Sure. At the State level… End act 250. The 10 acre loophole and forest fragmentation is the result of this grand idea. End current use tax beaks. Most of this goes to the wealthy.
End TIF districts. Allows pet projects to be prioritized in generally wealthy parts of the state.
Ban all future building above 1750 elevation Statewide property and school tax with no variation between towns. Tax second homes at double the residential rate. Get environmental laws on the same page with development rules. For example, Vermont uses village designation to allow/incentivize more density in towns. Those towns are almost always next to a river that can no longer be managed as it was for the last 200 years of favor of fluvial erosion. In the age of climate change and redrawn federal flood districts, the end result is that nothing gets built.

At the regional level… Actually decide if regional or county planning is going to be a thing, and if so, give them authority. Currently we have a weak county/regional government. Playing around at the regional level without establishing the authority and role of the regional/county government is just a bureaucratic mess.

At the local level… Towns currently have local zoning, this was done at the behest and funding of the VT legislature. Well intentioned, but a problem of the legislatures own making that now keeps VT as a diorama under glass.

Let the towns and cities make their own zoning. Give tax breaks to those who allow greater density development. The local option tax shows that incentives for development work (see Williston, South Burlington and Burlington). Towns and their residents need to realize a benefit if they are being asked to change their current qualify of life.

What I can guarantee is that adding more layers of government regulation on top of the existing drivers of restriction and cost will not end with a positive result in a timely manner.

Imagine you’re running for congress a criminal handed you $26k of ill-gotten money, and then became the focus of a Federal investigation. Then imagine you win the congressional seat and have a lot of work to do, because your constituents are scrutinizing your every move as a new representative. Wouldn’t you leave this issue of $26k from a criminal to people who are better at navigating a quagmire of campaign finance laws and Federal investigations so you could focus, say, on the work you were elected to do?

I mean, I get what you are saying, but at the same time the tenant and landlord dynamic is always going to have tension and opposing views.

I'm not sure what eviction measure OP is talking about, but there could be good reason to oppose or to agree. "Landlord doesn't support tenants" doesn't really tell me anything, because they could be a great landlord and the bill could be taking away the ability to remove dangerous or damaging tenants.

I'm biased, due to being a landlord, but I tend to favor tenants rights. I dislike what landlording has become in many regards. However, there are many scenarios where eviction is the right course of action for the landlord, property, and other tenants. That's of course to say, landlords can abuse the eviction process as well.

Is it illegal for the landlord to do that? No. Asshole move? Yes.

Depends on the terms of the lease. Do you have lease of the premises, including the yard? Read the terms carefully.

That said, is this worth picking a fight over and not having your lease renewed?

Wait till night fall and take it. Pretty simple solution and you most likely won't get caught.

For thousands of years! There's phallus graffiti on the sphinx from Roman soldiers

One sign should say "the landlord opposes, the tenants support - this should tell you something"

Oh, thanks thats a good idea!

Not yetttt

At this point, there is no evidence the Congresswoman knew about the fraud. It appears she was used as a pawn in the FTX fraud agenda.

I am disappointed the Congresswoman is unwilling to answer questions from journalists at VT Digger.

Hiding behind a spokesperson is really bad optics Becca.

Reddit gonna Reddit.

[deleted]

You could always accidentally trip over the sign and accidentally kick it into a dumpster... by accident.

I really wish we could give up the old term landlords and call them land hoarders.

Edit: look at the down votes defending English feudalism in New England lol

You’re right- hoarders is too vague; Parasites is far more accurate

erect a guillotine in their front yard, that should send a message to them.

You can cause a scene and not have your lease renewed.

Shitty answer but is the sign worth possible retaliation at this point.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer.

This is the proper action to take that fits in the legal rights of the tenants.

This argument would not hold up. Common spaces are very specific in not allowing tenants to place their own property over that of the landlord or other tenants. Tenants hold the rights inside the unit.

Where were you able to rent a ditch witch in Vermont? I’ve been looking for one.

We can definitely house folks without compromising VT’s forests so long as we densify and use land that has already been developed upon.

There’s certainly plenty of useless strip malls and parking lots around the state that could be demolished and replaced with multi purpose buildings that include affordable rent controlled apartments (~$500 - $700) in the upper floors. Just add a residency requirement to qualify for them.

Climate change says hello and welcome to Vermont

Will make COVID transplants look like nothing

You can post your own sign stating your own views. Most properties have a 3 foot easement by the road. You could put it there if not put it in your window. Get the other residents to do the same.

If you want ideas Mao had some