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.
View all posts by Sue Prent →
How would you like it if the mayor of your town wrote a letter to the editor attacking you personally and revealing what he thought he had found about you by searching the voter registration list; something that was intended to discredit you but that was, in fact, not even true? It happened recently to me and I can tell you I’m more than a little annoyed. If not strictly illegal, I would think this conduct could be considered somewhat less than ethical, and lead one to seriously question the Mayor’s suitability for public office.
It all began in the quiet little City of St. Albans when the Messenger published a story about the fact that the Vermont Natural Resource Council had filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth (of which I am an active member) and Hudak Farm regarding a recent decision by the Environmental Court to uphold an Act 250 permit to locate the largest Walmart store in Vermont near Exit 20 of I-89 in the Town of St. Albans.
In the article, Mayor Manahan of St. Albans City expressed his consternation with the Appeal. Among his remarks:
They (the VNRC) haven’t received the answer they want…They are trying to represent our downtown, but they’re not trying to represent our downtown
I wrote to the paper immediately in the form of an open letter to Mayor Manahan, reminding him that the City had made the deal with the developer to drop its opposition to the project without consultation with the other interested parties, who actually are represented by the VNRC. I reminded him that a vote had been taken to ratify the agreement at a poorly warned Special Session of the City Council before we had even been given an opportunity to read and offer an opinion with regard to the agreement. I also asked if he was aware that the developer, JLD Properties had also filed a notice of appeal with the Vermont Supreme Court. This means that, whether or not the VNRC chose to appeal, construction of the project would be delayed through the developer’s own decision to appeal. This is significant because the Mayor’s complaint about the VNRC filing an appeal centered on the loss of money that was to be paid to the City (through the terms of the agreement) only if the developer began “significant work” on the project prior to the end of 2011.
The Mayor struck back almost immediately, on June 8, in his own open letter to me. The letter began with the following:
First, let me apologize; I missed the section in the Mayors handbook that stated I must run things by Sue Prent.
It continued in that tone, with a series of distortions and sarcastic remarks, but the paragraph that left me dumbstruck was the following (his punctuation, not mine):
Unlike your self-appointment, I was elected to represent the citizens of St. Albans City, in fact just recently for the third time as Mayor. You request the voters keep this event in mind the next time they vote, why rely on them? I suggest that you register to vote. After reviewing the voter checklist we were surprised by the fact that your name does not appear on it. I would like to inform you that as a citizen of St. Albans City you are eligible to vote, however you must first register with the city clerk. I find it ironic that you profess to the community what is good for it yet you fail to participate in the purest ingredient of the democracy we live in.
Oookay.
I replied very simply to set the record straight, addressing each of his distortions of fact and concluding with the information that I am an active voter in the City of St. Albans, registered under my maiden name. I did not share that name in my letter.
I am still waiting for what I think is a well-deserved public apology.
Jill Alexander of Whey to Go has sent me the following appeal:
Sue, could you please read the attached “sample” and encourage all the readers to send public comments? They can email their comments to Rodney.pingree@state.vt.us; Catherine.Gjessing@state.vt.us and please forward a cc: to 4reiki@fairpoint.net so that we can keep track of how many letters they receive. PLEASE help us before our wells go dry. Thank you. Also please encourage folks to write letters to the editors of these three papers: news@thehardwickgazette.com letters@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com and letters@timesargus.com; and let them know you care. Thank you.
I will add the sample letter to the “comments” section of this post and urge you to take a few moments to write to the State about this important water issue. This has the potential to set precedent regarding access to the aquifer that will impact everyone’s future.
Monday night, the ANR held a public hearing so that neighbors to the Agri-Mark/Cabot facility could express their concerns.
Said ANR’s Rodney Pingree, chief of water resources:
The permit is pending, but we’re suddenly hearing about this from neighbors who say they’re being affected but don’t know how or why…There’s a lot of things that haven’t been documented. We want to take information at this hearing, but we aren’t prepared to point fingers at anybody. We need to get the full picture
.
————————————————–
As reported last week, Agri-Mark is seeking a permit for three existing water wells which collectively withdraw 30 million gallons of water per annum. These wells have never been permitted and yet they are already in operation. The neighbors have been alarmed by evidence that their own wells are being depleted by the draw and have requested a public meeting with the Agency of Natural Resources to address their questions about the operation.
