Spending, Regulation & Conservation: Connecting the Dots
by Joseph P. Blanchette
January 27, 2011, page 2.....

As Vermont confronts $100+ million deficits for the foreseeable future, the federal government expands the debt ceiling to a frightening $14 trillion, several EU countries are on the verge of insolvency and painful numbers of Americans remain un- or underemployed, Charlotte taxpayers soon will face Town Meeting spending requests. Beyond confronting the cost for basic responsibilities like schools, roads and emergency services budgets, we will again face the annual spending wish list, all on the heels of last year’s school and town budget woes. The words affordability and sustainability are often bandied about town, so perhaps it’s time to confront the factors causing affordability problems in Charlotte.
For starters, state and local planners have led us down the path of ever-increasing land use and zoning regulation. What began as responsible planning to insure neighbors don’t harm neighbors has grown into more intrusive efforts to micromanage the way people live their lives and use their property. In the name of the “common good,” landowners are often bullied or burdened with severe restrictions on property use that encroach upon the fundamental rights associated with private property ownership. State and town regulations require numerous expensive reports by engineers, architects, lawyers, land-use “experts,” environmental and habitat advocates, all of which can drive up housing costs by tens of thousands of dollars. Associated delays also drive up costs. Such regulatory overreach makes it cost prohibitive to build affordable homes in Charlotte without taxpayer subsidies, and available property for residential use is effectively removed from the market.
Town spending and property taxes are also key reasons housing has become unaffordable. We want it all, as long as others pay for it: two principals, smaller classes, taxpayer-funded trails, large conservation funds and the Raven Ridge “contribution” are good examples. High taxes “price out” low and moderate income homeowners and eventually will force out longtime residents unable to afford living here. Not only will land available for homes become scarcer, but so will residents with incomes able to afford Charlotte’s oppressive property taxes. Readers should create a spreadsheet plotting their property taxes over the past 15 years and then run that trend out for the next 15 years. Blaming state tax policies or suggesting alternate methods of taxation ignores the root cause of the problem. To play James Carville’s famous line: “It’s our spending, stupid.”
In the ultimate irony, Charlotters pay higher property taxes to subsidize studies on affordable housing — studies that developers typically fund as a cost of doing business. In 2009 we even started giving away prime land owned by the town in the name of affordable housing. Using the power of government to advance such social goals will harm Charlotte and will bring unintended consequences that few want or can afford, just like federal home-ownership policies recently did.
Another factor contributing to Charlotte’s affordability problem: the various land trusts. Rather than discussing good intentions, let’s talk about outcomes because good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes. Presently, the various conservation trusts have taken about sixteen percent of Charlotte acreage off the market, unavailable for residential construction and development. This makes developable property scarcer and drives up the cost of remaining land, land potentially available for affordable housing. To be clear, I have no desire to see Charlotte become another Williston or South Burlington, and I fully respect the rights of property owners to deed away development rights or take advantage of existing tax programs. I question, however, the wisdom of maintaining current conservation policies over the long run.
For example, what percent of developable land should be pulled off the market by such policies? Twenty, thirty or forty percent? Is there a limit? What will be the effect on the price of land, taxes and, yes, affordable housing? Continuing these policies will mean lots of open space and scenic views, but only the wealthiest will be able to enjoy them. Is that our shared community vision? Are we truly for rational growth, or are we anti-growth advocates, protecting turf and hiding behind conservation and land use policies that purport to represent “the good of the community?” These policies are unsustainable and ultimately harmful to low- and moderate-income individuals.
Charlotte needs to step back from the brink of its fiscal sustainability crisis and use “affordability” to focus broader discussion on the harmful consequences of over-spending, over-taxation, over-regulation and land-use policy. Failing to alter our current course will bring troubling financial outcomes similar to those we face at the state and national level. Looking back, we find that there were voices warning of the recent collapse of the government-induced housing bubble. Sadly, they were ignored in favor of immediate political, social and monetary gratification; ideology trumped reason. Let’s hope Charlotters don’t ignore today’s warning signs.

Joseph P. Blanchette