Israeli Influence [Re “Ethics Panel Dismisses Complaints Over Lawmakers’ Trip to Israel,” April 14, online]: The Vermont House Ethics Panel has absolved a bipartisan group of five Vermont lawmakers — Reps. Sarah Austin, James Gregoire, Matt Birong, Will Greer and Gina Galfetti — of ethics violations related to their all-expenses-paid junkets to Israel. In so doing, our legislature has demonstrated Israel’s grip on U.S. politics not only in Washington, D.C., but also here in Vermont. Voters are increasingly unhappy with U.S. support for Israel — and now the war we launched on behalf of Israel against Iran and Lebanon. Americans want investments in education, health care and housing — not billions spent on bombs and bulldozers for Israel to kill civilians and destroy crops and homes. The lawmakers who went to Israel accepted more than $6,000 each in travel, accommodations and food while, just a few miles away in Gaza, Palestinians were sheltering in rat-infested tents and eating weeds and animal feed to survive. Our lawmakers did not meet with representatives from international bodies, human rights groups or Palestinian organizations. They met with Israel’s architects of apartheid, and they planted a Vermont flag on land stolen from Palestinians. What about this trip was ethical? Birong’s refusal to allow a hearing on a bill that calls for Congressional approval before Vermont National Guard troops could be deployed in combat raises the question: Is he advocating for Israel’s priorities or Vermont’s? Our elected representatives ethically must refuse favors from a country that is actively working against the security and values of the American people. Kate Casa Brattleboro Bad Trip I am writing to express my disgust for the process and final decision of the Vermont House Ethics Panel about the five reps who took an all-expenses-paid trip to Israel [“Ethics Panel Dismisses Complaints Over Lawmakers’ Trip to Israel,” April 14, online]. After they planted a Vermont flag on stolen Palestinian land and proudly posted about it, they gained the name “Genocide 5,” and a petition started circulating to condemn what they had done. As of right now, more than 900 people have signed this to express their dismay and to call for all of them to resign from office. Judging from their speaking engagements, where they shared what they saw there, it’s very clear they received Israeli propaganda about the situation. They were given instructions on how to encourage anti-boycott, divestment and sanction legislation, as well as how to try to have anyone who criticizes Israel be labeled as antisemitic. They never met with any human rights organizations or talked with Palestinians to understand their perspective. How could they really think they weren’t violating the code of ethics? Since then, Vermonters have visited and seen the horrible treatment that the Israeli government continues to perpetuate on the Palestinians. Just this week, another Vermonter is joining the Global Sumud Flotilla that is trying to break the siege on Gaza. I encourage everyone to hear their honest and truthful account of what is really happening in Palestine. Sally Lincoln North Ferrisburgh The Vermont lawmakers in Israel Credit: Instagram/Consulate General of Israel to New England Invitation-Only The Vermont House Ethics Panel dismissed complaints against five legislators, ruling that the trip was OK in part because it was a “widely attended event” [“Ethics Panel Dismisses Complaints Over Lawmakers’ Trip to Israel,” April 14, online]. The panel’s definition of “a widely attended event” is severely distorted. I think such events are those that are open to the general public: concerts, sports events, theater. I fail to see how this trip, open only to preselected individuals by invitation — legislators in all 50 states — can be considered a “widely attended event,” no matter how many or few of that preselected group actually attend. The panel’s distorted definition calls into question its own ethics. Thomas Weiss Montpelier ‘Why Did the Panel Do That?’ The April 14 article, “Ethics Panel Dismisses Complaints Over Lawmakers’ Trip to Israel,” gives the House Ethics Panel undeserved credit. Its ruling nullifies Vermont’s ethics statute, claiming that because Israel’s lobbying requests came after the legislators arrived, the trip couldn’t be “retroactively” unethical. This is willful ignorance: The lobbying was entirely foreseeable. Jewish Voices for Peace submitted clear evidence that Israel and its allies have pushed anti-boycott laws in 37 states. The panel ignored this — and the context: Israeli military actions that Vermont’s own Congressional delegation called genocide, as well as Israel’s push to redefine antisemitism to silence criticism of the genocide. The decision creates a dangerous loophole: Foreign governments or corporations can now gift trips to U.S. legislators as long as no explicit promise is made beforehand. Lawmakers can plead ignorance. The statute’s twin purposes — preventing both the purchase of legislation and the appearance of it — are shredded. Why did the panel do that? James Leas South Burlington Uncommon Kitchen The spirit of the food and the folks who provide the meals was well captured in [“Sterling Reputation: Sterling College Closes in June, but Staff and Alumni of Its Innovative Culinary Program Still Have Lessons to Teach,” April 8]. Missing is the history of Sterling College faculty in early 1990s drafting a progressive environmental kitchen mission to promote a “living what we teach” community. Its promotion of local, whole foods and student involvement in the kitchen was ahead of the local-food movement for institutions. It included environmental considerations such as energy use and waste management. It was part of a long-range plan for “Sterling 2000.” The first year, we tried to implement it with the catering company that was providing the food service. After it was clear that the company was unable to follow the mission, I wrote a proposal to switch to a “Sterling-run” kitchen with me being willing to leave my faculty position to take the helm. I was allowed to go ahead when I committed to keeping costs at or lower than the previous year. I predicted that folks would come to Sterling for the food! With volunteer support, we increased the use of local foods, decreased energy consumption and lowered costs by 20 percent in the first year. The kitchen became a favorite work program position. It was Heather McConville, kitchen manager in the early 2000s, who came up with the brilliant idea of using wayward mugs rather than needing to buy new ones each year as they drifted out of the dining area. Allison Van Akkeren Craftsbury Common Enough Pods As I was quoted in [“Pod Fellows: Three Years After Opening, Burlington’s Oft-Debated Homeless Shelter Is at a Crossroads,” April 15], I just want to be perfectly clear that living next to the pods has been a horrible experience. Our neighborhood is still drug central. It is wrong for the city to continue this addiction housing experiment in our neighborhood! Enough was enough a long time ago. I’m happy that Mike Renner got caught violating illegal drug and gun laws in Vermont and was lucky to get recovery treatment as a result. Recovery treatment is an essential key to success. “Housing first” is only a motto, not a realistic policy solution. I am 100 percent against keeping the pods in our neighborhood for another year. The city has to give notice to leave to the residents. I propose notice be given ASAP and August 31, 2026, as the last date for living in the Elmwood pods. As Burlington residents, we all have to obey the laws and live within our social contract. It is against the law to sell and use illegal drugs. Everyone must be accountable. Steph Holdridge Burlington The Elmwood Community Shelter in Burlington Credit: File: Luke Awtry Crooked Cops How many times are we expected to be shocked by the unlawful, despicable behavior of police in the Upper Valley? When law enforcement officers are accused of domestic violence. When leadership is tied to allegations of sexual harassment. When the very people entrusted with protecting our communities are the ones accused of causing harm. In the Upper Valley, these are not isolated headlines — they are a pattern. Within the past six months, Windsor County Sheriff Ryan Palmer was charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors related to sexual misconduct and misuse of public funds [“Windsor Sheriff Paid Women to Watch Sex Acts, Charges Allege,” January 28, “Windsor Sheriff Stripped of Law Enforcement Certification,” February 4; “Another Sheriff Scandal Renews Calls for Accountability,” February 11]; Det. Tim Meenagh from the Hanover Police Department was charged with domestic violence; and Chief Alex Lee of New Hampshire’s Newport Police Department, who lied about an affair during an investigation, continues to operate as Newport police chief, while the other officer involved was fired. These actions by local police should force a reckoning. Instead, we see quiet investigations, limited transparency and a public left to wonder whether accountability will ever come. Survivors of domestic and sexual violence are watching. And what they are seeing is a system that asks them to report abuse to institutions that will not consistently police their own. We cannot claim to take violence seriously while tolerating it within the ranks of those sworn to prevent it. We cannot ask survivors to come forward while sending the message that power protects its own. Survivors in our communities deserve better. They deserve police who are willing to confront misconduct directly — not quietly manage it. Karen Harke Springfield Some Docs Make Too Much [Re “UVM Medical Center Is Losing $460,000 Every Day,” April 17, online]: In the health care cost-reduction conversation, it is frankly astonishing that no one is pointing to the fact that many of the specialty providers, like anesthesiologists, make over $500,000 a year. This is unconscionable and a national problem. Unless we get national standards, including how much providers can be paid, we are not going to achieve reductions in costs. It’s another argument for national health insurance. If we had Medicare for All, or insurance like the Europeans have managed for decades, the insurance rules would be able to set how much money specialty providers can make. When are we going to face the music? Trine Bech Shelburne Contradictory Stories Vermont’s housing shortage is driving young people from the state. Seven Days has covered this compellingly, including in its April 29 “Baby Bust” cover story. So, it was disappointing to find in the same issue an entire story about a contrarian University of Vermont paper, with the online headline “Study Says Building More Homes in Burlington Won’t Lower Costs” [Nest, April 29]. The premise of the academic study went unchallenged. We know that building more homes will lower costs. Numerous studies confirm the bedrock economic principle that, in housing markets, increased supply reduces costs. A Pew Research Center report on Austin found that a surge in new construction produced a 4 percent inflation-adjusted drop in rents, while the rest of the country saw rents rise over 10 percent. Burlington is not exempt from basic economics. The study is flawed. In a city where 60 percent of homes are rentals, the paper ignores the rental market and 80 percent of the interrelated metro area. Because it analyzed a period when only two to 15 single-family or duplex homes were built annually, no wonder the authors found no major supply-side effects. Worse, Seven Days’ provocative headline is contradicted by the study itself. The authors state: “Were 300 homes to be built … it would likely exert downward pressure on housing prices.” That’s precisely our point: The trickle of new homes over the past 25 years is failing us. We must build more homes of all shapes and sizes for people of all incomes to change our demographic and economic trajectory. Vermont’s housing shortage deserves debate about solutions, not about whether the problem is real. Miro Weinberger Burlington Weinberger is executive chair of Let’s Build Homes. Editor’s note: As subheads in print and online detailed, the story focused on the study’s main takeaway that investor activity has driven the increase of housing prices more than the lack of housing supply. Ethics Overload I write on behalf of the Vermont State Ethics Commission to provide historical background to [“Lawmakers Might Suspend Financial Disclosure Penalties for Candidates,” April 23, online]. Since the inception of candidate financial disclosure requirements, the commission’s only role has been drafting the disclosure form. Several weeks ago, the commission provided the updated form to the Secretary of State’s Office to disseminate to candidates. The Secretary of State’s Office now insists that, unlike in past years, it will not directly disseminate the form; instead, it asserts, the ethics commission should post the form and educate candidates about it. We object — the commission does not have jurisdiction over any other part of elections. In any event, we have insufficient staff to take on a new task. The commission has two hardworking half-time employees — our executive director and our administrative assistant — who oversee legislative mandates, including ethics trainings, advisory opinions and other services, to tens of thousands of state and municipal officials and employees. To fulfill all tasks the legislature has assigned us, we will likely need four staff members. The House Appropriations Committee’s FY2027 budget allocated one new full-time staff attorney to the ethics commission. The Senate Appropriations Committee stripped this position from the budget. Will this legislative session continue to understaff the Vermont State Ethics Commission? The article included an indefensible call by Vermont Republican Party chair Paul Dame for the commission’s hardworking, judicious executive director to resign. We will reach out to the GOP executive committee requesting a retraction and apology. Paul Erlbaum East Montpelier Editor’s note: See this week’s cover story on page 26 for more about the