Compost Question

In the last few issues of Seven Days, I was struck by a full-page ad from Chittenden Solid Waste District, a truly good organization, with a message about putting the wrong items into the landfill, namely organic material like fruits and vegetables, noting that they release significant amounts of carbon dioxide when they decompose. It is the right thing to do: to compost your food waste and keep it out of the landfill. But as I understand this, it’s going to release just the same amount of carbon composting as it would rotting in the landfill.

It’s good to know that carbon pollution is released when these things decompose, but what can anyone do about it? You can’t keep it out of the environment, can you?

Fuller Picture

[Re Life Story: “Robert Fuller Was ‘the Godfather of Chef-Restaurant Owners,’” March 24]: I didn’t know Robert Fuller, but after reading your story of his life I now feel like I did. Food writer Melissa Pasanen did a great job.   

Small Victory

Chelsea Edgar’s story made my day — my week [“A Hater’s Guide to Small Plates: Small Plates Are Everywhere. The Joke Is on Us,” March 18]. Her writing is funny, clever and clear. A delicious bright spot in so much that is heavy. Her critique, that small plates are the cuisine of a society that has given up on wanting more, is pitch-perfect and a call for us to dream again.

Act 181 Is a ‘Reckoning’

Vermont is facing a reckoning on Act 181, and the recent Seven Days reporting captured the moment clearly [“After Protest, Vermont Senate Postpones Some Act 250 Reforms,” online, March 27; “Rural Vermonters Decry Act 250 Reforms,” March 24]. When hundreds of rural Vermonters showed up in Montpelier, the Senate paused implementation of the Tier 3 rules because it had to — not because the process was working as intended.

The truth is simple: The Tier 3 framework was an ideological overreach. It was advanced by outside interests, drafted before the maps existed and pushed forward without a clear understanding of how it would affect rural landowners. Vermonters deserve better than rules written first and explained later.

We have a housing crisis, the most expensive health care in the country and shrinking classrooms. Yet none of those urgent challenges have moved Vermonters like the sense that Montpelier stopped listening. Partisanship is a luxury Vermonters cannot afford, and the last few weeks have shown how quickly ideological rigidity can erode trust.

Democrats should take this moment seriously. The partisan fault lines around Act 181 are real, and they will shape the November elections. But this is also an opportunity — to return to common sense, to lived reality over advocacy-group pressure, and to lead from shared unity and common ground.

Vermonters are asking for leaders who listen before they legislate. That’s how we build a Vermont where working families can breathe again.

Baby Bonds Versus Trump Accounts

Our kids enter the world on unequal footing, especially those born into poverty. I believe Vermont’s Baby Bonds can help level that path. However, a recent KidsVT article frames Trump Accounts and Baby Bonds as similar [“Investing in Futures: Trump Accounts and Baby Bonds Give Kids Golden Nest Eggs,” March 10]. They are not — not in design or impact.

Trump accounts are available to all families, including those who can add money on top of the government’s initial $1,000. The article Seven Days cites shows a $1,000 contribution could grow to more than $22,000 by age 18 — but only if families contribute an additional $25 every month from birth. Without those contributions, the same account would grow to only $6,565 (based on a 10.5 percent annual return). A family who deposits the maximum $5,000 a year could see balances exceeding $150,000. The wealth gap just got bigger! 

In contrast, Vermont Baby Bonds are designed to reduce inequality by building wealth for families living in poverty. In January, the pilot will fund trust accounts for every child born under Medicaid in the Northeast Kingdom. With a $3,200 state contribution, these accounts are estimated to grow to $11,500 at age 18 and $24,500 by age 30 (based on 7 percent annual return). Funds can be used only for education, Vermont homeownership or business investment, and retirement. 

Calling them equivalent conceals what actually matters: who they are built to serve. Vermont Baby Bonds are built for the kids who need them most, and that is not a small distinction. It’s the whole point.

How to Build, Burlington

Our city government is facing a budget shortfall in the millions, but it feels like many of the pitched ideas reported in [“Burlington’s Leaders Need to Dig Out of a Budget Hole. But How?,” April 1] might just exacerbate our problems. Increasing Burlington’s taxes may make existing affordability issues even worse, while a blanket 5 to 10 percent cut to all departments puts a show of equality over financial efficacy. In my opinion, our city government should be aiming to increase its taxpaying population, not the tax rate, while applying targeted cuts to less critical departments and projects until we reach a budgetary surplus.

Burlington’s population has been plateauing since the pandemic spike. Housing supply has not kept up with demand, so new residents are competing over an ever-dwindling market as the vacancy rate hovers around 1 to 2 percent. Public investments can be a good way to create affordable housing, but a city budget shortfall makes such projects nonviable.

Private developers do not require public funds, contribute to the budget through new property taxes and reduce rents through vacancy chains created by the new supply (even luxury apartments). High prices and low supply would normally be a developer’s dream, but our restrictive zoning laws and bureaucratic red tape have made new construction unnecessarily difficult.

It’s time to build the Burlington we need by up-zoning for higher-density buildings and mixed-use neighborhoods while relaxing lot size requirements. This also would have the added benefits of making our city more walkable, supporting local businesses and increasing home values.

‘Concierge’ Isn’t a Luxury

There’s a truth hiding beneath every story about independent primary care practices: Health insurers simply don’t pay enough for providers to deliver quality care [“Some Vermont Doctors Embrace the New ‘Direct Primary Care’ Model,” April 1]. The doctors profiled in your article have found one way out of that trap, and concierge care offers a compelling alternative. However, the assumption that concierge medicine is only for the wealthy deserves a closer look.

Yes, many concierge practices charge fees that put them out of reach for most Vermonters. But expensive fees are not what make a practice concierge. It simply means a membership fee that works alongside a patient’s insurance. One Medical, a national primary care network, offers concierge medicine at accessible rates. So does Mint Health, the practice I founded in Waterbury, where memberships start at $35 per month per person.

The model is simple: A modest membership fee covers what insurance won’t reimburse — same-day or next-day access, after-hours communication, and the time it takes to truly know a patient. Members keep their insurance for covered services like physicals and problem visits. It’s not a replacement for insurance; it’s what makes independent primary care financially sustainable.

Concierge medicine, done right, isn’t a luxury. It’s a practical path to the kind of care every Vermonter deserves.

Do More Math

[“We’ve Got Receipts: Dining Out in Vermont Has Gotten More Expensive. Two Decades of Restaurant Tabs Prove It, “ April 1] is a good read, but it doesn’t tell me anything at all that I don’t already know. Prices are higher than they were 20 years ago. Yup! That is not news! My mother complained that bread was too expensive at 75 cents a loaf, because she remembered bread for 5 cents. I paid 25 cents for a gallon of gas in 1967. We all know that it’s more than that now. I bought a house in Underhill in 1976 for $25,000. Every person alive already knows that things used to cost less money, but to me, the real question is: “How do the last 20 years compare with the 20 years before that?” That is something I could learn from an article about rising prices. Was the increase over the last 20 years a bigger increase than the 20 years before that? Or, for that matter, any other 20-year period? Or was it maybe the same or even less? Also: The value of an article about prices is useless unless you also talk about the change in wages. What are you earning now compared to 20 years ago? Think back. It was probably a whole lot less than it is now. 

Corrections

Last week’s cover story, “Tax Burdened,” misidentified changes made by a 2024 law that modified Vermont’s tax sale process. The law gave delinquent taxpayers more time to make good on their taxes only during the presale period.

In “Trailside Baking Co-Owner Comes Home to Open in St. Albans,” baker Beth Minor’s time at Middlesex’s Red Hen Baking was characterized incorrectly: She shadowed several shifts.

This article appears in April 15 • 2026.

Got something to say?

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