A public meeting has now been scheduled for this coming Monday, June 21 at the Cabot Town Hall (above the library), at 6:30 PM. The good folks who are being impacted by these wells are requesting that anyone who can make it to the meeting try to do so to give them much needed support.
These wells have never been subjected to impact studies or analysis of any sort, yet it seems that ANR is poised to grant them a permit to continue withdrawals. Why is Cabot allowed to drill wells without getting permits? Get over there on Monday night and ask some tough questions!
Maybe its just me, but discussion of the Governor’s travels while in office make me distinctly uncomfortable. Apparently, compared to some other states, Vermont taxpayers are not nearly so much on the hook for his ramblings as they might be; and I suppose that’s all well and good. Nevertheless, one has to wonder what exactly he is saying when he wanders about the globe, presumably to carry a message about Vermont. What is he saying to China, to France and to Canada?
Set aside, for a moment, the ethical question of whether or not, as governor, he should ever be traveling at the expense of a foreign power. Is Governor Douglas truly the person we want representing the Vermont brand? The message he has consistently broadcast is that Vermont is a poor place to do business; that our taxes are burdensome; and that our young people are fleeing from the lack of opportunity here.
He seems to favor low-grade investments from out-of-state entities like box stores, but has paid little more than lip-service to the agricultural heritage of the state, to fostering green technology, and to achieving statewide broadband access; all of which offer our greatest opportunities for home-grown prosperity in Vermont. His nearsighted focus on the corporate interests of unreliable entities like Entergy and IBM betrays a deficit of imagination and a lack of confidence in Vermont’s own potential for innovation.
As we approach the end of the Governor’s final term of office, perhaps someone should give us an accounting of how productive his travels have been for Vermont. How much have our exports to specific countries increased, and how many more tourists are we receiving from Quebec? With this information, we might be better able to evaluate the prospect of a continuation of Governor Douglas’ agenda of Vermont-bashing under a Dubie administration. After all, Dubie’s opening salvo in his campaign was that infamous web-banner essentially proclaiming Vermont to be a failing state.
I think we’ve all heard that you catch more flies with honey. Perhaps it would be worth a try.
First of all, full disclosure: I am an active member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth (NWCRG), a local grassroots group that opposes the location of a big box Walmart store on a tract of farmland just north of Exit 20 of I-89 in St. Albans.
This effort is pretty well-known as the longest running battle in the U.S. against Walmart over a single tract of land, having begun in 1993 with the big box proposal of a previous developer for the same location. That earlier permit struggle had ended with the Supreme Court finding in favor of the opponents to the project. One might think that that would have been the end of it; and, we contend that, under the law governing “res judicata” or “settled” law, we should not have had to expend money and effort to fight the whole thing again. Be that as it may, the local and regional permit bodies chose to turn a blind eye to this fact and press forward with issuing new permits for what is essentially the same project.
The interests of the Vermont Natural Resource Council, NWCRG, Marie Frey and Hudak Farm are represented by Jon Groveman of the VNRC. This week, the VNRC issued a press release announcing the appeal. In an earlier Motion to amend the Environmental Court Decision by Judge Durkin to permit the project, the VNRC cited several important factual errors in the Decision with regard to the location of Hudak Farm, and a serious omission of evidence on the part of the applicant:
For example, the Court erred in initially finding that the Hudak Farm is located only in Swanton. In fact the Hudak Farm has 69 acres in the Town of St Albans. Although the Court later corrected the factual errors, the Court reached the flawed conclusion that the applicant Wal-Mart need not focus on the compatibility of the proposed Wal-Mart with the Hudak Farm. The Town of St Albans Subdivision Bylaws requires that an applicant prove that a project is compatible with adjacent uses – especially agriculture. The applicant did not analyze the compatibility of the proposed Wal-Mart with the adjacent Hudak Farm. The applicant has the burden of proof to satisfy the town bylaws.
“The Court has overlooked the obligation of the applicant to demonstrate that it will not jeopardize the existence of well-established local farm operations,” according to VNRC’s Deputy Director Steve Holmes.
We also contend that conflicts of interest exercised early in the permit process corrupted it sufficiently to influence the ultimate outcome.
