The gubernatorial debates continue to include the issue of the environment and the economy. More directly, how do the permit process and environmental standards affect business growth, retention, costs and perception? This is a wonderful discussion because the issues will spotlight the candidates’ positions. Are they consistent with their past positions? Have they flip-flopped? A candidate should not be allowed to get away with warm, smarmy platitudes in describing what they would or wouldn’t do. Reform the permit process they say. How, why, what changes? With what results? At what costs? They must be willing to commit to answers
Real jobs have been lost because business decision-makers find a less costly, predictable system and 'get it done' attitude in other states. A bold proposal by the Environmental Board to limit the intervention of “Materially Assisting Parties” in Act 250 proceedings during the election season will send the CLF and others into a tizzy. Good move, Marcy!! That's a relevant part of the debate that candidates should take a position on.
Here is a random example in a recently published rule change description that sends permit applicants into a tizzy…and this is one of 25 ‘lawyerly’ changes in the batch!
“Rule 42(A), (B), and (C). In accordance with the statutory authority provided in Act 40 for an automatic stay of a permit upon a petition of an appellant, Rule 42 is being amended to provide for a clear process for the automatic stay to be implemented while the merits of an interim or permanent stay request are being contemplated by the district commission or the Board, as appropriate.”
Snarled process = delays = more cost = frustrated applicants = “see ya later, Vermont.” Top-to-bottom reworking of the permit process, all permits...not only environmental, is urgently needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment