Will Vermont Lose Its Way in Randolph?

There is an important struggle over responsible land use playing out in Randolph, where a significant tract of prime agricultural soil is at risk of permanent loss in the name of what some might maintain is “just progress.”

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) who are partnering with Preservation Trust of Vermont in challenging the oversized development at Exit 4 in Randolph, have asked the District 3 Act 250 Commission to dismiss the project application because it is so egregiously non-conforming.

Brian Shupe, Executive Director of the VNRC commented on what is at stake in Randolph:

“This sprawling project is an enormous waste of agricultural soils…if (it) gets approved, in this location no farmland in Vermont is safe.”

Two of the principle reasons why Act 250 was drafted by the Legislature were  to preserve valuable working landscapes for future generations and to stop the spread of highway-centric sprawl that undermines the character of Vermont. This, the framers believed, is fundamental to our quality of life and longterm viability.

Apparently hoping to slide past the well-established standards of Act 250, developer Sam Sammis courted the State’s favor by promising to build a brand-new Visitors Center to replace one that is currently closed and in need of maintenance.

The proposal of a privately owned and operated Visitors Center at the location was first revealed in 2012.   At the time, it was described by Mr. Sammis as a “win-win” public/private partnership involving a 5,000-sq. ft. visitor center with

“…a 40,000-sq.ft. facility showcasing Vermont products, all at no taxpayer expense.”

The Shumlin administration jumped right on board with the proposal, but many in the environmental community were immediately concerned with the scale and location of the project, while others were concerned that the partnership might have unanticipated consequences impacting public control of an interstate exit.

Mr. Sammis’ vision has grown substantially since the original announcement.  The overall scale of the project has mushroomed to well-over a million square-feet, including a hotel, some private homes and light industry; all closely clustered around Exit 4 and consuming irreplaceable quality farmland.

To permit this project would mean essentially gutting Act 250 and abandoning the principles that have for so long made Vermont stand-out as a beacon of beauty and environmental responsibility above all and any other state.

Mr. Sammis may think of it as a “win-win” for the state, but I rather doubt that. I think that overlooks what visitors are actually looking for when they come to Vermont.

Remember the days of our childhood road trips?  Dad or Mom would actually stop in a small town we’d never visited before. While they gassed-up the station wagon, we “took advantage of the facilities,” then strolled down the block to buy ice-cream or soda; or maybe we picnicked in the park.  We saw a lot of America that way and had no need of commercial “visitors centers.”

Maybe we weren’t in such a hurry to be someplace else back then.

I kind of think the appeal of Vermont for tourists is that, even now, its largely rural environment; its lack of billboards and clutter, links us to a cultural memory that other places have left far behind.

The framers of Act 250 recognized that therein lies an intangible commodity that must be protected and preserved for the benefit of Vermonters in generations to come.

About Sue Prent

Artist/Writer/Activist living in St. Albans, Vermont with my husband since 1983. I was born in Chicago; moved to Montreal in 1969; lived there and in Berlin, W. Germany until we finally settled in St. Albans.

5 thoughts on “Will Vermont Lose Its Way in Randolph?

  1. Wait.  People don’t come to Vermont for our stripmalls located right off every highway exit???  If not, then why do we want them here?

  2. Mr. Sammis is relying on a 1980’s style of development that he may have used in Connecticut, but it simply shouldn’t survive in Vermont in the year 2015.  

    I don’t believe he has any plans to develop much of this project; I believe his goal is to sell the permitted land.  Kind of a shell game, with Randolph losing.  BTW, Randolph in no way would support a 180-bed hotel (Berlin’s Comfort in has just 89 beds and is surrounded by colleges and the capital).

    How sad would it be if a few schlok buildings get built and then there they sit, for all to regret for years to come.  Meanwhile, Randolph has been building a cadre of young agricultural entrepreneurs who have had trouble finding land they can afford.  This Exit 4 land is among the best ag soil in the state.  If successful, this would be the THIRD project in a year’s time to win permits to build on prime ag soil in this little community built largely on agriculture.  

    People bemoan young people leaving the state for greener pastures…. heh, a funny turn of words in this case, as the green pastures appear unattainable right at our feet.

  3. Sam Sammis does have a substantial interest in many properties in and around downtown Randolph-so he may want to hang on to this one even after permitting is run through. What irks is the Shumlin administration so happily jumping on this one as a way to avoid state spending on services.  

    At the start, normally reserved Jeb Spaulding, Shumlin’s former Sec. of Administration positively gushed over the developer’s project:

    “When I first heard about this proposal I thought it sounded too good to be true. Imagine, a private developer offering to build a top quality visitor center for the State on private property, staff it and operate for thirty years and at what cost to the State? Zero,” said Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding.

    “We are confident this project will be a job creator, generate new revenues and save the state many millions in avoided spending while providing quality services to the travelling public.”

    http://governor.vermont.gov/Sh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *