The easement would need to allow them that right.

It's still your land. The easement grants them certain rights to that land outlined in the easement, but that's it. If it's not in the easement, it's not a right that's been granted.

Anywhere in Southern VT will be beautiful. You should bring a tent unless you're down to sell one of your kidneys for a hotel room though.

Grand Isle should be like those Swiss mountain towns with no cars that are only accessible by gondola. Just stick a big tension wire across the lake and have a parking garage on shore that Grand Isle residents get an assigned spot in.

>So when your server tells you they're going to take care of people who they placed after you and you're still waiting to get your drinks as other new people get served, you would have no complaints at all?

To the contrary, I think I would definitely have a complaint. What's confusing me is that you didn't seem to complain at all. Instead, you got up, left, and posted on Reddit about how you were profiled for not being a tourist. You have no information to support this assertion because it doesn't seem like you actually complained to anyone, you just assumed it was the case and left. That's some Karen shit.

And I don't know what a neoliberal is. Sounds like some more Karen shit TBH.

Jumping straight to the "how dare they" lines! Very on-brand.

kinda hurt. your turn now

Foliage season is when all the Karens come crawling out of the woodwork here, isn't it?

They were slammed. You got shitty service because they were busy and messed up, not because they profiled you as a regular customer and then made the incomprehensible decision to not serve you based on that.

I mean, the only other thing I can think of is that you tip poorly and they had better options? But I promise, there's not a server in this state who would intentionally avoid serving a regular that tips well because there's a tourist in line behind them. It's just not a thing.

show me where the flatlander touched you

As a flatlander, calling someone a flatlander to rib them is hilarious. Getting called a "fucking flatlander" when I do some stupid shit will never stop being funny for me. Keep doing that, anyone who gets poopy face over that needs to stop taking themselves so seriously.

Calling someone a flatlander because you honestly think it's an insult makes you look like you eat crayons. I think I've only ever heard it happen like once or twice (I've lived here for about 10 years), but whenever it happens it's so apparent that the person saying "flatlander" is just an absolute neanderthal and is trying to shut down the conversation because their two brain cells found each other and short circuited.

Is that last bullet not universally understood? I thought that was just the law everywhere in the US...

>I’d prefer somewhere more blue - I’m beyond tired of the dark red maga politics of Oklahoma.

Disclosure first, I lived in MA for several years, but have called Vermont home for the past decade though.

"Dark red" communities don't really exit throughout coastal New England. You can find them in some of the more rural communities in New Hampshire and Maine (usually farther north in the state), but even those don't tend to have the same bible belt vibe that you'll find in the South. They're very pro-gun, anti-tax, and they froth at the mouth when Tucker Carlson tells them to, but even those communities tend to not really give a fuck about most of the conservative social issues. Regarding stuff like abortion or gay marriage, at least in my experience, New Englanders either tilt liberal on those issues or are entirely apathetic.

All of that is to say you'll be fine politically nearly anywhere you go in New England.

I'll also add on that you should verify this with your own research, but I've always understood MA public education to be the best in the country. In fact, education at all tiers in that state is really world-class. You'll be fine there.

I am almost positive that there's a state tax credit for this exact scenario. I couldn't cite it for you, but I'm fairly confident it exists.

EDIT: This looks like it might be relevant.

Right. But the fundamental question is not which solution has the lowest dollar cost to the end user after subsidies. The question is which solution produces the most energy balanced against the lowest environmental impact.

Private investors don't foot the bill 30 years from now when heavy metals are leeching into the soil around a landfill. What a private investor does today is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand. If it were, well, why aren't we just going all-in on oil and gas? It has by far the largest market share. Private investors love the fossil fuel industry. It must be the future, then, right?

Sure, I'm not arguing it's impossible. It's definitely a solution that can work, my take is just that it's not the most efficient solution. If you look at energy sources in terms of comparative advantage, it doesn't really make sense.

If I had to wager why Germany has so much solar energy, I'd guess it's the same reason that Vermont has so much solar energy. We have some of the most expensive energy in the country in Vermont. The only remedy that an individual household has for that is to a) reduce their energy consumption, or b) produce their own energy. For the environmentally conscious consumer, they really only have way to generate their own power. Buy solar panels.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis, it's actually a much better ROI to buy solar panels if you live in VT than if you live in AZ. That's not because the solar panels produce more energy here, it's because even if they produce half the energy of a panel in AZ, it still offsets more cost for the end-user due to our high energy prices. I'm guessing that's exactly why Germans use so much solar energy. Energy is expensive, and solar is the only way they can make their own. Whether it's efficient or not doesn't matter when it's the only game in town.

My "it's a tough sell" take assumes that the end goal is to reduce total consumption, though. It's not enough to just replace the oil and gas industry with a wind/solar/hydro industry, the end goal should be to reduce the total amount of resources required to produce energy and simultaneously reduce the total energy demand.

With that background, I stand by my statement. It's a tough sell, and the reason it's a tough sell is because solar is fundamentally not an efficient means of producing energy in Vermont. In AZ, they might be able to replace one nuclear power plant with 1,000,000 solar panels. In Vermont, though, it might take us 3,000,000 solar panels. In that scenario, we've effectively wasted 2 million solar panels worth of material for no good reason, since the output of the nuclear power plant was constant and didn't change based on climate. I'd share the same criticism of Germany. Solar panels contain heavy metals which are destructive to mine and more destructive to dispose of. Right now, most of them come from Xinjiang where they're manufactured by Uyghur Muslims in forced labor camps. We shouldn't be using them if they're not an efficient solution.

IMO it's easy to make the case "I should buy a solar panel" here, but it's really hard to make the case "Vermont should invest in solar energy". We just don't have the climate for it. There are solutions that are not only more cost effective for our state, but also fundamentally less damaging to the environment.

Yeah, it's a tough sell for a cloudy, northern state to be dependent on a resource that relies on clear skies and long daylight hours.