Emotions surrounding the issue run high in Franklin County. Supporters of the project insist they represent “majority” opinion; an assertion we have reason to seriously doubt. Be that as it may, we live in a representative democracy, where we have learned that the tyranny of mob rule does not necessarily exercise the best interests of public good. If, for instance, the question of recycling were put to a popular vote in Franklin County, it is doubtful that the majority would support it.
Arguments in favor of the Exit 20 Walmart range from those that have some rational basis to the patently absurd. We have responded, ad nauseum, to the more rational arguments; but there is no countering the absurd ones. Our favorite oft-repeated myth about St. Albans is that you can’t buy socks or underwear here. It conjures up a modern day Dogpatch, where the residents go about their daily business barefoot and buck-naked. The fact is that you can buy both men’s and women’s socks and underwear in several stores throughout town; some every bit as inexpensive as Walmart. As the Tea Party pundits know so well, if you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually will be accepted as truth, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
We’re all sick and tired of the never-ending battle; and in weaker moments I must confess I almost wish the proponents would get their Walmart at Exit 20, so they could finally appreciate the truth in all the warnings we have patiently repeated. Of course the unavoidable reality is that we would suffer the decline in quality of life just as surely as would all of those who think they have to have that particular Walmart.
To make matters worse, the Mayor of St. Albans (who cut an ill-advised “deal” with the developer on behalf of the City, a couple of years ago) put in his own two-cents worth in response to the announcement of our Supreme Court Appeal. Braying to the Messenger about how our appeal is costing the City money in terms of the declining value of its settlement with the developer, Mayor Manahan was quoted as follows:
“They haven’t received the answer they want,” the mayor said of the VNRC. “They are trying to represent our downtown, but they’re not trying to represent our downtown.”
Here is what I sent to the Messenger in response to Mayor Manahan’s remarks:
An open letter to Mayor Manahan
Mr. Mayor, as much as it may surprise you to hear it, the VNRC’s and the NWCRG’s opposition to the proposed Walmart at Exit 20 is not all about you; but since you broached the subject, perhaps this is as good a time as any to remind you that the NWCRG and the VNRC wanted to meet with you and the City Council after Mr. Davis (the developer) made his offer to you, so that we could discuss its implications. Instead of meeting with us, you went ahead and scheduled a vote by the City Council in a rushed and poorly warned Special Session that we barely learned of in time to attend. You will perhaps recall that we attempted to dissuade you and the Council from approving the terms of the settlement (which we only learned of at that Special Session); but you were unpleasant and dismissive in your response, essentially ending discussion and taking a vote without allowing time for us to review the terms of the settlement and prepare arguments for another meeting. You may also recall that we attempted to remind the Council that the City’s own economic expert, Mr. Kavet, hired to give testimony at the District 6 Act 250 hearings, had predicted a large number of business closures and job losses for the City as a result of location of the Exit 20 Walmart. As a result of Mr. Kavet’s assessment, the City’s attorney recommended that, should the project be built, the City should seek compensation to the tune of $10-million, to be paid in annual installments of $500,000.
You ignored that expensive advice and chose to make the deal that you did without bothering to speak with the other interested parties. As a city resident and taxpayer, I can’t say I was overly impressed with that! I even recall an off-hand remark you made to the Council members at the Special Session. It was something to the effect that, if the VNRC and NWCRG ultimately prevailed, the City might actually get even more money! That remark demonstrated to me that you have absolutely no comprehension of the realities involved. I only hope that City voters will bear this in mind in the future.
You seem to be completely unaware that Mr. Davis, with whom you made the time-sensitive bargain, has also appealed the Environmental Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. Perhaps the Messenger could now finish the job by finding out what Mr. Davis plans to appeal about the decision. And while your’re at it, Emerson, how about asking what his plans are for the other three development lots he owns out at Exit 20. Berlin City Auto? Bed Bath and Beyond? Best Buy? We’re all dying of curiosity to know what other big boxes he plans to locate at the Exit 20 bottleneck. We never tire of reminding everyone that Walmart could have been open and operating for the past five years in downtown St. Albans, had Mr. Davis accepted the compromise offered by Preservation Trust and supported by all the opponents of the Exit 20 project.
You may remember that a small group of concerned neighbors to the Agrimark facility in Cabot (Whey to Go) tried unsuccessfully last fall and winter to dissuade the ANR from issuing a permit to increase the amount of waste the plant could disperse in the area. They raised questions about the composition of the waste, anecdotal evidence that some components posed a risk of toxicity; and asked why the wastewater facility that Agrimark was supposed to build had never materialized.
