In the 70s, Vermont became a major attraction to both locals and foreigners particularly due to the increasing business opportunities. This triggered the government and private institutions to put up supportive infrastructures to meet the needs of the growing population and visitors. The principal aim of the government was to reduce congestion on the roads while the investors were objective in making profits by offering different types of services. The intensity of the projects triggered environmental bodies to raise concern about the danger posed to the environment by the new projects. Act 250 was conceived and passed to protect the natural resources in Vermont. Despite the law being one of the most popularized, it has not demonstrated desirable outcomes in the safeguarding of the environment due to the inconsistency in application, rigidity and deterring development.
Discussion
The Act
Act 250 was established to control land use and create reliable laws that could guide developers on the best practices for environmental protection. The law established nine district environmental commissions which could review the development projects within their jurisdictions. The committees had the authority to grant or deny a permit to given development projects by acting on the results of their evaluation (Holloran, 2005). The law also set a threshold for projects reached an evaluation threshold. The projects should occupy an area of at least one acre. It also applies to settlements with more than ten units. Developers who do not agree with the evaluations conducted by the district committees are given an opportunity to appeal their cases to the Vermont Environmental Board.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
For a growing City like Vermont, the act has been instrumental in balancing the aspects of economic and environmental conservation. The influx of people in the city put the environment at risk of being compromised without the application of relevant laws. Most of the times, the delicate line that exists between economic and environmental progression results in conflicts between developers and environmental enthusiasts., the rationale for this is that both types of development are imperative in any given setting (Holloran, 2005). Therefore, striking a balance without wounding any of the parties is a delicate affair. Although there have been complaints from the infrastructural developers, those who have fulfilled the requirements have completed their projects without implicating detrimental effects on the environment.
For projects to be authorized by the district committees, they have to fulfill different requirements. The projects should not result in unnecessary pollution of water bodies including boreholes, wetlands, floodways, and conservation points. They should be critical of the control of erosions and should not interfere with the capacity of the land that holds water. Also, the Environmental Board prohibits the establishment of projects that can increase the undue burden on the municipality about environmental protection.
Also, to preserve the aesthetic beauty of Vermont, development projects may be denied permits if they interfere with the natural areas, historic sites and the areas inhabited by the endangered species. Finally, any form of development in the region is required to conserve energy, protect the public and private utilities, and protect the productive forest soils and the promotion of the growth areas (Daniels & Lapping, 1984).
Although the Vermont Environmental Board has established guidelines to be used by the nine district committees, there have been incongruities in the application of the law. During the evaluation, there have been instances of some projects being allowed while other being denied permits despite being similar. This has been a primary cause of criticism by the developers who have termed the tendency as selective application of the law. The modern quoted example involves Taft Corners and Big Box Score. Taft Corners was repeatedly denied the put up a proposed megamall in Williston. Big Box also proposes to set up an establishment in the same region, and it was approved without many limitations (Daniels & Lapping, 1984). The developers’ evaluation was that the projects had similar effects on the environment and permitting one of them and restricting the establishment of the other demonstrated the selective application of the law. However, the Vermont Environmental Board argued that the option to appeal was established to address such concerns.
It is also noteworthy the Act 250 was introduced to protect the environment Vermont and improve the quality of life among the locals. However, it has been viewed as a deterrent factor to the development in the region. Through the nine district committees, the Environmental Board has negatively evaluated the hundreds of projects since its initiation. This has slowed down the development in Vermont. For instance, during the first year of application, the law led to the denial of approval for to 92 major projects. Hundreds of others have also been turned down for contravening some of the outlined laws. Some investors have also expressed this concern and have demonstrated their preference for other areas that have less restrictive environmental laws. Some of those who have borne the blunt of the law have feared approaching the evaluation committees by acting on the reference given by those whose projects have been halted.
Before the presentation of the project for evaluation, investors inject resources in the development of proposals, and they view the deterrent evaluations as a loss. However, according to the Vermont Environmental Board, the primary objective of the law is not to deter development but to protect the environment. Other stakeholders have also expressed satisfaction with the law despite the numerous project being turned down indicating the without such a comprehensive law, the influx of people into Vermont would have put the environment the risk of pollution and uncontrolled development (Holloran, 2005).
There has also been an objection of Act 250 with regard the rigidity of its applications in major and minor projects. The law has specified the threshold for a project to reach the evaluation category, and the district committees are required to conduct the evaluation by following such guidelines. Therefore, the committees have to conduct the preliminary assessment to identify the category in which different projects fall. Analysts have identified this process as resulting in time wastage. Different stakeholders have also agreed to the observation, and the state legislature has mandated the Environmental Board to adopt more simplified procedures. Also, developers have found the rules unclear and sometimes abstract in describing the regulations that buildings have to fulfill about environmental protection. They have, therefore, requested to have a one-stop shop where they can get clarifications before tendering their proposals for evaluation.
Conclusion
Although Act 250 has played a critical role in protecting the environment in Vermont, it has been criticized for deterring development, rigidity, and inconsistent application. Some stakeholders have associated the law with delayed and deterred projects. The rigid process also discourages investors from tendering their proposals. However, the law is expected to improve after the state legislature directed the Environmental Board to revise it to be favorable to the developers particularly by providing crucial information before proposals are turned in for evaluations.
References
Daniels, T. L., & Lapping, M. B. (1984). Has Vermont's land use control program failed? Evaluating Act 250. Journal of the American Planning Association , 50 (4), 502-508.
Holloran, P. C. (2005). Freedom and Unity: A History of Vermont.
