What if Burlington City Council Does What NYC City Council did with Veto Proof Vote to Suddenly Spend 6% of Budget for Fed Housing Vouchers

The VT Housing Finance Agency vhfa.com seeks comments on $1.5 million to be spent on covid relief without addressing the underlying income gap. Below are my comments submitted today, May 29, and the address for anyone to submit comments, etc. https://www.vhfa.org/news/blog/dhcd-seeks-public-comment-recovery-housing-plan COMMENTS: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan for use of federal recovery funds received by Vermont. This opportunity to comment was provided by a VHFA tweet in the last day. First and foremost as anyone knows who even takes a cursory look at Vermont governmental activity in the area of housing, there is no comprehensive housing plan and the pandemic has held up a Agency of Human Services doing even a plan for older Vermonters. The housing "problem" is summed by the Center for Budget Priorities as a need for an additional 16,000 fed type "affordable housing assistance" (shelter security at 30% income max rent) for Vermont (not including homeowners and mobile homes on rental sites) with 14,000 units in place serving on in five renters. Vermont so-called "affordable housing" (tax credit non-profit and Burlington "inclusionary zoning') is best described in the annual HUD report of tax credit housing where 24% of households pay in excess of 30% of income and 6% pay over half their income for rent. So, no plan for Vermont and a need which is clearly not addressed. The use of any public for funds for homeownership makes no sense while the 1,000 households, for example, sit on the Burlington Housing Authority waitlist, for example. New York City's City Council remarkably this week passed a veto proof budget with 6%--for the first time--set for affordable fed type Section 8 assistance vouchers (30% income max rent). There really are no such City budgeted units like this today! Vermont and BTV also do zilch here while doing "pretend" short term treatments, sort of like having an emergency room of housing with no wards for longer term treatment. If Burlington employed 6% of their general fund for fed type vouchers it would create about 600 vouchers, end homelessness overnight and address a good chunk of our Housing Authority waitlist. It is also time for Vermont state government to stand up and act like an adult in the room. The 30% requirement for a household income needs to be dropped to 25% as it was until the Reagan administration--30% if frankly confiscatory and exploitive of the lower income classes. The entire are of providing transitional assistance where there is no promise of longer term assistance is in itself cruel and unusual aid--depressing to those who administer the funds and those who received them. We must--as then Sen. Harris' Rent Relief Act called for--make Section 8 type aid as universal and not dependent on the drugs you do or do not consume. Drug addiction is a health issue not a housing issue. Finally I would refer you to Mathew Desmond's book "Eviction" and particularly the 60 or so pages of notes which comprise a graduate course in housing policy--and note that he like myself subscribe to universal vouchers--when we reach that point the behavior issues can be handed off where they belong--in the human services and health fields! Thank you for the opportunity to comment and this program design--it is not a plan. There is no housing plan for Vermont or the City of Burlington. That must also be addressed! Yours truly, Tony Redington

Some Comments on Transportation, etc. to the VT Climate Council--Motor Fuels, Walk, Transit, Rail

VERMONT CLIMATE COUNCIL PUBLIC INPUT FORM https://anrweb.vt.gov/ANR/ClimateCouncil/PublicInputForm.aspx?PKID=2633 Below are comments submitted today, May 20, 2021 Good Day All: My comments--as former transportation policy development chief for VAOT writing its first two policy plans incuding Act 200--centers on transportation but also from my experience as a statewide housing and rail planner in NH as well as a director of the NH Housing Commission there. VT in transportation is really in an enviable position compared to our northern NE neighbors even considering we had an unexpected growth of population 2010-2020 according to first Census reporting. Immediately below note that going into 2020 when we know there was a sharp drop in vehicle miles (13% nationwide while road deaths increased 8%) we only needed to drop motor fuel consumption 16% to each a goal of 1990 motor fuel consumption. We likely came within a percent above or below motor fuel consumption of 1990 this past year--though this creates a lot of pressure to maintain that in 2021! https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019/mf202.cfm (FHWA, Highway Statistics, Series) Net Motor Fuel Taxed (000 gallons) State Vermont Maine New Hampshire Year 1990 329,543 709,799 550,014 1995 391,512 732,829 626,638 2000 411,065 856,796 770,059 2005 415,386 895,578 812,635 2010 388,988 850,450 803,334 2015 379,108 974,479 808,211 2019 381,931 914,922 835,032 NH: 2019 versus 1990 +51.8% Maine : + 28.9% VT: +15.9% No reason to jump for joy, but an clear indication that CAFE standards and beginning efforts at demand management and other actions to reduce driving have had a substantial impact creating a downtrend in motor fuel usage for a decade in Vermont! The major cause of Vermont and national sprawl has been federal and state subsidies of car use and homeownership--yes, we have such subsidies, Canada does not have federal housing and transport programs and has half again urban densities as a result. Electric cars will not overcome Vermont sprawl, only a stop to federal and state subsidies for auto ownership and operation, and misguided tax homeownership policies. This must be part of any climate solution policy set!! We live in a period of a highway fatality and serious injury pandemic---now 21,000 excess deaths in America (30 in Vermont) yearly versus the top four nations average (Norway, Ireland, Switzerland and UK now on top, US now number 18, we being with UK number 1 in road safety in 1990!). Vermont needs to adopt a program of replacing hundred of the approximately 400 traffic signal systems with modern roundabouts. Each roundabout will aid in reducing sprawl, reduce engird consumption the equivalent of 3,000 to 20,000 gallons of motor fuel use, and enable safety walking and bicycling in our downtowns and urban centers, the exception not the rule (think Middlebury and Manchester Center) today. AARP, Geico, AAA, and Insurance institute for Highway Safety--all advocate converting signals to roundabouts for safety. There is an equal reason, cutting climate change emissions! Vermont has no transport policy in the area of safety or climate change. This vacuum must end. Evidence of change toward walkability and bikeability can only be measured by the number of roundabouts found in downtown, mixed urban areas, etc.--and miles of cycle track installed. Note that our Vermont downtown roundabouts in 52 years of data did not record a single bike injury, just one non-serious pedestrian injury and average one injury a decade versus, for example, 20 Burlington high crash intersections which avenge 1.5 injuries per year! There is an equity issue at play which has been ignored as walkability remained in the vineyard of apartheid transportation. Those living in poverty including much of the population of Vermonters with black and brown skin are disproportionately dependent on walking and transit as 30% of residents of Burlington's Old North End and King Maple neighborhoods lack access to a car. Nationally pedestrians with Black skin die at almost twice the rate of white, Hispanic persons about 50% higher and Native Americans at two-three times of white pedestrian fatality rates. When spending to help well-to-do to own e-vehicles, we must also invest heavily in walkable urban and near town centers, particularly along transit routes (safe routes to the bus stop!) and locations with multi-use land development. National and Vermont transportation investments can be characterized as malign neglect and if we make safety the first consideration--as USDOT Peter Buttigieg espouses--the walking and bicycling investments will be made so incentives to use transit, walk and bike, will have a fertile context rather the lumps of coal now mostly in place. You will find my commentary on the role of light rail and commuter rail at my blog, TonyRVT.blogpost.com In short, we need to install a light rail network in Chittenden County (about 3 years to do as the $6.3 billion Cdn. begins operation next spring to be supplemented already another $10 billion Cdn. being pumped in on Montreal island. We could do a light rail system here in three years too. Intercity and commuter rail should also be on the table which when connected to Greyhound and VT Translines and our regional transit operators brings an entirely new system, lower levels at low fare and fare free, for moving around Vermont in our daily car-free! Yours truly, Tony Redington Walk Safety Advocate 125 Saint Paul St Apt 3-03 Burlington Also cited SafeStreetsBurlington.com website