Vermont State Ethics Commission. Once a Cashier Thank you for covering [“Healthy Living Workers Will Vote on Whether to Form a Union,” April 20; “Workers at Healthy Living, Barnes Noble Vote to Unionize,” May 5]! It is time for good, hardworking people to be paid a salary that they can live off. Nathan Bushweller South Burlington Bee Smart Melissa Pasanen’s article about Middlebury’s Champlain Valley Apiaries highlighted the damage from pesticides to honeybees, native bees and other wildlife [“Speaking for the Bees: A Fourth Generation Steps Up as Middlebury’s Champlain Valley Apiaries Nears Its Centennial,” April 22]. The 2024 Vermont law Act 182 phases out the use of these harmful chemicals by 2029, along with similar action in New York State. Unfortunately, the current version of the U.S. Farm Bill now under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives would strip states and localities of the ability to adopt their own stronger pesticide protections than those made by the federal government.   There are other important reasons to oppose this bill. I am urging Vermont citizens to contact U.S. Rep. Becca Balint and ask her to vote against the current version of the Farm Bill. Fran Putnam Weybridge House of Heroes Thank you for shining light on this matter [“Dwelling on the Past: With Little Fanfare or Public Debate, the Historic Boyhood Home of Civil War Artist Julian Scott Is About to Be Torn Down,” April 15]. It is sadly apparent, from the way the whole sorry affair has been conducted, that transparency was not the order of the day. President John F. Kennedy said, “A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.” Julian Scott’s act of courage was astounding. The Vermont soldiers were being cut to pieces by enemy fire. Julian chose to go into great danger to save a comrade. Once safely on the other side of the creek, he turned around and went into enemy fire again. And again, nine or 10 or 11 times in all, dragging and carrying wounded men bigger than he was. He was 16 years old. Two of his brothers served also; his younger brother Charlie enlisted at only 13 years old. Imagine an eighth grader at war. Julian died in Plainfield, N.J., on July 4, 1901. In 1955 the state of Vermont paid for a gravestone for him. The Vermont governor went to Plainfield for the dedication ceremony. Now it seems Julian is forgotten here in Vermont. That house is the cradle of heroes. In this day and age, we need to honor and remember our heroes more than ever — not only for them but for ourselves and generations to come. Jennifer Theoret Alburgh Kahan-Do [Re “Talk It Out: The Great Divide, Noah Kahan,” April 29]: As a reader who found the tone of the Noah Kahan review more revealing of its critics than its subject, I offer this response in a format I think he’d appreciate. “The Great Divide (A Reader’s Response)” You called him reliable, like a midrange restaurantPraised him with a shrug and a Godfather quoteToo cool to love him, too local to ignore himSo you sharpened your pencils, and you cleared your throat Angela heard the heartbreak in a dozen simple wordsWhile you were busy counting up his candles and his dealsSome of us just grew up in the cold and the mudAnd we know when someone’s singing what is real (Chorus) There’s a great divide, alrightBut it’s not the one he’s singingIt’s between the ones who feel itAnd the ones who just feel smartYou built your little fence of irony and tasteWhile a Fenway full of BusyheadsPressed his songs against their hearts Dan, I know your inner Gen X is sufferingChris, your double standards are your ownBut the dude sold out a ballpark full of peopleWho just needed someone to make them feel less alone So let the sacred cow grazeLet Angela have the last wordBecause “Just because millions love it doesn’t mean it sucks” — Best line of criticism I’ve heard (Chorus out) Lisa Sherman South Burlington ‘Baby’ Talk We got a lot of feedback on our April 29 cover story, “Baby Bust: Vermont’s Birth Rate Is the Lowest in the Nation. Why Aren’t We Having More Kids?” Read on for an array of perspectives about the story, part of our “Gen Zero” series about the far-reaching ramifications of the declining number of young Vermonters. The excellent “Baby Bust” article correctly identifies the increasing monetary costs associated with raising children as a major reason Vermonters are having fewer children. Unfortunately, there’s not much that Vermonters can do about these increasing costs. It’s a matter of simple economics. As the Seven Days article states, developers can’t profitably build affordable housing because the rising cost of building such homes exceeds what low-income buyers can afford. Costs are high because fossil fuels — the natural resources powering our economy — have entered a period of increasing scarcity. Peak oil, peak coal and peak gas are all real. The prices for these energy resources go up as required by supply-and-demand curves. And renewable energy cannot cover the shortfall in supply at an equivalent cost. This is especially true in Vermont, with its cold and cloudy winters. Furthermore, as energy gets expensive, everything else gets expensive. And, although all of North America is experiencing a housing crisis, it’s more acute in places like Vermont, where difficult weather and geography, paired with a dearth of industrial infrastructure (e.g., cargo ports), increase costs. People talk about nuclear energy, but that’s not cheap either, and the supply of uranium is becoming increasingly limited. Many economists, geologists, physicists, biologists and systems analysts are telling us that the human enterprise will, by necessity, shrink. The term is “degrowth,” and it’s what Vermont should be planning for. Google “degrowth” and learn more. Robert Fireovid South Hero Your cover article entitled “Baby Bust” comes as no surprise to the Vermont Right to Life Committee and its members. The low birth rate is the natural consequence of an intentional plan by taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood of Vermont, implemented over the course of decades. What is its plan? Gain access to Vermont schools and provide sex education that promotes early sexual activity and multiple partners and minimizes the consequences of STIs, which can impact future fertility. At the same time, Planned Parenthood emphasizes that babies are expensive, unrewarding, and disruptive to your life and future plans, and that pregnancy should be delayed, postponed or aborted. Want to carry your baby to term? Planned Parenthood will refer you elsewhere. Ironically, Planned Parenthood of Vermont has actively opposed the work of privately funded pregnancy resources centers in our state. Those centers have helped girls and women with the resources and support they need to make the decision to carry their babies to term. Year after year, Planned Parenthood uses federal and state funds, causing the very outcome that is now drawing legitimate concern over Vermont’s demographics. Learn more at “Another Year, Another Scandal”: vrlc.net/category/1/abortion. Mary Hahn Beerworth Fairfax Beerworth is executive director of Vermont Right to Life. I knew even before reading “Baby Bust” what the reasons for Vermont having the lowest birth rate in the country were going to be: financial insecurity and housing. I also knew that two other major reasons were not going to be mentioned: the fact that Vermont is the least religious state and the least pro-life state in the U.S. I don’t see the point in pretending these two factors have no correlation with the low birth rates. Financial insecurity and housing are issues throughout the country, not just in Vermont. If you are serious about looking into reasons for the declining birth rates in this state, look at the whole picture, not only at the facts that align with your political view. Shayna DeDonato Montpelier As a young person coming out of college a few decades ago with a degree in natural resource management, I believed our most important challenge to Earth stewardship and a healthy human future was the pressure of human population. After many years, my view has not changed. While I am sympathetic to the effects of population decrease on the Vermont economy, I find it important to keep the bigger picture in mind. David Bailey Huntington Colin Flanders’ article about the reasons for Vermont’s low birth rate should have included the lack of loving mutual support. My wife and I raised three children, worked full time and never paid for childcare. We belonged to a Christian prayer group in Connecticut that had many families with no money for childcare. Our response: developing a “babysitting” system so we could work, which required us to sacrifice nonwork time once a week to care for five to 10 kids for half a day in the same house daily. Every day, two or three adults did crafts; wiped tears; settled disputes; changed diapers; monitored lunchtime, nap time and playtime; and kept a written log for parents to read. Those with full-time jobs made their schedules work. (I worked nights, so I volunteered one morning per week.) Serious Christians bond in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere. Our childcare miracle resulted from obeying Jesus’ command to love others as we have been loved. The kids and their parents knew they were loved by the volunteers, and they loved us in return with lavish trust. Reversing the falling birth rate is still possible for parents who genuinely worship the God who loves them, then bond