By Tom Ayres, Senior Staff Writer
Nine candidates — five Democrats and four Republicans — are vying for three Windsor County seats in the Vermont Senate in the primary election on Tuesday, Aug. 13. Early and absentee voting gets under way this week. One of the three Windsor seats in the state Senate is currently held by Sen. Dick McCormack, a Democrat from Bethel, who has announced that he is stepping down in January after more than three decades as a legislator. All nine candidates for the Vermont Senate responded to several questions about their priorities and positions that the Standard distributed two weeks ago. Their responses follow.
Q: What will be your top priorities for the next session of the Vermont Legislature, beginning in January 2025?
State Sen. Alison Clarkson (D), Woodstock: Top priorities for 2025: Continue work on housing affordability and reducing barriers to development in smart growth areas; identify how we can sustainably finance and support Vermont’s public education system; continue reducing Vermont’s contributions to climate change and building resiliency against natural disasters; more effectively address trauma in Vermont; expand and better coordinate workforce development.
Jonathan Gleason (R), Ludlow: As a new member of the Vermont State Senate, it will be my highest priority to watch, listen and learn. I will strive to understand the protocols and nuanced inner workings of the Vermont Legislature, and I will rely on the established Senators as mentors in this important endeavor. As an entrepreneur, I will bring my substantial experience with budgets and planning to provide ‘out of the box’ solutions to the economic challenges facing Vermonters.
Joe Major (D), Hartford: My top priorities for the next session of the Vermont Legislature include expanding affordable housing, improving public education, and enhancing community safety. I aim to address housing affordability through regulatory changes, support robust educational programs, and tackle crime by investing in proactive community safety measures and expanding addiction treatment and recovery resources.
Andrea Murray (R), Weathersfield: My top priority is to restore balance in the legislature. An effective government is one that serves the best interests of all Vermonters. A supermajority can never truly be “for the people” without checks and balances to ensure collaboration of ideas and compromise from both sides of the aisle. We must work together to stop this unsustainable government spending spree that is crushing our citizens.
Marc Nemeth (D), Royalton: My number one issue is the housing crisis. As an attorney working on both sides of landlord and tenant cases, I have first-hand knowledge of how we can find ways to address homelessness. I will also take steps to ensure that the Vermont Court system gets the resources that it has been lacking for many years. We also desperately need to find ways to reduce the debilitating drug addiction crisis and the lack of mental health resources that we are currently struggling with in Vermont.
Rob Ruhlin (R), Cavendish: My priorities are to reduce the cost of living for all Vermonters, restore hope to our young people so they can afford to live and raise children in our beautiful state, and our retired senior citizens won’t fear losing their homes due to the massive tax increases and oppressive regulations the Democrat Super Majority has imposed on our citizens.
Justin Tuthill (D), Pomfret: There is no doubt a housing crisis is [apparent], but we also have a population crisis. Young people are increasingly struggling to afford to live in this state and almost without saying, housing and taxes are brought up in any conversation about affordability. The conversation does not end at affordability, as young people need decent jobs and our increasingly tourist-based economy is not sufficient, as many of these jobs are great for teenagers or those fresh in the job market. Once people manage to get a job, we are met with taxes at every corner and our legislature’s default solution to everything is to create or increase taxes.
Particularly in this economy we need to address the heavy tax burden on everyday Vermonters as well as regulations and anything that may be keeping larger businesses from entering the state. This means undoing a lot of which has already been done and ignoring misplaced priorities, particularly initiatives which look to address global problems of which Vermont is not an offender.
State Sen. Becca White (D), Hartford: My top priorities are addressing the climate crisis, housing affordability, and workforce challenges. As a young Vermonter and the youngest Senator at age 30, I have a unique perspective on the implications of decisions made. There are many Windsor County and region-specific issues I have heard from constituents that I will also be prioritizing.
Jack Williams (R), Weathersfield: If elected as a Vermont State Senator, my top priorities will be one, represent the “Will of (All) the People” of Windsor County; two, support 100% the vision of the elected Governor of Vermont to move Vermont forward; and three, work in a bipartisan manner with all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the state senate.
Q: Our state has a deep-seated housing crisis, with a lack of affordable, accessible housing for everyday working Vermonters. What are your key policy recommendations for addressing this crisis?
Clarkson: Create a sustainable financing model for state investments in housing; support our Vermont Housing Improvement Program (VHIP), which brings unusable housing back online and builds more Accessory Dwelling Units; use our infill spaces in our downtowns and village centers to build; expand our Home Share programs; reduce regulatory barriers to housing in smart growth areas.
Gleason: Addressing the shortage of qualified construction personnel, by incentivizing more Vermonters to work in profitable trade jobs. Expanding trade schools and creating apprenticeship opportunities with local contractors through partnership arrangements.
Major: To address Vermont’s housing crisis, recommendations include increasing funding for affordable housing projects, reforming zoning laws to encourage development, expanding public transportation to connect affordable areas, and providing incentives for developers to build more affordable units. Additionally, investing in weatherization and energy efficiency can reduce living costs, making existing homes more affordable.
