Burlington Progressive David Zuckerman has decided not to seek reelection to the Vermont House of Representatives this fall.
A former House member — Progressive Chris Pearson — has decided to run for the seat and will kick off his campaign Friday.
Zuckerman is part of a two-seat Burlington district covering the neighborhoods in and around the University of Vermont. The other seat is held by Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington), who bested Pearson in 2008 in a spirited four-way race between two Democrats and two Progressives.
Zuckerman, an organic farmer who has purchased farmland in Hinesburg but still resides in Burlington, said the demands of expanding his organic farm clinched his decision.
“It’s the reality of life — the business is taking up a lot of time and energy right now, which is what happens when you take on a half-million dollars in debt,” said Zuckerman, who runs Full Moon Farm with his wife Rachel Nevitt. The pair also has a 4-year-old daughter, and Zuckerman said a desire to spend more time with her also played into his decision.
Zuckerman said he had given up the idea of running for the House months ago, and has considered a run for lieutenant governor and Chittenden County senate.
“I’ve served now for 14 years, and it’s time to take a break,” said Zuckerman. “I may re-engage in a few years, but for now I’m going to step back.”
Earlier this year, Zuckerman admitted to putting in for mileage allowances even though he carpooled to Montpelier. That drew a lot of ire from constituents, but the lead lawyer for the legislature said it’s perfectly legit.
Zuckerman secured the most votes in the 2008 election with 2316, while Ram had 2163. Pearson followed in third with 1494 votes, while Democrat Phillip Ortego had 781 votes.
“As many of you remember, I lost my election in 2008. It was a painful process. But 2010 brings a new opportunity, and my friend David Zuckerman’s retirement from the House creates a great chance for me to go back,” Pearson said in an email inviting supporters to attend his campaign launch Friday on the UVM campus.
He told Seven Days that he’s been thinking about a return to Montpelier for months, but began reaching out to supporters in earnest after the New Year.
“I really miss it, and I was able to accomplish quite a bit in my two years there, and it sort of was just getting started,” Pearson said. “I wanted to give it a lot of thought, and I would like to continue doing [that], and a voice like mine provides an awful lot in the process.”
In his first term, Pearson served as leader of the six-person Progressive Party caucus. During his single term, he called for funding schools by income taxes rather than property taxes. He also introduced legislation to create a “do not mail” registry akin to the state’s Do Not Call registry. The measure was designed to keep people from receiving unwanted junk mail.
Pearson said that in his day job, working for National Popular Vote, he has seen how one person can make a difference in a small legislature.
Besides Pearson, the Progressive Party is likely to run a second candidate in the race, said Morgan Daybell, the party’s executive director.
This article appears in Apr 21-27, 2010.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Since I’m the only one who “cleared anything up,” your comment was only directed at me, whether you intended for it to be or not. Also, as far as I can tell Sean didn’t make any comments about your ambitions. I’d invite you (for the fourth time) to go back and read the thread, but it’s clear that you’re unwilling to do that at this point, so I won’t bother.”you still brought me and my actions into it.” You’re right, I did. As I’ve said several times now, it was an off-the-cuff joking comment based on your actual action. But if you’re upset about the fact that interminable discussion about that remark has turned this thread into the top Google Blog search result for your name, you should be pissed at the guy in the mirror, because it’s sure not my doing. If you hadn’t gone on a rant about how I’m an angry, depressed, garbage-flinging grudge holder because I made a little crack, that comment would barely have been noticed.”given how unclear people are as to whether they are joking or not” – I don’t think there’s a single comment on this thread whose humourous intent, or lack thereof, is unclear. Haik’s questions certainly aren’t a joke. Surely Pearson knows that there are people in his district who will read this thread that he will never speak to. Refusing to answer a direct question here is like standing up in front of a group of people with a microphone, having someone ask a question, turning the microphone off and walking out of the room. Doesn’t look good.
Jimmy-I responded to both you and Sean. I did not distinguish which with each sentence…I am sorry that you interpreted that as being a comment at you. But it is not all about you. Time I think the reading comprehension is on you. Either way…no big deal. As for the dig at “fake” jimmy or otherwise, you still brought me and my actions into it. So whether it was meant as a dig at me or not, it had that in it. Again…sorry I miss-interpreted it. But in the future if you are more clear or you have an issue with someone else, then make the comment solely about them. Its not that I thought you thought I would kick someone out who I do not even know. Thats not the point.I can not speak for Pearson, but given how unclear people are as to whether they are joking or not, I assume he is spending his time actually talking to people (who actually live in the district) face to face rather than engaging (as I foolishly do sometimes) in such back and forth.
For the record, I’m the only one who cleared anything up. I don’t think anyone else with critical comments was joking, but I can’t speak for them. I’m just using basic common sense in reading their comments. Speaking of which…When I said “there goes Fake Jimmy again, sucking up so he won’t get kicked out of Zuckerman’s CSA like Ed Adrian did,” you seriously thought I was suggesting that an anonymous simpleton was kissing your ass so he wouldn’t (also) get thrown out of your CSA? Really? I have to tell you multiple times that I was cracking wise before you get that? Pretty astonishing.”your other comment about my ambitions” – I made no comment about your ambitions. Your inability/unwillingness to do something as simple as going back to see who said what – in three separate instances now – is seriously disturbing.Finally, let it be noted – a week and a half since Haik’s highly relevant questions, and no response from Pearson. Has he withdrawn from the race?
ahhh. I get it now. Thank you both for clearing it up. A problem with blogs and email is that it is very difficult to read tone. I will try to understand your humor better in the future.Both charges/jokes, are very personal in nature. I am sorry I missinterpreted them.Considering I am leaving elected office, I am going to assume your other comment about my ambitions is also a joke. Thank you…I am laughing now. Silly me.
Thin skin indeed. A terrible trait for an ambitious politician.
“I just don’t understand why it was relevant at all to what I have done in making and supporting policy.”If you read the comment carefully, or my followups, you would know I was making a joke. It wasn’t intended to bother you personally, but I see that it has, and all I can say is toughen up. The basis of the joke was something you did that I found funny. You admit that you did it. I still think it’s funny. Too bad, so sad.Re: “what you’ve done,” as I’ve said I know other former House and Senate members and they’re tapped in enough to know I have no interest in discussing the minutiae of their legislative history with them; why you think I would want to do the same with someone I don’t know, I have no idea.Where I think you fail to see the irony in your pleas to debate tangents based on dashed-off jokes is that your buddy Pearson has refused to answer direct questions from potential constituents in a thread about his candidacy. That does not send a particularly great message about how he’ll communicate on the off chance he actually wins the seat he’s vying for.
My point was more that you throw stones at me or others about something that you knew little about. You are right…you did not indicate there were others. I just don’t understand why it was relevant at all to what I have done in making and supporting policy.I think there are plenty of things that you disagree with me on (like Dale, but he discusses issues), why not stick with the issue differences instead of going on about things that are unrelated to what I have done, accomplished, failed at etc. in holding office.I find that there are some bloggers who choose to simply make digs (and you are right…I do take the hits too personally). When discourse about issues is what will take the state forward (in whatever direction the majority wants to go).