Montpelier, Vt. – At his weekly press conference Wednesday, Governor Phil Scott and Housing and Community Development Commissioner Alex Farrell emphasized the importance of passing legislation this session to address Vermont’s housing crisis.
Governor Phil Scott: Good afternoon, thanks for being here today.
Since I’ve been Governor, I’ve been sounding the alarm about our housing crisis. And I thought almost everyone in the building agreed that housing should be a top priority.
That’s why in January; we presented a proposal to the legislature to help move the needle on the housing we desperately need which included important tools and regulatory changes.
As a reminder, over the past several years we’ve invested hundreds of millions in housing. But it’s still too expensive and takes too long to build.
That’s why regulatory reform is so important.
Our proposals also included common sense solutions like expanding the Tax Increment Financing program to bring infrastructure funding to smaller communities who have fewer resources.
We’ve also seen how costly permitting is because it’s difficult to navigate and time consuming, leading to project costs that skyrocket.
The complicated process prevents many smaller developers from moving forward with projects because it takes too long and doesn’t make financial sense.
In last year’s “so called” housing bill, which was actually a conservation bill, one of the few helpful provisions were the interim Act 250 exemptions.
But as helpful as they are, they’re going to expire next year. We’ve asked the legislature to extend those so communities have an opportunity to thrive and grow.
Unfortunately, we’re seeing very little traction in our proposal to extend these.
And finally, we asked the legislature to reform wetland permitting and appeals process which will help projects across the state, especially in Barre, Montpelier, and Plainfield, which all need our help as they continue to recover from recent flooding.
Last session, despite many legislators campaigning on the need for more housing and regulatory reform, they didn’t follow through.
So here we are, one year later and close to adjournment, and I’m concerned we once again aren’t going far enough to meet the moment.
If housing is truly the priority we say it is, we need to follow through, and make sure all communities have the tools they need to grow.
We can’t afford to nibble around the edges, especially when we need 41,000 more homes in 5 years - just to catch up.
We need to address it now, because if we don’t, Vermont will fall further behind.
Commissioner Alex Farrell: Thank you, Governor.
Today I am speaking not only as the Commissioner of Housing and Community Development, but also as a housing advocate. As the Governor said, we need to ask ourselves if we’re truly meeting the moment on housing.
In January, the Governor and I shared his PATH for Vermont proposal – a robust housing package that paired the most efficient investments with various regulatory reforms and systems improvements.
Now, I’d like to show how few of these proposals have made it into the primary housing bills. The red “Xs” signify proposals that did not move forward in either housing bill, orange labels indicate proposals that were reduced.
As we enter the final weeks of the session, it is clear that none of the regulatory or appeals reform proposals will be included in housing legislation, and the proposed investments have been dramatically diminished.
Regarding the proposed investments, I want to acknowledge the budgetary constraints that we faced this year, though it is important to recognize that the Governor presented a budget that kept us living within our means while still prioritizing strategic housing investments. As we enter a new era in which the massive influx of federal investment has not only dried up, but we enter a new phase of uncertainty, we are reminded that funding alone will not be enough to meet the moment on housing.
We need to reform our regulatory systems and provide new tools. We need to provide communities, developers, and homebuilders with predictability. And we need to make sure that our zoning and land use laws enable housing of all types to be built in every community in the state.
I am concerned by how often I heard the following phrase in legislative committees this year: “I know we have a housing crisis, BUT…” The words that follow “but” are almost always disappointing. Here are some examples:
- “This committee doesn’t have jurisdiction over that issue”
- “We would prefer to take that up next session”
- “We didn’t realize that’s a priority”
- “We don’t have enough time to resolve that this year”
I’ll repeat that we presented this package in January, two months after voters spoke loud and clear that Vermont is becoming too expensive to afford. Adding more homes will increase the tax base, reducing pressure on those who are already paying property taxes.
There is, however, a real opportunity in the Project-based TIF discussion. We presented this in January as a proposal to help rural communities invest in infrastructure to support housing development. Since then, the proposal has gone through many shifts and changes, including changing the name from SPARC, as proposed in our package, to CHIP – the Community & Housing Infrastructure Program. Name aside, this program presents a tremendous opportunity to support the creation of thousands of housing units.
CHIP moved through the Senate and passed through that chamber productively and in a form that the administration and housing advocates supported and were excited about. CHIP then went through productive and nuanced conversations through the housing and commerce committees in the House. However, things went very wrong when this program moved to the House Committee on Ways and Means – supposedly one of its final legislative stops. This committee proposed an amendment which makes drastic changes to the program which drew concerns from the administration, builders, municipalities, housing advocates, and many legislators. The proposed changes would narrow the applicability of the program to such an extent that very few communities could use it. Recent efforts to modify the Ways & Means amendment have not made meaningful improvements.
It is imperative that CHIP passes in a form that rural communities can benefit from. We cannot overcomplicate this tool – this housing infrastructure financing tool – out of a desire to layer on many other complex policy priorities. Our priority needs to remain housing.
In justifying the proposed amendments, here are some things I heard which are deeply concerning to me:
- “We are already building more housing than we have since the 1980s” – that’s not true. In the late 80s we were building about 4,800 homes a year. Now it's about 2,300.
- “Vermont’s housing is the envy of the nation” – all evidence suggests otherwise. In fact, a new study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds Vermont's housing crisis is resulting in more than $700 million in lost economic output, $422 million less in personal income, and 6,800 jobs that would have been created if we had a place for those workers to live.
- “We shouldn’t push to build 30,000 homes as fast as possible” – why shouldn’t we? We have decades of underbuilding to make up for.
- “Let’s just wait for population decline to hit in the 2040s.” This is particularly galling since our housing crisis is contributing to our population decline and workforce challenges. Young Vermonters are leaving partly because they think they will never be able to own a home here.
These comments make me worry that we are taking a step back in the conversation around housing in the state house. Just ask Vermonters if they feel we can declare our mission accomplished on housing.
- Do Vermonters feel like they can buy a new home at an affordable price?
- Do Vermont renters feel like they have options for quality rental housing at a price they can afford?
The answer is a resounding “no”.
Vermonters are asking us for bold action on housing, and I fear we are not meeting the moment. We stand ready to help – our proposals are drafted and would represent meaningful change. We are eager to be partners in this.
###