Murray: When Governor Scott vetoed H.687 he provided half a dozen policy recommendations which would have achieved real solutions for our housing crisis. I support consideration of these initiatives, which include substantial housing incentives and streamlined zoning and land use regulations.
Nemeth: The lack of affordable and accessible housing for everyday working Vermonters is my single biggest priority as a candidate for the Vermont Senate. I come to the issue having experience as an attorney, as a property manager, as a landlord, and as a tenant. This issue has many different layers and there isn’t a single solution. We have to ensure that our residential rental laws protect BOTH tenants AND landlords. The current laws are in serious need of revamping so that everyone has better access to the court system. From there, we need to develop programs that will reduce the number of evictions that are being brought to our courts. We need to make it possible for families and individuals to secure ownership of their homes as a preferable path to stability and permanence. We also need to do everything possible to ensure that Vermont families and individuals aren’t squeezed out of home purchasing and leasing opportunities simply because they can’t compete with out-of-state purchasers that have more resources.
Ruhlin: Government mandates during COVID and land use regulations have created the current affordable housing crisis, coupled with massive increases in property taxes and the looming increase in heating fuel costs of the Clean Heat Standard will cause housing costs to skyrocket. I would start by voting to repeal the recent Act 250 changes and the Clean Heat Standard.
Tuthill: Regarding housing we may need to be a bit controversial or aggressive, such as banning short term rentals such as Airbnbs, which rent out entire houses. If someone has a room, guest house or the like, then they should be able to continue renting those out. Additionally, corporations should not be allowed to own housing unless for the short time that they are unable to sell after construction. Mandatory homeowners association (HOA) membership should be abolished and membership, once agreed upon, should only last for a short time until renewal is required and these organizations cannot hold liens over property. This will ensure more freedom over property, reduce the cost burden and ensure HOAs stay focused and market what they provide for their fees.
White: I currently live in affordable housing through the Twin Pines Housing Trust homeownership program, and my mother who is on the waiting list for rental housing lives with us, so I know firsthand how this national crisis affects working Vermonters like my family. My policy recommendations would build off of the work we did the last two legislative sessions with expansions of first time homebuyer programs, land use regulation reform that promotes smart growth development, and investments in affordable housing. Additionally, Vermont has the second highest second-homeownership rate in the nation and we need to think carefully about what this means for our economy and housing crisis.
Williams: One, get inflation under control to increase the purchasing power of citizens; two, update Act 250 to increase availability of housing by increased building and refurbishing projects; three, allow free market principles to determine the value of housing; and four, identify lending institutions nationwide to provide financing for low-income home buyers.
Q: Act 250 reform is a perennial topic of debate at the State House each legislative session. What is your position on the Vermont Legislature’s override of Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of H.687, the latest attempt at reforming the state’s landmark land-use law?
Clarkson: The Legislature has worked for years to create the right balance between development and protecting our natural environment. I supported overriding the veto because we had finally landed this balance. H.687 enables each Town to decide where they want to develop and what they want to protect. This work will invest our communities in Vermont’s future and that is important.
Gleason: The Democrat led Supermajority overrode six of Governor Scott’s vetoes, and he responded that they were ‘a little bit arrogant.’ I believe that the Legislative Supermajority is a detriment to a properly functioning Democracy in Vermont, as checks and balances are no longer occurring. We need to vote out the Democrat incumbents and rebalance the Legislature to ensure a fair and equitable Democracy for all Vermonters.
Major: I support the Vermont Legislature’s override of Governor Phil Scott’s veto of H.687; I see it as a necessary compromise to balance housing development with environmental conservation. I believe the reforms in H.687 will help alleviate the housing crisis by easing Act 250’s reach in developed areas while maintaining protections for sensitive ecosystems.
Murray: Governor Scott’s 2022 landslide victory was an unmistakable signal that Vermonters stand solidly behind Gov. Scott in his efforts to make reasonable compromises with the legislature. I look forward to bringing common sense, fiscally responsible solutions to this effort and restoring balance to our state government.
Nemeth: I initially became familiar with Act 250 back in 1992 when I first embarked on my path to becoming an attorney. I have since represented numerous landowners who sought to subdivide or develop their property for one reason or another. Over the years, I have come to view Act 250 as a critical element in protecting Vermont from unchecked and unhealthy development in our communities. I also understand that Act 250 can be very difficult and expensive for some individuals and families that are simply trying to make use of their land in an otherwise reasonable and appropriate way. We need to strike a balance between both of those interests and bring everyone together to facilitate appropriate and reasonable development that will enable us to better address other related issues such as lack of housing and waning commercial development.
Ruhlin: I would have upheld the veto of H. 687. It will be impossible under the new Act 250 regulations to build affordable single family homes outside of town centers. Vermont’s young families want homeownership, not merely a rental unit in a multi-story building in town. I would work toward incentives to give working families hope of homeownership.
Tuthill: We do need to reform Act 250, but at this time I would have to agree that the recent reform effort created more associated costs and conservation than it would have benefits to Vermonters. The idea is to reduce costs and bureaucracy and balance conservation with growth — though we do not have a crisis of conservation in Vermont, perhaps until we speak about fields of solar panels.
White: Governor Phil Scott has vetoed more bills than any other Governor in Vermont’s history and has officially passed the mark as having vetoed more bills than all previous governors combined. Unfortunately, his administration chose not to engage with the committee process in a significant way and while we made extensive efforts to solicit his staff’s feedback on proposals, it was not fruitful. At its core H.687 takes the principles of smart growth (dense downtowns and no sprawl) and creates a process of multiple years of planning and mapping to identify where Vermonters want development while lifting present-day barriers to desperately needed housing. Interim exemptions support increased units and clear the way for homeless shelters, while structural changes to Act 250 will unfold alongside the aforementioned planning/mapping process.
Williams: What areas of the Vermont Economy does Act 250 affect? One: housing, buildings, rail, bridge, highway, and airport construction; Two: farming, commercial, residential and recreational land use; Three: forestry and logging. Basically the entire economy of Vermont. Therefore Act 250 should be updated continuously. Why then did the Vermont legislature veto H.687? Was it partisan politics, political incompetence, or both? (Editor’s Note: To clarify, the governor vetoed H.687. The legislature overrode his veto.)
Q: The state’s current means of funding public education Ñ including the construction of new school buildings Ñ is leading to skyrocketing property taxes that are simply unsustainable for average Vermont families. What are your suggestions for financing public education in Vermont and relieving the excessive financial burden on taxpayers?
Clarkson: It is not sustainable. This year a confluence of cost increases led to higher school budgets and thus, the higher education property tax which pays our education bills, The Commission on the Future of Education will be addressing these concerns — cost and financing of education — this summer and fall. I will weigh their suggestions thoughtfully.
Gleason: I am deeply concerned about both Affordability and Education. The old formulas used to calculate per pupil costs should be evaluated and updated with a focus on cost savings where practicable. It is not a sustainable solution to raise taxes on the residential tax payers and spend. We need to look for common sense affordable solutions that will enhance our schools and provide an exemplary education for our children.
Major: I believe in reforming Vermont’s education funding by advocating for a more equitable funding formula and utilizing surplus state funds to offset property tax increases. I support increasing state investment in education while seeking efficiency measures and ensuring that all Vermont children receive a quality education without overly burdening taxpayers.
Murray: The far-left legislators are unable to see that they have lost touch with the people they were elected to serve. Vermonters aren’t looking to gut education spending, but neither can they afford the skyrocketing taxes that come with the far-left wish list. Fiscal constraints must be put in place to ensure the cost of education does not outpace the cost of living. A 13.8 percent property tax increase is an irresponsible and unjustifiable burden on taxpayers.
Nemeth: While I was out on the trail gathering signatures for my petition to be placed on the ballot, I made it a point to ask everyone that I approached to share their single biggest concern with me. The overwhelming and consistent answer that they shared with me was that they simply can’t afford to keep up with their property taxes at the current rates, let alone in the face of a looming increase. This issue and the solution are far more complex than can be addressed here. Bottom line, I am committed to finding ways to reduce excessive spending and to develop fair and balanced ways to distribute the burden of the costs related to the incredibly important task of making sure that our children have the best available education possible.
Ruhlin: Vermont’s public schools are failing in every way under the past several decades of Democrat control. Millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted every year, including 30 million for Universal Free School Lunches. Control of local schools needs to be returned to the communities. I support parental choice of schools and holding administrators and faculty accountable.
Tuthill: Recent pushback by voters, specifically with school budgets, shows that we are at our limits and we can throw around the word unsustainable everywhere when talking about the current state of Vermont and the country. Where is all this infrastructure money D.C. voted for? In a larger effort to reduce costs and spending, before we reach a deeper crisis, we need to address spending across all state projects. This will mean audits, cuts, and ignoring unnecessary or completely foolish spending proposed by the Legislature. Teachers must be paid well, but again, we should address spending there as well.
White: Property tax increases are frustrating for everyone, for my family too! And I’m proud of the work your part time legislature did to reduce the originally anticipated statewide increase from 20% down to 13%. Yet, framing of this question is slanted to have the reader believe a certain set of facts, first that the public education financing system is unsustainable and that second it is the fault of current decisions. I would disagree with both statements. First, it is true that inflation, a 16% increase in healthcare costs, the end of federal funds, the lift on the school construction moratorium, and the reliance on our public school system as a social safety net program have all increased costs. My main goal for our public policy is to make sure the costs of education are borne out on those who can most afford to pay, meaning wealthy Vermonters contributing an equitable share and putting the education costs that local voters choose back to those who choose that path. I will also be watching intently for the results of the commission set up to explore questions like this.
Williams: One, work with school superintendents across the state to revise “Pupil Weights” in Act 127. Two, review expenditures of the State Budget that can be better used in the education fund. Three, study the feasibility of placing a “Cap” on homestead property taxes, similar to a cap on sales taxes. Four, use federal school funds “judiciously” to supplement state education funding.