate park and rerouting the bike path.
Along with raising money, his backers have urged supporters to hold house parties to inform neighbors. They have circulated talking points to rebut project opponents and convince undecided voters that have wound up in Front Porch Forum and Facebook posts.
The PAC raised more than $21,500 in a three-week span last month and spent about $12,000 on marketing materials such as brochures and advertising, according to campaign finance forms filed last Friday.
The Coalition for a Livable City, which registered with the Secretary of State’s Office in late June, has raised about $10,000, according to a campaign finance filing report from mid-October and a GoFundMe page run by the group. It’s unclear how much money the group has spent because not everyone has filed their expenditures yet, treasurer Steve Goodkind said Monday. Cash has gone to ads and printing copies of fliers, he said.
“We’ll spend it all,” Goodkind told Seven Days. “No problem.”
What coalition members lack in cash they make up for in gumption. Members lobby on Facebook. They’ve papered houses with leaflets urging “no” votes. They’ve handed out flyers all summer and fall at the Burlington Farmers Market and outside City Market/Onion River Co-op. A Not Happy (About the Zoning Change) Hour on October 23 at Radio Bean on North Winooski Avenue featured music and doughnuts.
“We’re trying to get the hipster vote,” Genese Grill, one of the group’s most outspoken members, said with a laugh.
Tracy, who spoke at the Radio Bean event, was impressed by the Coalition for a Livable City’s organization and mission.
“There’s a level of discourse and involvement I haven’t seen in Burlington around an issue in some time,” he said.
Last Thursday, some 70 people crowded into a second-floor conference room at the BCA Center on Church Street for a panel discussion on the Burlington Town Center project and how the city can build in a way “that works for everyone.” Panelists, including Colburn and Bruce Seifer, a former longtime assistant director at the Community & Economic Development Office, described their perspectives. Some urged residents to vote “no.”
“We’re looking at the mall project as a case study,” said James Haslam, the executive director of Rights & Democracy, the group that hosted the event. “We’re not promoting a vote one way or the other. We did invite the city, but they didn’t come.”
That’s likely because Weinberger was down the street at a competing informational Pop-Up Beer Hall inside the Burlington Town Center. While attendees wandered through the empty, long-abandoned Gap store, drinking free beer, cider and wine, Weinberger exalted the project and urged all to vote “yes.” The three-hour session, which included a question-and-answer forum, drew more than 100 people, including Sinex and city councilors Knodell and Shannon. It was hosted by Together for Progress, a group created by the Burlington Business Association.
Backers know what Weinberger’s up against. The coalition — members of it, anyway — have foiled and needled Weinberger before. Grill and others vigorously protested a proposal to allow new housing in the South End Enterprise Zone, a section of Pine Street animated by numerous artist studios.
Weinberger eventually dropped his support of that change but admitted to being frustrated.
“What are we going to do about the fact that we have a real serious housing challenge?” he asked last year.
South End artists used satirical works to ridicule the administration’s housing proposal, building a cardboard “Miroville” along Pine Street. This time around, mocking postcards have surfaced accusing Weinberger and his supporters of “drinking the Kool-Aid” by backing the mall plan.
Pressing now for another project that would add housing stock, Weinberger has one more big chance to sway voters. He’s planned a “telephone town hall meeting” for November 6 — the Sunday before Election Day. Weinberger will dial up all the landline numbers in the city simultaneously, and residents can opt to participate as if they were on a giant conference call.
It’s unclear if the mayor’s message is connecting. Even after his community discussion at Nunyuns last month, several attendees said they still haven’t made up their minds.
Jean Waltz, an art teacher at Rock Point School, said she’s leery of major projects after the Moran Plant redevelopment and the Champlain Parkway both stalled. She intends to do more research before casting her vote.
“How come the mall isn’t a super-success the way it is right now?” Waltz asked, noting there’s no guarantee that a new, improved version will be “this amazing thing that generates all these tax dollars.”
She added, “Just because you build it doesn’t mean they’re gonna come.”
Correction, November 2, 2016: A previous version of this story incorrectly said that lobbying efforts by the Coalition for a Livable City led to an increase in affordable housing units at the proposed development.
Related Stories
This article appears in Nov 2-8, 2016.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Thanks for the article. Sasha! But I need to correct a few things: the Coalition has had NO SUCCESS IN MAKING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROFILE in the zoning ordinance better. It is still as bad as it ever was, despite attempts by councilors Tracy and Colburn to encourage their fellow councilors to raise the measly percentage of 20%, the minimum amount of IZ required for a 65 foot development (for a 175 foot one!), by a mere 5%. Affordable housing advocates have had no success in making the council put back the public benefits mechanism that works everywhere else in the city to get more public benefits like affordable or senior housing in exchange for height and mass increases. The mayor and his supporters are counting on trickle down economics to help the “poor and disenfranchised” they claim to champion. In fact, this overlay district zoning is an assault on inclusionary zoning and the additional benefits system designed to give us leverage with developers to get more. The 54 so-called affordable units in this development are going for about 1000 a month for a 1-bedroom. How this, along with the rising costs of rent all over town due to this high end commercial and residential real estate boondoggle, is going to help the poor, the homeless, the refugees (they actually claim it will) is beyond me. Further, any design “improvements” Sinex may be offering at the last minute here are entirely irrelevant to the overlay district we will be voting on on Nov. 8th. Vote No on 3 and 4. And visit our website: http:www.CLCburlington.org for more details.