together via sacrifice as an expression of love for others. Sadly, this practical, beautiful benefit of faith is one of the many blessings forfeited when people leave or reject Christianity as “irrelevant.” Mark Azzara Danbury, CT The cover article did a good job exploring the affordability challenges causing Vermonters to have fewer children or forgo children altogether. However, it was notably short on potential policy solutions. Paid family and medical leave are one such solution. The evidence is clear: Paid leave is a proven way to “address the dollars-and-cents anxieties of potential parents” like those quoted in the article. When new parents have access to 12 weeks of leave at 90 percent of weekly wages, they are more financially secure and have lower infant childcare costs (the most expensive kind). Parents like Rachel Bishop would not have to spend down their savings to bond with their baby. They could use those savings for other investments, like childcare. A recent benefit-cost analysis by Vanderbilt University’s Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center found that a universal paid leave program would mean an additional $3,200 for a working Vermont family in the year after welcoming a new baby. The same analysis found that paid leave would also generate health care savings, reduce state expenditures on childcare subsidies, and benefit employers through decreased job turnover and greater productivity. Fourteen states, including New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware, have well-established paid family leave programs covering over 90 percent of their workforce. Maine’s program takes effect this year. Enacting an equivalent program in Vermont would make our state more attractive to young families. Why aren’t we hearing more about it? Gretchen Elias Montpelier I am a lifelong Vermonter, born in Burlington in 1952. When I was growing up, I was told over and over again that the greatest problem the world faced was overpopulation. Where are all these people going to live, and how are we going to feed them? Now, nations around the world, including our own, are complaining about low birth rates. What changed? Did we solve the overpopulation problem? Of course not. What changed is that those who control the gigantic Ponzi scheme called “capitalism” have recognized that the system requires constant growth — and a constant influx of workers at the bottom of the pyramid to support the fortunate few at the top. If we wish to continue feeding this shortsighted and self-destructive system, the answer is simple and obvious: We need more immigrants. Of course, that would mean more people of color and inevitable changes to our “culture.” But why don’t we look at the problem differently? Why not transition to a stable population and an economic system that works for a stable population? We don’t need to keep growing, and acknowledging that truth would be a great first step. Dan Marshall Burlington Thanks for the news about having kids in Vermont and why the school population rate is declining in recent years [“Empty Desks: Enrollment in Vermont’s K-12 Schools Is Dropping at an Alarming Rate. Communities Are On Their Own to Deal With the Problem” February 18]. The fact is, people are finally coming to the conclusion that the subsidies are declining. It’s about time that people realize this and reduce their family size to something they can actually support themselves without subsidies and taxpayer incentives. We pay a lot for your kids, their schools and teachers. There are a lot of taxpayers who never had kids and paid taxes for over 40 years. Having kids puts a greater demand on your taxpaying neighbors and is a luxury. “It takes a village,” right? It shouldn’t take a “village” to raise your responsibility. If you are expecting a child and can’t afford it, you should not expect taxpayers to pay for the expenses. You are responsible. I read an article in Seven Days 24 months ago about a couple who had two kids and wanted another one, but they were worried about subsidies declining to where they could not afford it, so they were going to move [“‘We’re Leaving’: Winooski’s Bargain Real Estate Attracted a Diverse Group of Residents for Years. Now They’re Being Squeezed Out,” May 1, 2024]. That’s great; find some other state to finance your kids. Parents need to be responsible. How many parents 20 years ago would have thought their kids would be shooting up on Church Street, jobless and going to free clinics? You parents need to own this. I’ve seen this firsthand. Be responsible for your actions, and don’t expect others to clean up your mistakes. Rob Mongeon Colchester The post Letters to the Editor (05/13/26) appeared first on Seven Days. ...read more read less