Please name three specific pieces of legislation that are important to you and why.
- S.234: While this piece of legislation was vetoed by Phil Scott, I think we are going to see another iteration of it very soon and the next legislative body may very well vote again on Act 250 reform. One of the core aspects of S.234 that I would fight for is protections for connecting habitat and forest blocks. Any new reform will have to prevent further fragmentation of our forest blocks and working lands. The original bill had the support of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, Audubon Vermont, the Vermont Land Trust and the Nature Conservancy. These voices will be critical in any new legislation and I feel we can make necessary changes with regard to process as long as we don’t lose sight of the core principle: prevent fragmentation.
- H.715: This bill had problems, but (much like S.234) I think we are going to see it again. According to mandates set by the 2020 Global Warming Solutions Act, Vermont must reach emission-reduction targets or face potential legal action. At the most basic level, we need to move from fossil fuel heating sources to heat sources that produce fewer emissions and without some kind of clean heat standard, it’s unlikely that we will meet these legally mandated greenhouse gas emission reduction deadlines. When this bill comes around again I think we need to focus on two things: One, maximize weatherization for the most vulnerable. There are Vermonters across the state who will benefit from this immediately. Second, cap limits for biofuels or cut out their loopholes altogether. Forests should be seen as a means to sequester carbon; we can’t convert them into fields to grow crops for fuel.
- Prop 5: This is, fundamentally, about trusting women to make decisions about their lives. It’s also about deciding what kind of state we are and what kind of state we want to be in the face of a movement against reproductive rights. I wrote a piece in The Citizen on Prop 5 last month and stand by it: https://www.vtcng.com/thecitizenvt/opinion/opinion_columns/prop-5-matters-now-more-than-ever/article_49c651a2-d79f-11ec-b723-df9c6dfab7b6.html
How would you preserve the environment while ensuring a supply of affordable housing?
I think affordable housing should have key priorities: build with maximum efficiencies, build with the principle of getting more cars off the road, build with an eye towards protecting open space.
The housing crisis is national. I was working in finance in 2008 when the housing market collapsed and watched as builders left their field. In many ways, they have not caught up and now we have supply chain issues added into the fold. Here in Vermont, we have our own wrinkle to the crisis in that Covid (and climate change) have made our state a much more attractive place to be.
On my town’s selectboard I have advocated for real affordable housing. To me that means housing for eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. I know for others that meaning is different and affordable housing can be conflated with any type of housing.
Affordable housing needs should be met by building in the high-density areas that exist and have access to public services and transportation. In towns like Charlotte this means building in our villages. In the larger towns, this means focusing on the urban areas while preserving existing open space.
All housing, not just affordable housing should also factor in if we are outpacing our ability to fund municipal needs (roads, emergency services, and schools). I think it is important for leaders across Chittenden County to consider what development potential we can adequately serve now and how zoning changes will increase our housing supply.
What’s your plan to save the water quality of Lake Champlain and our many tributaries?
Charlotte is on the lake and we face water quality issues every spring and summer. I’m not a scientist, but the consensus is clear: phosphorus found in runoff is arguably the greatest threat to clean water in Lake Champlain. Too much phosphorus pollution stimulates algae growth. Phosphorus comes mostly from roads, parking lots, lawns, and – most importantly – agricultural operations. It must be reduced.
We need to incentivize farmers to keep tabs on their runoff and invest in their soil health. Farmers are going to need help to lower their phosphorus amounts beyond the federally mandated limit and Montpelier should take the lead on this.
On the municipal level, towns need to use best practices with regards to road and stormwater runoff. Rules may have to be established on this.
Are you in favor of putting a price on carbon?
Yes. Carbon pricing can yield both economic and climate benefits. Putting a price on carbon emissions can drive emission reductions, help spur innovation and allow businesses (and everyday people) to choose how they reduce emissions as a cost saving tactic.
An aspect of this plan is that carbon pricing has led to trading systems. In short, companies acquire allowances for greenhouse gases they emit, with the supply of such permits limited by some type of regulation. Determining the “right” price on carbon has proven to be a challenge but businesses can buy and sell allowances, thus establishing a price for emissions.
Carbon pricing on its own will not be enough to address climate change. Ultimately, we all need to make serious adjustments to our lifestyles and reduce consumption globally. But we have seen that carbon pricing, when used effectively and transparently, is a helpful tool in the toolbox to incentivize companies to try to reduce their carbon footprint.
If elected, what will be your top 3 legislative priorities?
- Making sure Act 250 reform does not abandon the core principles of the act itself.
- Ensuring that any zoning regulations take into account the protection of open spaces/forest blocks and making sure housing does not outstrip a community’s needs.
- Getting working families some relief with childcare and ensuring early childcare providers get the respect and pay they deserve.
What are the first three actions you would take to address climate change? What would you do in support of the Global Warming Solutions Act?
Unless we move from fossil fuel heating sources to heat sources that produce fewer emissions, we will not meet our obligations under the Global Warming Solutions Act. We need to recognize that building better is linked to economic development, they are not opposed.
Action number 1: support efforts to increase weatherization efforts across the state.
Action number 2: support growth initiatives that recognize the value in forest blocks with regards to carbon sequestration.
Action number 3: Cap bio-fuel allotments in legislation.
What steps would you take to protect the natural environment in Chittenden County and Vermont?
Chittenden County will continue to see growth pressure for years to come.
We need to account for this growth in a deliberate way that protects our natural resources. Housing should be near green space and parks and it should be energy efficient. We need to recognize that overbuilding and removing the needed open space to sustain our ecosystems leads to heat islands, which require more carbon to cool down houses. As addressed above, the loss of habitat can increase algae in our lake.
Would you support H.175, which would expand Vermont’s “bottle bill” to cover additional containers, like bottled water and wine bottles?
Yes. The money collected can go to help clean up our waters and, more importantly, it can limit waste going into our landfills.
Would you support S.234, which makes changes to Act 250?
Act 250 has protected Vermont. We can make some necessary modifications with regards to process so people can understand better where a case may be heard and on what timeline. But I would fight for the protections of habitat and forest blocks in S.234. Any new reform will have to prevent further fragmentation of our forest blocks and working lands.
Would you support H.715, the “Clean Heat Standard”?
If the bill is presented in the original format I would insist that biofuels be capped or taken out.