$1000 1 BR apartments is not what I call affordable. This road leads to a rich gated city.
In the spring primary, over 90% of Burlington residents voted for a democratic socialist for President. Therefore, why would we support a project that benefits a Wall Street multi-millionaire at the expense of the 99%?
This shows the contempt for democracy by the S inex-Weinberger-City Council cabal
Vote NO on ballot items #3 and #4
Clcburlington.org
When is the last time…or first…that you ever heard of a mayor having to form a PAC to raise money to lobby to support a zoning change? How about NEVER! This shows how incredibly bizarre this is. And how Weinberger will apparently do anything to cater to his development friends.
When is the last time…or first…that you ever saw VNRC or CLF lobby to support a zoning change in Burlington? And to mainly just raising building heights from 10-stories to 14-stories? How about NEVER! And just why would VNRC and CLF even want to get involved with messy Burlington politics in the first place? Especially when even Progressive Councilors and many environmentalists…and quite a few of their own members…don’t support the change? This is also incredibly bizarre.
It reeks of behind-the-scenes intense private lobbying by Noelle MacKay, Miro’s new CEDO Director. She used to work for Smartgrowth VT years ago, which merged with VNRC about 10 years back. She clearly twisted the arm of her former friends to help push this through on Miro’s behalf. But Noelle abandoned her Smartgrowth and environmental roots years ago when she became a Shumlin appointee to head the State’s housing and economic development office back in 2010.
While not corruption in legal terms, they sure are strong-arm tactics. Burlington politics at their absolute worst.
I’d definitely vote NO on ballot items #3 and #4
The constant confusion between a precedent-setting zoning change (that did not come from public process) and a mall redevelopment has been a challenge throughout this debate. A vote NO on item #3 does not mean you are against a mall redevelopment in general, nor does it mean you are against the Sinex project per se. It does signal opposition to a massive increase in height and mass of buildings in a nearly 2 square block area of the city known as the “overlay district”. The administration is misleading the voters of Burlington by using the mall redevelopment to promote a zoning change. This zoning change will allow other tall buildings in addition to the Burlington Town Center. The primary reason I am against item #3 is that 1. I believe we should follow Plan BTV which does not support taller buildings and 2. A human-scale city is a more livable city. Better for people and the environment. Density is better achieved with mid-rise buildings. Item #4 gives public money to a developer for infrastructure that will make his project more profitable. Vote NO on #4.
Mr. Weinberger and the rest of the Sinex sales force will say anything to sell this scheme: vibrant, affordable, 1300 jobs, 190 million in economic activity each year, no cost to taxpayers. Sure.
And by the way, taxpayers will pay 22 million for the street work and the developer was allowed to write his own zoning regs. Red flags anyone?
An honest development project does not unfold like this. What we see is a slick sales pitch for a breach of public trust.
And by the way again, the so-called zoning “update” is a major change more than doubling the by right building height limits. It is not a routine ballot item. The gang of eight tried to slip it by. It’s only on the ballot because of grass roots citizen action. Vote NO on 3 and 4.
I’m a little surprised no one has argued for the YES votes in these comments – maybe they are too busy cooking spaghetti. I think it’s pretty revealing that the City and the Mayor have put so much time and money into supporting this project. They appear to have no confidence it will pass without their spaghetti, their attendance at each public meeting (where, when possible, they leave before CLC responds), and their cheery signs by the roadsides. I look out my window at the Free Press building, and at the church steeple on St. Paul Street. I picture the gigantic project towering somewhere between 50 or 90 feet taller. I just saw a bird fly by at that height…please vote, everyone – do the right thing. Progress is important, but this project has been sold and oversold. Thank you.
I’ll speak for the yes while I stir my pasta sauce. This project adds 55 units of workforce housing which Burlington NEEDS. What we NEED is housing for working people. Rents are not $1000, they are adjusted to be affordable for someone making 65% of the median income. That’s about $38k for a single person. Rent will be no more than 30% of income.
We also need office workers back downtown. Our winter and mid week traffic in local businesses is down.
Finally we need our streets and neighborhoods back.
A yes vote offers this and much more. That is why these orgs and more than 200 downtown businesses and thousands of citizens support a YES vote.
