‘Immigration Is an Opportunity’

[Re “‘We Don’t Have New Families’: Schools and Employers Are Feeling the Impact of Trump’s Crackdown on Refugee Resettlement,” April 22]: A recent report found that immigration to Vermont has slowed to a trickle under the Trump administration. That should alarm all of us.

As Vermont’s population grows older and our workforce shrinks, immigration is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.

New Americans already play an essential role in Vermont’s economy. They build houses, grow food and deliver health care. They contribute nearly $100 million in state and local taxes and over a billion in spending power. Their families tend to be younger and larger than the average U.S. household.

It’s deeply discouraging to see arrivals drop from hundreds annually to just a handful — both from reckless immigration policies and because it’s becoming too expensive for new Americans to live here.

The State Treasurer’s Office has worked to meet this moment. We recently called for the creation of a State Office of New Americans to help immigrants lay roots in Vermont. This would strengthen our workforce, enrich communities with new perspectives and grow our tax base to offset rising costs.

We’re also focused on building a Vermont that new arrivals can afford to call home. We’ve invested in more than 1,700 new housing units and recently brought forward a plan to save Vermonters millions on prescription drugs.

In Vermont, we look after our neighbors. We welcome those seeking a better life. By staying true to our values and making it more affordable to live here, we’ll achieve a brighter future for all Vermonters, old and new.

Leadership Vacuum?

It is evident that our city has undergone significant negative changes [“Ouster of Public Safety Chair Divides Burlington Council,” April 23, online]. The multitude of opinions and perspectives can be overwhelming. Attending city council meetings can be intriguing, but the prevailing distrust and animosity toward the mayor and council members must be challenging. We face numerous issues, including policing, homelessness and protests, yet no one seems to take responsibility or offer evidence-based solutions. While many community members could run for office, it is crucial to consider the responsibilities that come with leadership. Every elected official has made promises and undergone changes; the reality often differs from expectations.

Perhaps it is time to reassess our priorities, focusing on local needs such as homelessness, rather than external conflicts. Community activism should be grounded in common sense and practicality.

Name-Calling Divides Us

[Re “Ouster of Public Safety Chair Divides Burlington Council,” April 23, online]: When the Democratic majority on the Burlington City Council decides to change the chair of a committee, the Progressives respond with a charge of racism and sexism.

The Progs warned council President Ben Traverse (D-Ward 5) that this is a “critical and sensitive” moment for public safety and further alleged that removing Public Safety Committee chair Melo Grant, a fellow Prog, was a “clear example of racism and sexism.”

Why the need to frame any disagreement with another party as being racist or sexist? Why can it not be something as simple as a difference of ideology toward a policy? Is it because, if you do not agree with me, you must have an ulterior motive?

‘Pods’ Have Failed

[Re “Pod Fellows: Three Years After Opening, Burlington’s Oft-Debated Homeless Shelter Is at a Crossroads,” April 15]: If I am understanding this correctly, the residents of Burlington’s “pod” community are there, in part, because they cannot abide by the rules required in a high-barrier shelter. There are minimal rules in the pods. They can be active drugs users but cannot be caught using drugs in their private pods. Over the past three and a half years, only 20 of the residents have obtained permanent housing. (Does this number include the three under eviction and the one who overdosed at McKenzie House Apartments?)

If my understanding is correct, can someone explain how these people can possibly be expected to succeed in a place like McKenzie House, where there are rules and implicit social norms expected of all residents? Can no one see that this is a setup for everyone involved?

As a resident of McKenzie House, I watched helplessly as the former pod resident rapidly deteriorated over the five months he lived here, until his eventual overdose and death! During that time, he allowed his apartment to become a drug den, creating a dangerous and chaotic environment: His “friends” urinated in our laundry room, stole rent checks, stole a change machine. Yelling, fighting and drug dealing were nightly occurrences.

We were all set up for failure by a system that had no possibility of success! Now they want to extend the pods for one more year? Please tell me how this makes any rational sense!

‘Are You Kidding?’

[Re Feedback: “Contradictory Stories,” May 13]: Are you kidding us, Miro Weinberger? “Burlington is not exempt from basic economics.” Wow! Who knew?

How disappointing that someone who was in the position to actually change things in this city is complaining that things have not improved. You had your chance and absolutely handicapped the city. You should apologize to Burlington Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak.

Mismanagement of COVID-19 relief funds, out-of-touch and destructive police policies, ignorance to failing infrastructure, and the enabling of large property managers. You, Miro Weinberger, are the reason Burlington is where it is! Did you have AI write your letter to the editor?

Nectar’s is closed, and the Handys are selling buildings at egregious prices for tax relief. No one is saying there isn’t a housing problem. We want progress, not another debate. 

Hyperbole Erodes Trust

I am a little concerned about a recent “From the Publisher” column [“Free Press, Free People,” May 6]. SLAPP lawsuits are shameful tools the powerful use to control the vocal — and it would be interesting to learn more details about the incidents you referred to. In order for the vocal to cultivate power, though, they must cultivate trust. A SLAPP lawsuit is not “a falling bomb.”

A falling bomb is what the United States government has delivered to Somalia 62 times since the beginning of 2026.

A falling bomb is what the Israeli government has delivered to Lebanon over 500 times since the beginning of the “ceasefire.”

When you compare a SLAPP lawsuit to a falling bomb, it demonstrates a disconnect that makes it harder for people to get behind your excellent local news organization. Let’s bring people together through accuracy, compassion and understanding, not hyperbole.

Housing Study Is Flawed

[Re Nest: “The Building Dilemma: A UVM Study Says Constructing More Homes in Burlington Won’t Bring Down Costs — as Investors and Buyers With Cash Compete for What’s Built,” April 29]: All too often, fatally flawed studies get uncritical coverage in the media. That’s unfortunately the case with “It’s Not About Supply” by Joe Ament and Chris McElroy.

This non-peer-reviewed study suffers from several flaws that undermine its conclusions. The most significant is that they do not control for the year when single-family home sales in their dataset happen, nor do they adjust these figures for inflation or national sale price trends. As a result, they mistakenly find that investor purchases correlate with higher prices simply because there have been more investor purchases in recent years when sale prices have been higher. This same mistake explains why they find, nonsensically, that higher mortgage interest rates stimulate higher prices.

The paper claims to study the effects of housing supply, but it does not. Economists understand supply to mean productivity, or production cost per unit, holding quality constant. The authors use actual number of homes brought to market, which is jointly determined by supply and demand. Higher prices should encourage builders to produce more houses. So if there’s a correlation between prices and number of houses on the market, which way does the causality run? Economists have developed sophisticated techniques to assess causality, but the paper employs none of them.

I don’t want to be too harsh on early-career researchers, but since they are entering the public policy debate, it’s important for the public to know that this study has essentially no value.

Credit: Marc Nadel

‘Criticism Over Responsibility’

In “Promises Too Steep” [May 13], Hannah Bassett and Alison Novak gave us a thoughtful analysis of the dysfunctional relationship between the governor and the legislature. The two branches jointly responsible for governing have always had a difficult partnership. Today, that relationship has descended into outright mistrust and hostility. Both have dug in, with compromise seemingly impossible.

The desire by legislators to set good public policies and the opposition of the governor to consider raising taxes on the greatest beneficiaries of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts have led to a reliance on regressive taxation, cost shifting and underfunding. It’s a strategy that governors and legislative leaders have used for years to “balance” the state budget. The administration has not shown strong interest in the management changes and technology upgrades needed for greater efficiency and better outcomes. The legislature has repeatedly failed to take seriously the connection between good policy and effective implementation, choosing criticism over responsibility.

The problem of spending desires outstripping revenues has only gotten worse as one-time federal stimulus money has run out. And now Vermont faces even greater fiscal uncertainty as many state services face federal cuts.

As campaign season begins, incumbents and candidates must explain how they are going to meet what is likely an impending crisis. We need a return to progressive tax policies, responsible legislating and better management of taxpayer dollars. The alternative is greater suffering for our most vulnerable neighbors.

Good Political Primer

My spouse and I are recent transplants to Vermont from another state — Minnesota. We are still trying to learn a very different new state government structure and political landscape. I appreciated the information and perspectives offered in your cover story that described underfunded or unfunded mandates passed at the state level [“Promises Too Steep,” May 13].

My spouse and I chose to move to Vermont for many reasons, but one of the primary ones was the generally progressive and compassionate population living here, as reflected in the kinds of commitments outlined in your story. Vermont seems to embody a strong and healthy civic awareness and activism.

I am curious about and, thus, encourage Seven Days to do a companion story that outlines the other half of the equation, where state revenues come from and whether our tax structure is progressive and fair; whether it mirrors the kind of favor the wealthy and large corporations increasingly enjoy in the federal tax structure; or whether there are untapped opportunities to increase revenues without adding more burden to households that are struggling.

Thank you for providing interesting reading to help me learn more about the political scene in my new state.

View From the Selectboard

Hannah Bassett and Alison Novak’s reporting on Vermont’s chronically underfunded legislative mandates [“Promises Too Steep,” May 13] lands with particular force on the local side.

I chair the Pomfret Selectboard. Each session, the legislature piles new obligations onto our clerk, treasurer and other local officials — with no funding, little guidance and often no clear point of contact.

Sometimes help is offered and then withdrawn. Last year, the State Ethics Commission announced it could no longer support municipalities under the 2024 ethics law. Towns are now left to enforce statewide standards on their own.

Worthy goals don’t implement themselves.

I’ve encountered the same pattern as a candidate for state Senate. A financial disclosure form under the same ethics law got hot-potatoed between state agencies and wasn’t released on time.

The legislature’s fix is to suspend the non-filing penalty rather than adequately fund the office responsible for candidate transparency. Now voters will be left to wonder whether office seekers have a financial interest in their own election.

Your piece focuses on schools and state agencies, but the pattern reaches local government, too. Each half-baked mandate translates — inevitably — into higher property taxes, slower services or quiet noncompliance. All bad outcomes.

It’s easy to pass a law. Much harder to solve a problem. Vermont needs to treat implementation as part of the policy — not as someone else’s problem.

Corrections

The rue Ontario location of Montréal’s Le Nadia sports bar, mentioned in last week’s “New Up North” story about seasonal Québec destinations, closed shortly before our paper went to press.

The story headlined “Disc Drivers: With a Growing Number of World-Class Courses and Tournaments, Vermont Has Become a Disc Golf Mecca,” included an incorrect credit on the lead photo. The picture was taken by Jade Rogers.

Due to a production error, the crossword puzzle was a rerun. Apologies to our disappointed puzzlers.

This article appears in May 27 • 2026.