Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger unveiled on Tuesday a “unity campaign” of city councilors — along with former mayor Peter Clavelle — who are urging residents to vote “yes” on four city ballot items.
While ostensibly about all four local issues on the November 8 ballot, the news conference — held along Cherry Street in the shadow of the Burlington Town Center mall — focused mainly on the two most controversial items: a downtown zoning change that would allow the mall redevelopment to go forward and $21.8 million in tax-increment financing for street and infrastructure improvements around the proposed development.
Weinberger pitched the coalition as a broad representation of city districts and political parties. Among its members: Progressive Burlington City Council President Jane Knodell; Independent Councilor Dave Hartnett; Democratic Councilor Joan Shannon; and Clavelle, a former Progressive mayor whose most recent term ended in 2005.
Councilor Tom Ayres, a Democrat, isn’t officially a member of the group but showed up in support, he said.
Meanwhile, members of the outspoken Coalition for a Livable City, which is against the redevelopment plan, watched the sidewalk gathering and handed out literature urging passersby to vote “no” on the zoning change and TIF proposal.
The livable-city group has been a constant presence at city meetings and at other events speaking out against the $250 million redevelopment proposal, which includes mixed-use buildings of up to 14 stories tall. They ran a full-page advertisement in Seven Days against the proposals.
Weinberger and the councilors said they encourage debate about the issues but accused the group of misleading Queen City residents.
“Claims about the TIF diverting money from Burlington schools, that existing zoning would give you more affordable housing and that we would get a better development without this zoning change are factually incorrect,” Shannon said.
Clavelle, who served as mayor from 1989 to 1993 and again from 1995 until 2005, called the current mall a “dinosaur” and championed the redevelopment as an important chance to make over downtown.
“Jobs will be created, housing will be provided, the tax base will be expanded, and it will position Burlington to remain the cultural, the economic, the educational center of this region,” he said.
Also on this year’s ballot is an $8.4 million bond — which needs a simple majority to pass — to replace aging water pipes, along with a separate $27.5 million bond for other capital improvements, like street and sidewalk repairs. The latter bond needs two-thirds of the city’s residents to vote ‘yes’ to pass.
“Prior generations have been willing and able to make the sacrifice necessary to have strong public infrastructure,” Weinberger said. “And they have also at critical times in our history taken proactive steps to make sure the city stays strong economically, and relevant, going forward.”
All four councilors in the unity campaign were among the eight who voted to put the zoning change to the voters on November 8. The TIF proposal received only one “no” vote, from Councilor Max Tracy, a Progressive who is also against the zoning change.
The group is raising money through the Partnership for Burlington’s Future, a political action committee Weinberger created in 2012 to advocate for local ballot questions. With Election Day just a month away, the group plans in the coming days and weeks to hold town hall meetings with the mayor, house parties across the city and a “telephone town meeting” the Sunday before November 8 during which Weinberger will dial up all the landline numbers in the city simultaneously. Residents can opt to participate, as if they were on a giant conference call.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I nearly died laughing at the “broad spectrum” of this group. Where are the progressive counselors who are leery about this proposal? Where are the better known Republicans who are unlikely to join with Democrats for anything?
The bottom line is that these issues are now wild cards. Who knows how the people of Burlington will vote? After all, the powers that be certainly didn’t seem to listen to those who showed up at their hearings. They’ve climbed in bed with a developer who insisted on zoning changes that were inconsistent with the multiple planning agreements that led to Plan BTV. There has been no serious discussion how this project could have been accomplished within the existing zoning. Four above ground floors of parking could easily be put underground, dropping 14 stories to 10, and allowing current zoning to cover the construction.
Whining that this is good for Burlington with new jobs and housing doesn’t answer the question of requiring the developer to do those things within the zoning of the city. We could have all those things at 10 stories. No one has said not to build it at all. But please, for once, act responsibly and stand for what the people asked for over the years of planning and don’t throw it out the window when the first person with money comes along.
Even socialist Sanderista former mayor Peter Clavelle supports this project. When you’re fighting against even your Proggie friends, you’re totally out of touch.
The councilors and mayor have been accusing their own citizens of spreading false information, but they are the ones who have been spreading false information from day one, from their insistence that this zoning is in compliance with Plan BTV, to the Mayor’s repeated characterization of the leap from 65 feet to 175 feet by right as a “slight” increase, to David White’s continual misrepresentation of the current height allowance as 105 instead of 65 ft (it is only 105 with public benefits), to his more egregious misrepresentation of the views of the Planning Commissioners (commented upon in an official letter by Buffinton and Lee) and assertion that they approved the zoning change and its compliance with Plan BTV (not at all true!), to the assertions that this development will address affordability issues. One thing we agree on: Burlingtonians are discerning enough to distinguish false claims from true. See http://CLCburlington.org for the truth. Believe a politician or your neighbors?
“Know your ass…” should be required to use his/her real name, if not post a picture. What, afraid you;ll be outed?????
