I’m fully aware that we should take anything reported by WGOP — er, WCAX with a grain of salt. After all, just last week it made a huge and completely unwarranted fuss over Rep. Peter Welch’s alleged involvement in the IRS/Tea Party affair.

But WCAX has produced a follow-up to Peter Hirschfeld’s scoop about Gov. Shumlin’s East Montpelier land deal — you know, the one where he bought a 16-acre property and a dilapidated house for well under appraised value, the seller (Jeremy Dodge) was a troubled individual who wasn’t represented by counsel in the sale, and who now believes he was ripped off by Our Governor.

And if Channel 3 is right, the trouble may just be getting started. Because, according to Dodge’s longtime friend Bernie Corliss…

The land deal attracted the attention of federal authorities. Corliss says an FBI agent came to his door Monday, telling him he was investigating the legality of the deal. The agent even left a card.

“He asked me what I thought Jerry’s mental ability was. He asked me if I thought there was something wrong with the buy,” Corliss said.

WCAX News confirmed the FBI’s involvement. The U.S. Attorney for Vermont said agents followed up on a tip. Authorities would not tell us what they were looking for, but say there is no active investigation.

This may be purely routine, but I don’t think the FBI deploys its agents on a mere lark. And it’s never good news when a politician’s next news conference might well begin with the question, “Governor, have you been questioned by the FBI?”

After the jump: Shumlin jawbones himself a tax break.

One more exclusive tidbit from WCAX: you may recall that the assessed value of the Dodge property was lowered from $233,700 to $144,000 after the sale. Well, according to Channel 3, that’s because Shumlin sought a reduction in his East Montpelier property taxes.

“He did suggest that, you know, this was a worthless property and it isn’t worth what we had it in for,” [town lister Ross] Hazel said.

So he spent $58,000 on a “worthless” property that, even after a generous reappraisal, is still listed at $144,000.

Do I think there’s a scandal here? Not really. But my God, it stinks. At the very least, as Corliss told WCAX…

“A good person with ethics would have definitely done something different,” he said.

Hard to argue.  

Well, well. Just a few days after publishing an anecdote about Peter Shumlin’s money-grubbing youth (paywalled), here comes Peter “Scoop” Hirschfeld with a story of Our Governor’s modern-day devotion to unvarnished capitalism. (Partial version free here; full story paywalled here.)

Latest Shumlin land deal leaves seller feeling jilted

Last year, as you may recall, Shumlin bought a plot of land in East Montpelier on the cheap with a lot of help from his friends. And on that little piece of paradise, he had a new home built.

Then, last fall, Shumlin arranged to buy an adjacent piece of property. The owner, Jeremy Dodge, had inherited the land in 2009, had fallen way behind on his taxes, and was facing foreclosure. The 53-year-old Dodge is a troubled soul who dropped out of school in the ninth grade, has been in and out of trouble with the law, and as a longtime friend put it, “Jeremy’s not all there.”

The sale price: $58,000. At the time of the sale, the appraised value of the property was $233,700. That’s since been reduced to $144,000 because the house is in serious disrepair. But even so, Shumlin got a deal.

Or should I say “steal”?

Because Dodge, a man who obviously lacks the business smarts of a millionaire Governor, didn’t have legal representation.  

“I could not afford a lawyer,” Dodge said. “And (Shumlin) said we’d just use his lawyers.”

Oh dear. Smells like “conflict of interest” to me. And now, looking back on the deal, Dodge’s perspective has changed:

“I don’t have nothing bad to say about him, but yeah, I got ripped off, plain and simple,” Dodge said Tuesday. “I wish it had turned out differently.”

Shumlin insists that “$58,000 was a fair price” because the house “is in terrible shape.” Well, yeah, but even so, the revised appraisal is still nearly three times the purchase price. And although Shumlin claims the deal was a good one for both parties, he seems to realize that there’s a certain… odor… about it.

Dodge said Shumlin came knocking late last week to ask about whether he’d been speaking recently with reporters.

Yeah, I bet.

Now look, the Governor did nothing illegal here. But it sure does appear that he took advantage of someone who wasn’t fully capable of defending his interests or knowing his rights. Sounds a lot like that little kid who was happy (and proud) to price-gouge his brother and sister.  

Let's follow up on a theme we looked into a couple of months ago, only we'll shift from basketball to tennis.

Yes, tennis, the sport of white shorts, hushed crowds, and impeccable sportsmanship.

Wait, did I say sportsmanship? Well, I admit that that was a very long time ago, and before John McEnroe established his apparent lifetime lock on the title Biggest Asshole in Tennis, he had an important predecessor: Jimmy Connors.

Last week's release of Connors's autobiography should put to rest any question of whether his abominable behavior on the court was the result of an excess of competitiveness, a desire to put on a show for the fans, or just another example of a depraved character.

In the early 1970's the tennis world was dominated by two young Americans, Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert, who were not only linked in the public eye on the court, but were also together romantically off the court. It didn't last, but it was not until the memoir that we learn the details. Suffice it to say, the details do not look good for Connors.

As reported by The Atlantic, here's what he says about Evert:

“But now, 35 years later, Connors is releasing a biography this week titled The Outsider, in which he strongly hints that during their whirlwind affair in 1974, Evert got pregnant and had an abortion. He says that she did so without allowing him to be part of the decision-making, though he states that he ‘was perfectly happy to let nature take its course and accept responsibility for what was to come.’ He bitterly writes to Evert in the book, ‘Well, thanks for letting me know. Since I don't have a say in the matter, I guess I am just here to help.’”

What is there to say about this? That Chris Evert's decision was hers to make, not his. That the fact, and the decision to make it public, was hers and not his. Most of all, though, that his choice to make this public, and his attitude, that the choice was all about him, tells us all we need to know about his egocentric, entitled world view.

In the Biggest Asshole in Tennis competition, that is game, set, and match for Mr. Connors.

News that the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission (CVRPC) and Central Vermont Economic Development Commission (CVEDC) are considering a merger sailed into my mailbox this morning with a note from a friend.

“Terrible idea,” was all he wrote.  That was all he needed to write, because I know exactly what he means.

While planning commissions and economic development commissions must find ways to work together for the greater good of the communites they serve; each should be aware of its distinct mission.

The mission of an economic development commission is to pursue opportunities for economic growth in order to grow the tax base and bring new jobs to the community.

The mission of a planning commission is to ensure that growth occurs only in the places where infrastructure exists to support it, where the community believes it will best fit into their long-term needs, and to protect the community’s greater quality of life for future generations.  

Sometimes doing the right thing for the long-term best interests of a community, means a planning commission should recommend against a project that has potential to grow the tax base and even create some jobs in the short-run, but will negatively impact the quality of life for residents, in the long-run.

Just because these conflicting interests  seem to rarely assert themselves in Vermont doesn’t mean that they haven’t, nor that they won’t do so increasingly in the highly competitive future.

The struggle over Walmart locating on prime agricultural soil at the perimeter of St. Albans is an excellent example of how the long-term best interests of Franklin County have been subverted to the impulse for “growth at any cost” and jobs of any quality.

When presented with the Walmart project, the Northwest Regional Planning Commission at least attempted initially to discharge its mission through the normal channels, voting in its Project Review Committee not to support the project for a number of reasons.  

When external pressure was exerted by a powerblock representing the Town of St. Albans, the Commission ultimately caved and created an “ad-hoc” committee to overturn the Project Review Committee’s decision.

This was a failure of mission on the part of the NRPC;  which coupled with failures of process in ACT 250 to allow a project that violates nearly every principle of that environmental law to go forward, nonetheless.

Had the Northwest Regional Planning Commission and the Franklin County Office of Economic Development been operating as a single entity, the arguments against the project would most likely never have been made.

Have a look at the “Services” provided by the CVEDC to businesses:

•We maintain an inventory of industrial sites, buildings and land available for development.  

•We provide new and existing businesses with information or resources needed for decision-making, problem-solving, site location or business expansion.

• We help new and existing businesses obtain financing through the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), conventional banks or through alternative lending programs.

•We provide liaison for businesses with the State and Federal governments for permits, grants, lobbying and environmental issues.

To put it more simply, one of the key purposes of the Economic Development Commission is to aid businesses in moving their projects through the permit system.  This is an advocacy role which is in direct conflict with the role of a planning commission.

To join them in a single harness assumes that they can simultaneously represent the interests of the local community and of a business seeking to locate in that community.

That is a recipe for undermining the sustainable living model that Vermont has uniquely been trying to build.

If all that matters is short-term economic growth, we might as well get used to the idea of the small remainder of prime agricultural soils in Vermont being permanently erased of their productive potential, just so that they can be developed into a series of short-lived retail models, rising up only to be abandoned as fashion favors a newer retail alternative.

If money is the only driver of our planning decisions, we might as well sell our local water systems ( and with them, the bottling rights to our own aquifers) to the Coca-Cola corporation so that they can fulfill their professed ambition to own most of the water of the world.

Think about it.  We have a lot to lose on behalf of future generations of Vermonters.

News that the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission (CVRPC) and Central Vermont Economic Development Commission (CVEDC) are considering a merger sailed into my mailbox this morning with a note from a friend.

“Terrible idea,” was all he wrote.  That was all he needed to write, because I know exactly what he means.

While planning commissions and economic development commissions must find ways to work together for the greater good of the communites they serve; each should be aware of its distinct mission.

The mission of an economic development commission is to pursue opportunities for economic growth in order to grow the tax base and bring new jobs to the community.

The mission of a planning commission is to ensure that growth occurs only in the places where infrastructure exists to support it, where the community believes it will best fit into their long-term needs, and to protect the community’s greater quality of life for future generations.  

Sometimes doing the right thing for the long-term best interests of a community means a planning commission should recommend against a project that has potential to grow the tax base and even create some jobs in the short-run, but will negatively impact the quality of life for residents, in the long-run.

Just because these conflicting interests  seem to rarely assert themselves in Vermont doesn’t mean that they haven’t, nor that they won’t do so increasingly in the highly competitive future.

The struggle over Walmart locating on prime agricultural soil at the perimeter of St. Albans is an excellent example of how the long-term best interests of Franklin County have been subverted to the impulse for “growth at any cost” and jobs of any quality.

When presented with the Walmart project, the Northwest Regional Planning Commission at least attempted initially to discharge its mission through the normal channels, voting in its Project Review Committee not to support the project for a number of reasons.  

When external pressure was exerted by a powerblock representing the Town of St. Albans, the Commission ultimately caved and created an “ad-hoc” committee to overturn the Project Review Committee’s decision.

This was a failure of mission on the part of the NRPC;  which coupled with failures of process in ACT 250 to allow a project that violates nearly every principle of that environmental law to go forward, nonetheless.

Had the Northwest Regional Planning Commission and the Franklin County Office of Economic Development been operating as a single entity, the arguments against the project would most likely never have been made.

Have a look at the “Services” provided by the CVEDC to businesses:

•We maintain an inventory of industrial sites, buildings and land available for development.  

•We provide new and existing businesses with information or resources needed for decision-making, problem-solving, site location or business expansion.

• We help new and existing businesses obtain financing through the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), conventional banks or through alternative lending programs.

•We provide liaison for businesses with the State and Federal governments for permits, grants, lobbying and environmental issues.

To put it more simply, one of the key purposes of the Economic Development Commission is to aid businesses in moving their projects through the permit system.  This is an advocacy role which is in direct conflict with the role of a planning commission.

To join them in a single harness assumes that they can simultaneously represent the interests of the local community and of a business seeking to locate in that community.

That is a recipe for undermining the sustainable living model that Vermont has uniquely been trying to build.

If all that matters is short-term economic growth, we might as well get used to the idea of the small remainder of prime agricultural soils in Vermont being permanently erased of their productive potential, just so that they can be developed into a series of short-lived retail models, rising up only to be abandoned as fashion favors a newer retail alternative.

If money is the only driver of our planning decisions, we might as well sell our local water systems ( and with them, the bottling rights to our own aquifers) to the Coca-Cola corporation so that they can fulfill their professed ambition to own most of the water of the world.

Think about it.  We have a lot to lose on behalf of future generations of Vermonters.

Readers of the Mitchell Family Organ were greeted on Sunday by a neat little piece of psychodrama : a childhood story told by Governor Shumlin and relayed to us by The Indispensable Peter Hirschfeld. (Paywall warning.)

Shumlin, accompanied by his younger brother and older sister, would “go into the store with our allowance … and of course we’d do what kids do – we’d buy candy.”

Unlike most kids, however, Shumlin’s appetite wasn’t for sugar.

“I’d keep the candy in my drawer,” Shumlin says, a smile spreading. “And at the appropriate time, when I knew that my brother or sister had loot, I would sell it to them when they were really desperate for sugar. That’s my nature.”

The Governor obviously sees this story as an illustration of his entrepreneurial nature and his tight-fisted approach to money. But when I read it, the first thing I thought was, “My God, what a little asshole.”

A smile spreading, indeed. I mean, it’s one thing to stash your allowance in the piggy bank, eschewing the immediate gratification of candy bars and chewing gum. It’s a whole ‘nother thing to price-gouge your own family.

