New rules allowing all-terrain vehicles on some state lands aren’t the only ones the Douglas administration has in the works that are raising eyebrows.
Vermont’s Division of Historic Preservation will soon launch a series of public meetings around the state to gather input on changes to rules governing the treatment of potential archaeological sites when a development is reviewed under Act 250, the state’s land use law.
The first hearing is Tuesday night in Williston from 5-6:30 p.m. in the police station’s community room. Additional hearings will be held this month in Rutland (June 25) and St. Johnsbury (June 30), and next month in Rockingham (July 14).
Some critics of the changes fear the Douglas administration is throwing a bone to the development community, a group that has provided Douglas with thousands of dollars in campaign cash over the years. In addition, two of Douglas’ top officials — Commerce Secretary Kevin Dorn and Deputy Commissioner for Housing Tayt Brooks — once worked for the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Northern Vermont.
One archaeological expert said the changes could dramatically alter how archaeology is conducted in Vermont, potentially leaving hundreds of sites, and thousands of years of history, buried forever.
This article appears in Jun 17-23, 2009.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I addition to Dr. Crock’s response to the proposed changes concerning archaeological investigations and ACT 250, I would like to add that archaeological sites, known and unknown, are NON-RENEWABLE resources that belong to all Vermonters. Once gone, forever gone. In some instances, other valuable resources such as wildlife, wetlands, existing buildings, among others, can be created elsewhere, moved, and most importantly, be identified as they are usually in plain site. Out-of-site, out-of-mind, should not be used as a criteria for protection for any of our natural and cultural resources. Although, understandably, the protection and preservation of ALL of our resources does come with a cost, their value only adds to our sense of place, to what it is to live in such a conscientious state. In saying this, I fully support any sufficient finance plan to assure our further appreciation of what is all around us, in and out of plain site.
I read with the interest the article on the Lamoille archeology dig in the Free Press earlier in the week and the editorial following it. Neither of these articles indicated that ACT 250 may be altered to significantly limit the very opportunity of acquiring historical knowledge. ACT 250, in my opinion, was enacted with foresight. Amongst its goals is the prevention of environmental and historic site destruction by “development”. In an era when we supposedley recognize the value of natural resources as well as the knowledge that potential irreplaceable artifacts provide, it seems incongruous to facilitate their loss despite a poor economy. If a dollar value is difficult to determine for (particularly without foresight) acquiring knowledge, doesn’t that tell us that perhaps we need to consider it priceless?
“or a potentially significant property or resource”In whose opinion is a property or resource “potentially significant”? That of somebody who doesn’t like the proposed development for selfish reasons (i.e., nimby-ism)? So I can cause a development to come to a grinding halt by telling the ACT 250 people that I think the proposal for low-income housing down the street will have an impact on a “potentially significant property or resource”? And what does “potentially” significant mean? And in whose opinion? Does the abandoned, 1950’s era gas station down the street from the much-needed low-income housing development constitute a “potentially significant property or resource” because I say so? Because I pretend to be an enthusiastic fan of 1950’s commercial architecture?And so the low-income housing project comes to a halt, even if only for the time it takes everybody to figure out that I am a selfish nimbyist making up excuses to oppose a much needed project?Substitute any of the following for the low-income housing project mentioned above: elderly housing, wind turbine, solar panel array, composting operation, farm, etc., etc.Under Act 250 as currently constructed, if I want to I can stop any project, at least temporarily, no matter how valuable the project and no matter how flimsy, selfish, or ridiculous my objections are.Maybe this is one reason why the economy in Vermont sucks?