Mayor Miro Weinberger * City Council President Jane Knodell * City Councilors Chip Mason, Dave Hartnett, Joan Shannon, Karen Paul, Sara Giannoni, Tom Ayres, Adam Roof * Former Mayor Peter Clavelle * Former Governor Howard Dean * Former City Councilor Vince Brennan * Bonnie Acker * John Davis * Kyle Dodson * Emily Lee * AARP Vermont * Burlington Business Association * Burlington Fire Fighters Association Local 3044 * Champlain College * Champlain Housing Trust * Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission * Conservation Law Foundation * Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS) * Housing Vermont * International Brotherhood of Electric Workers Local 300 * Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce * Local Motion * Select Design * Seventh Generation * TruexCullins Vermont Architecture and Interior Design * UA Local 693 Plumbers and Pipefitters * United Way of Northwest Vermont * University of Vermont * UVM Medical Center * Vermont Interfaith Alliance * Vermont Natural Resource Council * Vermont Energy Investment Corporation
How about we skip the conspiracy theories and stick to the issues.
Find out more: https://m.facebook.com/PartnershipForBurli…
Thanks to Seven Days for their coverage of this crucial set of ballot items. Expecially as VPR seems to have ignored their responsibility to present a full and balanced presentation of these items. But I’d bring your attention, Sasha, to one item. You quote the mayor saying last year: “”What are we going to do about the fact that we have a real serious housing challenge?” Mayor Weinberger has in fact addressed the housing issue. His administration has abetted the destruction of about 200 owner occupied and modestly priced homes surrounding the City-owned airport. Why this destruction? Because the mayor has placed his chips–and our own–on making room for the military industrial complex which needs to base their problematic F-35 and current F-16 offensive war planes somewhere. The mayor feels that “somewhere” should be in the most densely populated county in the state. How’s that for being a champion of more and affordable housing?
To directorbba: can you say more about 55 “workforce housing” units? I noticed this term on a recent promo postcard and was surprised. It was my understanding that there were 55 “affordable” units. I believe these terms refer to two different sets of housing – affordable housing is typically for the most needy and may involve subsidies. Workforce housing is for those who may not qualify for affordable housing, and also can’t afford market rate. What is being provided – affordable or workforce? This may make a big difference to housing advocates who have supported the project based on 55 affordable units.
Personally, I think 80 college units, 50% more units that what is being provided for the most needy Vermonters seems like a very indirect way to solve the city’s housing problem. Plan BTV suggests the colleges provide their own housing. Think of what a better project this would be if those units were affordable. It’s hard to call this project a win for housing with those numbers. Furthermore, the rest of the units will be market rate, which is quite high. It’s going to be tough for seniors, young professionals and downtown workers (the groups targeted for support in the Plan BTV mall redevelopment section) to afford these units.
Lastly, all housing discussions should incorporate recent numbers such as a rising vacancy rate – now around 2.5% and an accounting of how many units have been built in the last year and are already on the books for Cambrian Rise and Grove Street.
I’ve already voted “Yes” on Ballot Items 3 & 4, and I encourage all Burlingtonians to do the same.
The nearly 250 new bedrooms the Burlington Town Center redevelopment (which Ballot Items 3 & 4 support) would create downtown directly addresses a need we all articulated in our PlanBTV Downtown document when we called for more mixed-use (i.e., including housing) development downtown.
But more importantly, there’s an absolutely crushing need for more housing in Burlington, with way too much demand chasing way too little supply. The result: spiraling housing prices, and people at the lower end of the economic spectrum being pushed further away.
But don’t take my word for it. Listen to supporters like the Progressive president of the City Council, Jane Knodell. Listen to the Champlain Housing Trust. Heck, listen to COTS executive director Rita Markley, who recently told WPTZ, “”For those who say the (housing) markets easing up, that vacancy rates are better, that’s not true.” (http://www.mynbc5.com/article/btv-mall-red…)
Ballot Items 3 & 4, and the Burlington Town Center redevelopment that they support, aren’t in themselves magic bullets for fixing all our city’s problems. But they go a long way toward helping, and the additional economic benefits, not to mention getting Pine St. and St. Paul St. re-connected (also, I believe, a PlanBTV goal we all articulated), are welcome benefits to all Burlingtonians.
Thank you Charles S. for your comment. The mayor asks, apparently with a straight face, “What are we going to do about the fact that we have a real serious housing challenge?” at the same time that he supports the destruction of affordable single-family homes and entire neighborhoods in Winooski & South Burlington so his prized F-35 fighter jet can be based in the most densely populated area in Vermont.
These organizations supporting the Tall Mall like Champlain Housing Trust and COTS pretend to care about affordable housing and homelessness but haven’t lifted a finger to protect the 12,000 plus people in an estimated 3,000 plus homes and apartments under threat from the F-35 basing. Other groups supporting the Tall Mall like Conservation Law Foundation and VNRC pretend to care about global warming and then embrace the F-35 fighter jet, in spite of emissions so significant the Air Force anticipates increased Clean Air Act violations from its basing in Utah. Their silence on the F-35 basing is deafening and lays bare their hypocrisy in supporting the Tall Mall.
We get it, protecting existing homes and citizens does not help Weinberger’s 1% real estate developer cronies profit. But let’s stop pretending this is about improving Burlington and admit it is all about further enriching the already wealthy.