Now, a new twist has been added to the story. It seems that Agrimark has indirectly applied to the ANR for permits to drill wells in several locations on the property. When adjacent landowners were notified of the application, they were puzzled why Agrimark’s representatives would only now be asking for permits for what appear to be already existing wells. Whey to Go Spokesman, Jill Alexander contacted me about this more than a week ago, but I was waiting for clarification she had requested from the ANR before posting about this story.
Today, I received the following from Jill:
To my fellow petition signers,
First, thank you for signing our petition and sharing your concerns regarding Agri-Mark’s, (DBA Cabot Creamery) waste water spraying. We need your help again.
The Agency of Natural Resources recently discovered that, for the past 20 years, Agri–Mark, DBA Cabot Creamery has unlawfully withdrawn tens of thousands of gallons of water each day from their unpermitted wells. Instead of reprimanding Agri-Mark, or investigating whether this has depleted Cabot’s water supply, ANR intends to permit Agri-Mark’s water wells!
We need you to voice your concern by requesting a public hearing before the June 10th deadline.
Agri-Mark’s plan is to pull 15,000 gallons of water per day from these water wells, but the company has no plan to assess how this would affect others in the area. Plus, ANR would count on Agri-Mark to report its own water withdrawal. Agri-Mark has chalked up a long list of permit violations. Why should they be trusted with our water?
Here’s how to weigh in and request a public hearing: (Application PID N-2049-07.0 under 10 VSA, Section 1675 (c).)
1. Email Rodney Pingree at the Water Supply Division, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vt. 05671 @ rodney.pingree@state.vt.us. and also Scott Stewart @ Scott.Stewart@state.vt.us. who is also at the Water Supply Division of ANR.
2. Please cc: sandra.noyes@yahoo and Jill Alexander @ 4reiki@fairpoint.net so we can keep track.
She reports that:
we have unearthed some very disturbing information about what is happening with this well issue. My overflow has gone dry as well as my neighbor’s overflow so this is urgent before we potentially have our water drained by Agri-Mark.
Sounds as if Agrimark and ANR have some explaining to do. How about that public hearing, ANR?
Here’s to tilting at windmills. May we forever rise to the occasion!
It’s not even Memorial Day, and we’re broiling like lobsters in record heat. (Thank you, Climate Change Foot-Draggers!) Confronted with what is by far the worst oil spill in U.S. history, the man we all worked so hard to send to the White House is telegraphing helplessness back to us. What is there to celebrate, as we enter this odd little weekend wienie-roast commemorating the dead of war?
Well, we’ve got Bernie; and it looks like he’s finally had enough of the go-along-to-get along. Channeling the frustration and anger of all environmentally sentient Americans, Bernie Sanders is calling once and for all for an end to offshore drilling. Besides banning offshore drilling, his “Clean Coasts and Efficient Cars Act” would exact full restitution for the spill from BP, and force automakers to finally deliver on the fuel-efficiency they’ve been kicking down the road now for decades. Does he have any chance of moving this thing forward? Who knows? Certainly there is no better time to make the argument; but it feels awfully good to see our guy stand up and speak the words to power that we all long to scream.
Vermont Yankee revealed Friday that strontium-90 has been detected in soil near the site where a tritium leak had previously been discovered at Vermont Yankee. More recognizable by name to most of us Baby Boomers than tritium, strontium-90 contamination truly is cause for alarm and poses a whole new set of challenges to the prospect of eventual clean-up. As nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen explains, contact with the radioactive isotope is extremely dangerous, as it concentrates in human bone, causing leukemia.
“This is the worst,” Gundersen said. “This is the most harmful, the hardest-to-detect and the most soluble.”
It’s interesting that this information took so long to reach the public. The Free Press reports that the results of the March 17 soil sampling that revealed the strontium-90 contamination were received on Monday, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was only notified on Thursday.
My guess is that VY spokesman Larry Smith has the spin-cycle in full revolution.
Please note, I am an active member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth.
More evidence that the planning process around Exit 20 in St. Albans Town and Swanton is broken.
