As I’d already noted in the socialmediaz, we found out today that Sam’s former classmate (our neighbor until last summer) has varicella.  No big deal, amirite, antivaxxers?

Bzzzz!

Dear Little B has been a fighter for 5 years (she’s a couple months older than our boy).  Deets are unnecessary, but she had an organ transplant and is thus immuno suppressed out of necessity.  She’ one of the myriad people we’ve tried to protect by making sure Sam and Sadie (and we) are vaccinated against preventable infections.

But chicken pox is so harmless.  Lots of kids had the disease before a shot was available.  Hell, I got it when I was a kid, and after many days of character-building scratching and whatnot, I was totally fine!

Of course, I didn’t require hospitalization and anti-viral IV.  And I didn’t have a long-scheduled operation that had to be postponed.

Now Little B has to spend many days in the hospital yet again.  She has to fight yet again, but this time against something that could have been mitigated if philosophical parents had vaccinated their kids.

So once more with feeling: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.  Period.  Full stop.  Get your goddamned shots.

ntodd

Lemieux shares some lessons to learn from vaccine trooferism:

The phenomenon you point to also highlights the collapse of any faith in collective or social life. The anti-vaxxers conceive of their position purely as a private lifestyle choice. They want to make their child “pure” and “uncontaminated,” and their means of doing so is the practice of virtuous consumption. So we deal with the very many toxic dimensions of modern life not through any concerted action, but simply by buying “organic” or “chemical-free” products (and then, by not putting “artificial chemicals” in our children in the form of vaccines.

The logic here is straightforwardly akin to the predominant corporate attitudes of our day: The anti-vaxxers are trying to privatize profit (their pure and uncontaminated child) and socialize the risk (the outbreak of an epidemic is someone else’s problem)…what’s also interesting (to me) is its refusal to entertain any notion of community, of the realization that things like immunity or a “chemical free environment” must be understood as a shared space that can only be the product of a social and collective activity.

Yes, hyper-individualism is a key element in the rejection of vaccination regimes.  I have seen the term 'collectivist' used to dismiss social costs more than once while they harp on "personal choice" as some sort of mantra to ward off the demon of public health.  Because fuck yer neighbors and kids' classmates, I guess.

I find it particularly disturbing in Vermont, where our commonwealth's constitution is so much more explicit than Federal references to general welfare.  Just in the Declaration of Rights we see:

• Article 2nd: That private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it…

• Article 7th: That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community… community… community… community… public weal.

• Article 8th: …all voters, having a sufficient, evident, common interest with, and attachment to the community…

• Article 9th: That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute the member's proportion…and yield personal service…common good…more service to community.

• Article 20th: That the people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good…

They can deny it all they want, but we all do depend on society, no matter how misanthropic we might be.   To deny that is to deny reality.  And it's a rejection of constitutional and natural law.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are going to defend ourselves from them as is our right.  They don't want to be a part of the commonwealth?  Then tough shit.

ntodd

(This one’s been so hot in the sidebar that I thought I’d give it a whirl on the front page so that more people might join the conversation.  It’s been pretty civil, so let’s keep it that way! – promoted by Sue Prent)

VT Sen Mullin is reviving the effort to rid our commonwealth of the philosophical exemption to vaccinations.  I'm hopeful we can beat back the lobbying of misinformed, selfish people who were effective at scuttling the statutory change back in 2012.  I've already contacted our 3 legislators.

Sadly, according to the VPR report our school is below 90% compliance WRT to the MMR vax.  That's not necessarily inconsistent with general information I got recently from our principal, but I've written to him, the schoolboard chair, and the district superintendent for clarification on our immunization rates and how the administration might be addressing this issue.

Anywayz, please contact your delegation in Mount Peculiar:

• House: http://legislature.vermont.gov/people/all/2016/House
• Senate: http://legislature.vermont.gov/people/all/2016/Senate

Let's make sure rationality and social responsibility prevail this time.

ntodd

Update from the school nurse via our Johnny-on-the-spot principal:

I do not know where the information for this article was pulled from.  It is not current.  It may be the numbers from the Dec 2012 report.  The most recently publicly reported numbers are on the Dept of Health website http://www.healthvermont.gov/hc/imm/immsurv.aspx   Click on the 2013-2014 aggregate rates by school.  This is the information that was given to the Health Dept by us in December of 2013.  It has our MMR rate at 99.2%.  The most recent report that was done in December of 2014 has not yet been publicly reported by the Health Dept, but our MMR rate is similar to the 99.2%.  I don't have the exact number here, but I can give it to you on Thursday when I am back in the office.  I can understand this parent's concern; the number reported for us was not good, but also not correct.

Thanks also to the superintendent, who also got back to us quickly and will be informing VPR of their inaccuracy.

Adding: VPR fixed their story, noting they used outdated information.  FES is no longer on The List of Shame. 

The Freep finally got a response from H Brooke Paige about SCOTUS' rejection of his Quixotic birther-not-birther suit:

Paige said Thursday he would ask the nation’s highest court to reconsider its decision, but acknowledged getting it to change its mind on the matter is unlikely.

“It saddens me to see our Constitution being treated as a list of suggestions, a smorgasbord of ideas or worst of all treated with the same respect afforded toilet tissue,” Paige said. “I can almost hear the Founders and Framers groaning in their graves.”

That's pretty defeatist for Paige, who greeted SCOV's dismissal of the case almost with enthusiasm last year: “[It's] as positive a ruling as I could have anticipated.”  Maybe reality is finally sinking in after SCOTUS has refused to hear birther arguments over two dozen times?

The article also notes that Paige has not pressed the usual eligibility case, which relies on the ridiculously debunked theory that Obama wasn’t born in the US, but rather:

[Paige] based his challenge to Obama on an interpretation of historical papers the country’s framers relied on at the time the Constitution was written that said a natural-born citizen was someone who was born of parents who were both American citizens.

Our friend has famously called birther arguments “sheer flights of fancy.”  His “interpretation of historical papers” is also quite fanciful, but points to him once again for acknowledging that Obama was born in Hawaii (which is part of the US). 

Sadly, the larger reality still evades Vermont's Best Birther.  Obama's president because he is a natural born citizen.  It's that simple.

Paige might be able to hear the Framers groaning in their graves, but I'm fairly certain that they are not only silent, but also that they'd appreciate SCOTUS' making independent decisions to grant cert (per the Court's Rule 10).  The Judiciary ain't a separate, coequal branch for nothing.

That branch has, whenever presented an opportunity to agree with Paige et al, has declined to do so, either by explicitly ruling against birther arguments or through other procedural mechanisms.  Probably because they have pretty decent reading comprehension.  And naturally none of this means the Constitution is just a suggestion or somehow disrespected: judges at all levels are doing their jobs by interpreting history and law, and just happen to disagree with some major crackpots.

Perhaps we should take a collection to buy Paige this book.  It's time for him to break his nasty habit and move on to something more productive.  At some point you have to recognize that the problem's not them, it's you…

ntodd

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

As I noted in the socialmediazonez, my Favorite Vermont Birther, H Brooke Paige, was denied cert today, which makes me incredibly sad.  I've been earnestly waiting since March for SCOTUS to pick up the definitive case that would prove once and for all that Obama is or is not president.  Now we'll never, ever know.

*shakes fist at Horace Greeley, updates scorecard*

ntodd

PS–I hope Paige still has Google Alerts on and provides one of his patented ALL CAPS responses. 

PPS–Birthers are sad:

[T]he US Supreme Court has once again abrogated their duty. They decided to not take on the appeal from the Vermont courts of H. Brooke Paige in Paige V Vermont. A challenge of Barack Obama’s natural born citizen status.

Sadly we have no functioning Supreme Court, no separation of powers.

No justice or justices.

It's almost like they don't even consider that SCOTUS might not take up a case because they agree with the 11 score rulings against The Cause so denying cert is, in fact, the Court's duty.

Almost. 

Still waiting for H Brooke Paige to emerge from his cave to set us right about how this is really a victory because SCOTUS didn't rule on merits. 

Being in town government, I naturally follow what happens in other municipalities with interest.  Never know what issues they're dealing with that we might encounter at some point, so it's always a good learning experience.

Earlier this month I noticed some people on Facebook express concern about the Town of Hyde Park's recreation field rules.  Specifically:

Persons shall not possess, use, or store a weapon of any kind such as firearms, knives, or explosives on the Rec Fields property.

So yes, at their last Selectboard meeting:

Elizabeth Monteith was present to express concern for the banning of firearms on the Recreation Fields property adopted by the Town in 2009 and she is against the ban. Evan Hughes noted that 24 VSA 2295 commonly referred to as the Hunters’ Bill of Rights allows firearms to be on public property while 25 VSA 2291(8) authorizes the control of the discharge of firearms. Deanna Judkins asked if the school could have firearms, and Mr. Hughes explained that 13 VSA 4403 and 4404 prohibits knowingly bringing firearms onto school properties. Elizabeth Monteith stated that she believes everyone should have the constitutional right to have firearms on town property, including the recreation fields

I'm not entirely convinced that towns lack the authority to regulate firearms on public (i.e., town-owned) property.  In Hunters, Anglers & Trappers Association of Vermont v. Winooski Valley Park District (2006), SCOV found that § 2295 doesn't prohibit local government entities from banning hunting on public land–towns have the power to regulate their property just as any private landowner.

So while the municipality cannot ban firearm possession in general, which would clearly be contrary to Vermont statute and Article 16 of our constitution, they appear to be well within their rights to do so on rec fields and the like when exercising police power to protect health and safety.  This specific issue was raised in the case cited about, but the District changed its policy on carrying in the interim so the question was mooted.  That said, I find the ulimate conclusion of the Court's logic to allow such restrictions.

We can debate whether the regulation is wise–I know there are folks who suggest more guns would better contribute to health and safety–but it seems opponents of the rule don't have a constitutional leg to stand on.  As SCOV ruled in State of VT v Duranleau (1969):

[T]he language of [Article 16] does not suggest that the right to bear arms is unlimited and undefinable.

Between that and the HAT v Winooski decision, the only reason Hyde Park should change their rule is because they find it unnecessary and/or dangerous and/or has no public support, not because they are prevented by law from managing their own property.  Anyway, I'll be tracking what Hyde Park does in response.

ntodd

Update: I hear from the Selectboard Chair that they will most likely be changing the regulation so it prohibits discharge of weapons, rather than banning possession, on town property. 

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Following up on my post about affordable housing a couple weeks ago, I received word from a well-placed source that the Town of Bennington has wisely opted to defer the community development loan for Applegate Apartments by a vote of 5-1 last night.  That will mean a lot of good for a couple hundred working families, as well as the entire community as the redevelopment proceeds.

The meeting was well-attended, with 15 of Applegate's residents there, as well as the principal of the Molly Stark Elementary school and other concerned citizens of Bennington, to advocate for affordable housing and to educate the Selectboard.  It seems clear that once members better understood how the loan program works and the value of having people able to afford living in their town, their decision was quick and easy.

Congratulations to all!

Being in municipal government, and having a partner involved with affordable housing, I read this Bennington Banner article with significant interest:

A request to defer repayment on a loan made by a local housing project so it can work on stemming rising heating costs did not pass at a Select Board meeting Monday.

Applegate Housing Limited Partnership, which manages Applegate Apartments, requested that the town defer for one year repayments to a Community Development Block Grant, which is awarded though the Vermont Community Development Program 16 years ago. Last year it had requested, and received, a one year extension.

One Board member, Justin Corcoran, voted 'No' because he had “questions”, though it's clear that what he really means is he doesn't like these grants and how they work (despite voting for the deferral last year).  The rejection is unfortunate because it will lose the community a great deal of money, so I'm hopeful that folks knowledgable in community development will be able to educate the Board in a couple weeks and obtain a better result.

The bottom line:

“Essentially the way the programs work, while they're called a Community Development Block Grants, they're set up as loans through the community,” [Bennington Economic and Community Development Director Michael Harrington] said. “The reason they're set up as loans is there's not necessarily an expectation that money will get paid off or get paid back to the community. The reason they're set up that way is because it allows the community to have equity in these affordable housing projects within the community.”

The grant came with an automatic 15-year deferral period, he said. Typically such projects are given between 15 and 30 year deferrals. This allows the community, through the board, to ensure the development is meeting the needs it was built to address and is up to standard.

Some confusion might stem from the multiple levels of government involved and the structure of the funding.  The monies do initially come from a grant (the CDBG program), and are distributed in a variety of ways including loans through municipalities.  In this case the Feds have given money to Vermont, and through a competitive process the State provided a grant to Bennington, who in turn loaned funds to the non-profit developer and its local partners.

The CDBG loan in question can only be used for housing, reflecting the State's policy priority.  Since Bennington never really had this cash–acting merely as a conduit for funding community development–the Town doesn't actually get it back to use however it wants.  What's more, a percentage of the money paid back returns to the statewide pool for reallocation to other projects.  

A key concept here is “community equity.”  If there were a natural termination point for a given project, I guess it would make sense to ensure repayment of the CDBG loan to free up funds for other useful work elsewhere.  However, the intention here is to keep applying the funds to a pressing, on-going community issue, such as providing affordable housing for residents.

The Applegate development currently has a high occupancy rate (102 out of 104 units, with roughly 3 persons in each on average), so it's clearly filling an important need in Bennington.  As the Banner article notes, skyrocketing heating costs have created an operating loss and without deferral of the $4300/month loan payment, “the group [will not be] able to pay all of its bills.”  

That's actually a very circumspect way of saying they'd be forced into foreclosure.  Which would be bad.  For everybody.  

The most immediate problem from a civic duty perspective, of course, is that you'd be at best cutting essential programs and at worst pushing 300+ citizens into homelessness.  These are mostly low-income working people who spend most of their money locally (which is partly why the economic multipliers associated with affordable housing are so high).

Bennington would also lose over $100k in payroll, real estate and other local taxes until it was able to somehow occupy/redevelop the property.  And given the size of the property, a not-insignificant amount of money is presumably spent locally just for maintaining Applegate.

On the flip side, deferring the loan supports reinvestment that will provide affordable housing for some of Bennington's most vulnerable residents, who then can keep working and spending in the community.  Plus upgrading Applegate will pump even more money into local businesses–the article notes overall costs will be $3.5M, so there's about $2.9M of additional funding that will flow to the project.

Vermont has a long history of such investments, with exceptional stewardship of money fostering successful projects to the benefit of all.  So from where I sit, this is a no-brainer, and I'm optimistic that the Board will properly reconsider its decision.  I mean, really, do you want to cut your community development money in half and turn away millions of dollars the local economy could use, all while throwing people onto the streets?  That would be as financially misguided as it is heartless.

ntodd

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

VTDigger:

House lawmakers rejected an attempt to stave off cuts in the federal food stamp program before approving a $1.44 billion tax bill Thursday.

Rep. Paul Poirier, I-Barre, proposed raising taxes for people in the state’s two highest income brackets to collect an additional $10 million to fund the 3SquaresVT nutrition assistance program. His effort was defeated on a roll-call vote of 115-28.

Sigh.  

During debate Poirier noted that one of six of our fellow Vermonters relies on some form of aid to feed themselves, and over one-third of those are kids.  The average food assistance benefit?  243 bucks, before SNAP was cut.

So Poirier proposed we raise top marginal rates for 2014 and 2015: from 8.80% to 9.5% and from 8.95% to 9.95%.  Naturally, Republicans argued that the wealthiest Vermonters “already pay their fair share.”  It's a common canard which ignores the simple fact that Poors and Middle Class Chumps don't account for more of our aggregate revenue because they make substantially less money.

Really, do people not remember the 90s?  Snelling and Dean essentially level-funded the government's essential services during that recession. 

Note what Snelling said back then:

We cannot and will not set lower standards for the education of our children, for the health of the population, for assistance to the troubled, jobless, or homeless, or for protection of the environment.

Former Speaker of the Vermont House, Ralph Wright adds:

If someone had asked what was the first thing Gov. Snelling and I agreed upon it was: ‘This deficit will not be placed on the backs of the poor, the elderly, or the children.’ And then we raised taxes.

Yup, then Snelling raised taxes:

He hiked the sales tax rate from 4 percent to 5 percent with a plan to sunset the hike in 1993. He significantly boosted Ver- mont’s piggyback tax rate. Under Vermont’s tax system, citizens pay a share of their federal tax liability to the state govrnment. In the late 1980s, the piggyback tax rate was 25 percent. Instead of the traditional flat rate, Snelling made the tax system more progressive by introducing a 31 percent tax rate on federal income tax liability over $3,400 and a 34 percent rate on federal income tax liability over $13,100. Everyone else paid a 28 percent tax rate.

Why is something like this not even on the table today?  

Austerity has been shown to be a failure all over the world, including at home.  And we have a Vermont-grown example of policy that helped us climb out of a nasty recession whilst preserving the safety net but a generation ago, well within the political memories of those now serving in Montpelier.  Is it willful ignorance or just a lack of compassion that prevents legislators from borrowing from a successful bipartisan playbook?

ntodd

NB: edited to rely less on VTDigger quote and to expand analysis. 

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Well now, Fletcher's TMD was a bit less awkward than Westford's!  Gaze upon this Freep report:

Westford residents voted overwhelmingly, 67-37, to approve a non-binding resolution asking Treasurer Charlotte Vincent to resign Monday night at town meeting.

Selectboard Chairman John Quinn introduced the resolution, saying Vincent had failed to execute her duties as treasurer.

“We have a town report without financial statements because they were not submitted on time,” Quinn said. “She is not performing her duties and it’s impacting the Selectboard and town auditors.”

Quinn further indicated issues with Vincent go back many years, which does make me wonder why she keeps getting re-elected.  That said, in small towns it is certainly difficult sometimes to find people willing to step up for certain posts and once you've got somebody in there it can be even more difficult to dislodge them.  That's especially true if voters aren't aware of problems with how that person is doing the job.

Now, being fair and balanced, the paper spoke to other people in town who thought Quinn's approach was “unfairly harsh.”  One person went the hyperbolic route, using words like “public flogging” and “bullying.”

You know what's a public flogging?  Being flogged in public.  You know what's bullying?  Being actually pushed around and stuff.  Being called out is none of that, and a necessary part of open government.

The Treasurer is an elected official and has duties to perform.  The position is not only extremely important to the town, but is also one that is ripe for abuse.  Elections are one way to provide oversight, but if the person is moderately clever at hiding things–say, by not providing timely information–there is little the Selectboard can do under Vermont statute during the Treasurer's term.

I don't know the details about how the Board has addressed concerns in the past.  But I completely understand why the Chair might feel compelled to put this on the floor to highlight problems so at the very least the next time voters have to choose they will be informed.  All part of the political process, and shows the value of having Town Meeting as opposed to merely casting an Australian ballot.  People should appreciate it since the Board is trying to make sure the town's finances are transparent.

Sometimes that stuff is uncomfortable.  Who said democracy was easy?

ntodd