This charming anecdote shines a fresh light on some of Shumlin’s policy positions. His opposition to new taxes on soda, candy, or junk food, for instance: he’s clearly got a soft spot in his heart for those who profit off our weaknesses.

And I suppose we should be grateful that he only wanted to reduce the Earned Income Tax Credit rather than, say, turning it into a payday lending program.  

But the most revealing thing about this slice of pre-gubernatorial life is that Shumlin is actually proud of it. Reminds me of the bird-feeder story, which he STILL brings up from time to time. He thinks it portrays him as a real Vermonter, not some chump who goes out naked to rescue his bird feeders from hungry bears. (Which, when you think about it, is really more like something a flatlander would do.) And, in the process, ignores at least two pieces of expert advice: “Take down your feeders in the spring” and “Don’t provoke the bears!”

This myopia and extreme self-assurance is simultaneously a great strength and a real weakness for Peter Shumlin the politician. He really is very smart, and willing to act on his convictions. And stick to them. Even when he’d be better off changing course.

Unfortunately, when it comes to helping the poor (and taxing the rich), there’s still a part of him that’s the steely capitalist who was willing — nay, happy — nay, proud — to fleece his brother and sister.

And who sees that as the natural way of the world.  

The “Assisted Suicide Bill” does exactly what it is designed NOT to do. It will eliminate choice for the most vulnerable. Unintended consequences are sure to follow. We need more, not fewer rights. Government approved suicide, as an end of life option, does not give more rights – in reality it takes them away.

Some legislators promise ‘safeguards’. There are no safeguards that can insure that there will not be abuse. Some of the most vulnerable will be pressured to end it all for the convenience and sometimes for the financial benefit of others. Patients will be unduly influenced into giving in to family members. Many elderly/disabled have loving supportive families. It is those who do not, who are at the highest risk. There is no way that abuse can be prevented. Imagine being isolated with care givers – Stockholm Syndrome.

The proposed Assisted Suicide Law will deprive many of choice. Recent history shows that more than 300 cases of reported abuse of the disabled/elderly have been ignored by the State. This is evidence that the State cannot protect the vulnerable. The Assisted Suicide Law will add another layer of risk. It will make things worse.

Prejudice cloaked in good intentions is still prejudice. Why is the law limited to the most vulnerable, the disabled, the elderly? If suicide is a movement that will benefit society, open it up to everyone. The devaluing of the elderly and disabled is now an accepted fact of life and death. If this law did not show prejudice against the most vulnerable, it would be written to include everyone – young and old, healthy and sick. Sometimes the young and healthy would chose to end it all.

For those pressured to die, there will be no choice. Behind closed doors in private, who will be there to protect them? Elder abuse is a major hidden problem. Talk to anyone in a nursing home – give them anonymity, and they will tell all.

Recently, a friend was searching for a way out… suicide. He was not in physical pain. He was not terminally ill. His problem was that he was in a nursing home and the conditions there were not good. What he needed was a Health Care Advocate – someone to advocate for him. The need for Health Care Advocates is one of the biggest issues of our time. Families are dispersed and distant. Often the elderly are abandoned. Friends die. Suddenly a nursing home is the only option. There have been two reported murders in local nursing homes in recent years. No one can estimate how many murders go unreported. Isolation, neglect, and poor living conditions are other important issues.

It can be argued that there are some justifications for suicide. That may be true, but belief in the infallibility of a diagnosis is not a valid reason. Some doctors and hospitals have already announced that they will not participate in this type death process.

The Assisted Suicide Bill is the wrong answer to the wrong question. The important question is not the length of time left. “…Over the years I’ve learned that my patients are people who can live an entire lifetime in six months or a year. What they do with this time represents a much higher quality of life than that enjoyed by ‘normal’ people who are caught up in the trivia of day-to-day, and not really focused on what is important…”. Keith Black, MD, author of Brain Surgeon.

The question that we should be asking is how can we improve life and death for all. There are three unmet needs that should be addressed by the legislature.

First – health care must be made available to all. Universal, comprehensive Single Payer which includes dental, vision, and long term care is the answer.

Second – the alleviation of pain must be considered. Ethics require that everything scientifically possible should be done to eliminate suffering. It is usually possible to do that without killing the patient.

Third – and most important of all, those at high risk must be protected. There is only one way to do that. We must set up a system of Heath Care Advocates. This does not have to cost tax payers a lot of money. A system based on volunteers could work. The main qualification would be compassion and the pledge to honor privacy.

Will we soon see Grandpa set adrift on an ice floe on the shore of Lake Champlain? There must be a better way.

Rosemarie Jackowski

Well, looky here. VTDigger’s Anne Galloway found herself a little somethin’-somethin’ that nobody else noticed in the last-minute machinations of the Legislature:

A little-known, six-paragraph provision that passed in the Senate just five hours before adjournment on Tuesday could lay the groundwork for significant changes in the way business is conducted at the Vermont Statehouse.

The resolution, S.R. 7, allows the Senate to form a special committee to examine the lobbying activities of publicly funded organizations.

This special committee will have subpoena power to compel testimony and gain access to relevant records and accounts, and its members will include many of the Senate’s most powerful figures.

The resolution was the brainchild of Sen. Dick Sears, and his intended targets are public-school organizations such as the School Boards Association, Principals Association, and Superintendents Association. He’s tired of what he calls their “brick wall” of opposition to school reforms.

“It seems as though trying to make changes in ed policy is like pulling teeth,” Sears said.

Sears insists he doesn’t have “any preconceived notions that anybody is doing something wrong,” but the Senate has just given him a big ol’ hammer and the authority to search for nails. And you know what they say about a man with a hammer, right?

After the jump: my biggest objection to S.7, and an interesting potential twist.

Apparently, Sears and other Senators are tired of getting a flurry of constituent contacts whenever school reforms are under consideration. He blames the Associations for orchestrating these inconvenient floods, ignoring the notion that maybe a lot of Vermonters are actually happy with their local public schools and are leery of centrally-imposed “reforms.” (F’rinstance, the overwhelming approval rates for school budgets.)

Be that as it may, my biggest objection isn’t about the content of S.7, it’s the process. We never heard a peep about this during the legislative session. Sears and his cronies snuck it through on Adjournment Day, with no advance notice. Seems a bit… well… undemocratic.

Sears’ primary intent is to examine the lobbying activities of the school associations, but as Galloway notes:

The language in the resolution is broad – any organization that receives state funding could come under scrutiny when the committee begins meeting this summer.

At least one member of the special committee, Democrat Jeannette White, asserts that “state funding” includes tax credits and tax breaks.

And that would be truly fascinating. Because just about every entity of any size in Vermont would qualify under that definition.

The seven-member committee includes Sears, White, John Campbell, Kevin Mullin, Jane Kitchel, Bobby Starr, and Richie Westman. There’s a whole lot of support for the institutional status quo in that group. I’d feel a lot more optimistic if someone like Tim Ashe or David Zuckerman had a seat at the table.  

As a downtown resident of St. Albans, I welcome today’s announcement that TIF districts will be subject to increased oversight by the Auditor’s office.

The City of St. Albans recently nabbed a coveted TIF designation, which will aid in ongoing downtown revitalization efforts.  Those efforts, it is hoped, will offset the impact of big box retail development on the City’s perimeter.

Optimism is running high in my neighborhood, even as massive sewer and sidewalk projects disrupt foot traffic on Main St.

St. Albans voters have given a ringing endorsement to the City’s early plans for TIF-enabled improvements and have had little patience with those who would hamstring those efforts.

TIF, “Tax Increment Financing,” is a powerful tool made available by the Legislature to a limited number of municipalites.  It involves temporary redirection of tax dollars that normally would go to the state.

Those tax dollars go instead into public projects intended to grow the TIF holder’s tax base. The idea is that this ultimately benefits both the municipality and the state…but TIF fever has been known to carry-away other administrations, who lost sight of their long-term obligations as they pursued exciting short-term goals.  

Winooski’s 1.5-million shortfall springs most readily to mind.

Senate bill 37, passed at the end of the 2013 session, reforms the process and specifically establishes penalties for failure to comply.

It also ends the practice of awarding new TIF districts to other municipalities.  Whether that provision will be revisited once the impact of reforms on existing TIF districts can be assessed, remains to be seen.

Vermont Auditor Doug Hoffer is determined to provide the ongoing oversight that has previously been lacking with regard to TIF management, so that the benefitting municipalities don’t get in over their heads.

According to Hoffer, “S. 37 establishes much needed clarity in the statutes, provides a mechanism for resolving future disputes, and requires payments by the towns for monies mistakenly withheld from the Education Fund.” It also establishes a process for future performance audits of TIF’s by the Auditor’s office.

Poised near the beginning of its own TIF “boom,” St. Albans will certainly benefit from the guidance offered by S. 37 and the certain knowledge that the Auditor’s office will be expecting accountability.