In today’s St. Albans Messenger, Michelle Monroe reports that the Conservation Law Foundation will be forced to refuse a $25,000. grant from “Clean and Clear” to develop a comprehensive stormwater management plan for the area surrounding Exit 20 of I-89. The reason: neither the Town of St. Albans nor the Town of Swanton wants their findings to influence public policy. You can’t make this stuff up. According to the article
The project would have included a geographic information system (GIS) overview of current conditions and an evaluation of methods that could be used to protect and improve water conditions in the area..
In refusing the help of the CLF, Swanton town administrator, Dick Thompson, is quoted as writing:
“We fear that the results of any environmental planning efforts by them , or consultants hired by them would only result in negative connotations and impact to our efforts to promote economic development in our community.”
To which St. Albans Town manager, Christine Murphy added her concern that
Any plan for the Exit 20 area had the potential to grow ‘regulatory legs’ because of the likelihood that the town will be required to obtain a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit.
It should be mentioned that Christine Murphy has only recently come on-board the St. Albans Town administration; but Dick Thompson has served in the capacity of Swanton town administrator for a number of years. Mr. Thompson was recorded some years back at a Swanton planning meeting when building caps were under discussion. Referring to the newly designated growth center at Exit 20, he said something to the effect that ” We want them to know that we don’t care how big they build it here; we just want them to build here!”
Murphy takes issue with the fact that the Conservation Law Foundation didn’t ask the Towns’ permission before applying for the grant. One of the factors that may have influenced the two Towns to reject the Federally funded planning project is the fact that, last year, the CLF initiated proceedings to challenge a discharge permit that had been issued to the St. Albans City Wastewater Treatment facility. The CLF challenge asserts that the permit represents a violation of state law with regard to the preservation of prime agricultural soils.
Since large growth centers adjacent to Exit 20 have been designated by both Towns, the area is ripe for the kind of highway-centric sprawl that responsible planning is intended to avoid. Despite repeated requests by the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth for detailed projections of what full build-out of these growth centers might look like, so far none have been forthcoming. The CLF project would have gone a long way to provide the kind of information Franklin County needs to plan around this target area of intense growth.
By a remarkable coincidence, St. Albans resident Marie Limoges has a letter to the editor in the same issue of the Messenger:
I am really amazed that I seem to be the only person interested in Jeff Davis’ plans for the rest of his property at Exit 20, especialy since I recntly discovred that the 22 acres the Drive-In Theater is on is up for sale and advertised as good property for retail purposes.
Also, there have been proposals by Swanton to develop their portion of land at exit 20, and isn’t a hotel/motel on the drawing board near exit 20?
I shudder at the amount of noise, pollution, storm water run-off, traffic conjestion, etc., that these projects will create for the area. Lots of luck to all of us, when and if all this transpires
Kudos to Bernie Sanders for once again hitting the nail on the head. Charging that conflicts of interest may have tainted Fed decisions in dispensing bank bailouts, Sanders has called for specific language addressing such conflicts, to be included in the regulatory bill that is currently under consideration by the Senate.
From the Feds on down through state and local government, conflicts of interest have become so interwoven with the process that it is next to impossible to tease them all out. Selectmen and planners may have active interests in real estate development. Governors take contributions from corporations and appoint judges and regulatory overseers who know from whence their marching orders come. Senators, congressmen and presidents do the same. Though much posturing is made in the law about avoiding conflicts of interest, definitions are vague, and relatively little provision has been made for monitoring and truly meaningful penalties.
The end result is a Supreme Court that has the temerity to bestow personhood on corporations, giving them carte blanche to execute the acquisition of our democracy.
Despite all the best efforts of Entergy to keep a lid on the controversy over Vermont Yankee’s leaks-and-creaks, and to push through its bid for relicencing, it appears that, internationally speaking, the cat is out of the bag.
This, just in from the global giant of environmental activism, Greenpeace:
Greenpeace Crashes Entergy Shareholder Meeting to Deliver Message from Vermonters to Close Vermont Yankee
JACKSON, MS – Greenpeace today crashed Entergy’s annual shareholder meeting, demanding the company stop its
effort to overturn the Vermont Senate’s vote to deny re-licensing for the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor.
As Entergy executives delivered statements about company profits, Greenpeace activists delivered a letter from Vermonters
demanding that Entergy retire the reactor as scheduled in 2012. Entergy shareholders, upper management, and board members