Let’s look at the school funding/TIF connection. Council Member Shannon is confused. TIF freezes the amount of local property tax money going to the municipality totally until the bond is repaid in perhaps 20 years. It sequesters 75 percent of any increase in property taxes that would otherwise go to education. This “increment” of increased assessed value is from both inflation and new construction. Thus impacts on city services, including schools, will increase while the money to pay for this impact must come from property taxpayers outside the TIF district. At the same time, the Board of Ed. tells us we are overdue in making $65 million in school repairs. Given the overdue street and water pipe repairs, we are running to simply catch up with neglected maintenance, not putting money into new projects such as enhanced waste water treatment and an electric trolley system. And faced with this, the Mayor wants to hand $22 million to a developer to build the streets internal to his project that he needs for office windows, store windows, apartment windows, street access? This is precedent making, sadly. Just say “no”.
Given our impending cascade of debt, can a sharp increase in property taxes be far behind?
@ Alsop: Please first address your complaint to all of the regular left wing posters who launch attacks on this site under anonymous names. I’ll be happy to list their pseudonyms. Not to mention the multitude of left wing posters who use only a first name. And not to mention all of the anonymous Bernie Bros who were allowed to post vicious hit-and-run attacks on Hillary and the Democrats on this site over the past year. Thanks.
Councilor Shannon touted the project “affordable housing” when a reporter noted the affordables come with a rent cap of $1,100 monthly for one bedroom and $1,200 for 2 bedroom–clearly not affordable (and about the median for the over 200 apartments available to rent in the City today). “Affordable” housing done by zoning and non-profits really does benefit the moderate income but not low income seniors and single parents or the homeless (trickle down does little for them either). “Deep subsidy” housing (down to $0 income) provided by Section 8 and public housing does get to those in severe needs–none in the Sinex Mall development. Suggested to Councilor Shannon political leaders like herself and the Mayor mislead our residents by speaking as the Mall “affordable” uinits when in reality they are “shallow subsidy” and totally unaffordable to most if not all with low incomes and the homeless. Tony Redington TonyRVT.blogspot.com
Fixing the mall…a given…That was the plan and we need it bad.
But when did ‘fixing the mall’ fall off the rails so bad? A scale that dwarfs all livability that we AND tourists love so much about Burlington?
Peter – please do not confuse the fixing problem with this proposed ‘solution’. Worse yet, diverting all our TIF money just to open the floodgates for generic skyscrapers…interesting, but shortsighted.
At the end of the day we only have one economic engine driving this state and by its nature Church St. Tourism (including the universities). Shopping in the shadows of high rise, out of state, second home, luxury condos as we waft in the smell of generic chains like FIVE GUY’s burgers at street level does not seem to be great fuel for that engine.
The ‘livability of Burlington’ battle has already been pretty much lost, (for the moment at least) …do we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Burlington politics at its best. Your city council is completely out to lunch.
Such as Green Mountain Boy, Ms. Alsop. I’m waiting to see your demand that he identify himself. Thanks.
Weinberger and co. have managed to package a behemoth height allowance in a zoning ordinance that has other aspects that aren’t bad, or even good in some cases. But the height is really bad and very off the mark from what people have expressed about height for years. Some say City Council nearly came to blows over the last height battle in 08-09 which resulted in our current zoning. 2013’s Plan BTV shows majority satisfaction with building heights as they are and recommends “human scale”. So where did this height come from? And why does it seem to keep going up? It was 160 feet but with the mechanicals and P&Z discretionary allowance, we’re looking at at least 175. Lately I think City staff saw an opportunity when Sinex came along. “Tell the people it’s 14 stories or you’ll walk!”. In any case, the height is wrong for Burlington. Vote NO on item 3. And we’ve gotten used to streets not being connected. Let’s use the TIF on something truly needed. Vote NO on item 4.
To the best of my knowledge, Green Mountain Boy doesn’t lie. Ass does. Regularly. He even believes there’s such a thing as Bernie Bros although everyone else realizes they were made up by Clinton operatives to hide the nastiness by Clinton Clones. “Oh, no, the sky is falling! They must be sexist if they don’t like Hillary” Hysteria that did them no good among the thousands of women who preferred Bernie to Hillary.
I’m not afraid to use my name, Mr. Ass. Are you?
Bernie Bros never existed, eh? They were created by Clinton, eh?
Vote NO on #3 and #4 if you think 14 stories and up to 185ft is too tall.. There is a Plan B: “Were the project to be scaled back, Sinex said HFF could recalibrate and continue to solicit fewer lenders and investors.” http://vtdigger.org/2016/07/30/burlington-…
HILLARY STOLE THE ELECTION. We NOW have entertainment either way. Watergate,MONICA,Arkanside,wall Street,HAITIAN Ritz Carlton,Donors,Donors,Donors, In fact time Warner (CNN)8th largest donor to HRC campaign. Or Trump. We really can’t lose! 🙂 Wow side note sorry.
Thanks Lea Terhune! It’s time we expose the fear mongering by the Mayor and some City Councilors. The city is not doomed if this project as currently proposed is shot down. It just says we need to go back to the table and make it right and in scale with Burlington. If the Mayor had been paying closer attention to what plan BTV participants, Planning Commissioners and clear-thinking City Councilors have said, he may have sought a more agreeable height to begin with. Sinex has a lot invested in the project so far, my sense it that he will work with the city to scale this thing down. Predictions of dire consequences are veiled attempts to make voters feel we are in an all or nothing situation which forces us to accept heights that are wrong for Burlington. That’s not accurate.