OK, for the last time for a year if not forever, let’s get this fund-raising stuff out of the way.

The response to last month’s plea for donations has been encouraging. The News Guy will live for another year.

The clever ploy, of course, would be to state the opposite, that only you, by your contribution, can stave off the death of this site. But while effective marketing may call for…well, shall we say a touch of artfulness, good journalism – the goal here — requires transparency.

Which you have. Whether or not you contribute, the News Guy will live.

But he still needs a little more revenue. Hence this admittedly annoying reminder. The experience of the last few weeks is that reminders work; each new appeal for funds inspires more donations. Perhaps this explains why public radio station fund drives are so obnoxious. It works. Alas, the News Guy finds it impossible to be nearly as obnoxious as a public radio station. But he’s trying.

So once more: If you think this site brings Vermonters news and analysis they otherwise would not get, and contributes to the state’s public discussion, click on “donate” (Under “pages” in the upper right quarter of the page) and send as little (or, even better, as much) as you choose.

All right. Enough of that.

Now let’s peek into two items of the week’s news, starting with State Sen. Hinda Miller’s proposal to reverse this year’s repeal of the state’s capital gains tax preference.

In this case, a peek is all that’s required because, with the eternal caveat that one can never conclusively predict where proposed legislation will go, one can with some confidence predict that this one ain’t goin’ nowhere.

Still, there was something interesting about the evidence Sen. Miller, a Burlington Democrat, provided as she announced her proposal: there wasn’t much, if any.

Do not misunderstand. This is an observation, not a condemnation. There is nothing unusual in proposing legislation without providing much evidence for it. Better (or worse?) yet, one need not have evidence to be correct.

Miller said that doing away with the preference may have been “fair” because it mostly effected the wealthy, but it was not “smart” because it would discourage investments, which the state needs.

“If we don’t repeal these capital-gains tax increases then we are going to dissipate any consideration people might have to risk their own money in the future of Vermont businesses,” Miller told the Burlington Free Press.

Could be. Then again, the news has been full of late of people who have decided to risk somebody’s money, probably including their own, in Vermont businesses (a new Yogurt plant in Brattleboro; a new company planning to produce hydro power from old flood control dams; three stores moving to Shelburne Road Plaza). Obviously, the tax structure isn’t discouraging everybody.

Not to mention that Gov. Jim Douglas, that advocate of low taxes and investment incentives, once proposed ending that capital gains preference himself. True, Douglas would have, sort of, given the money back to the same people who “lost” it by reducing income tax rates on the wealthiest taxpayers. But the impact on investment would presumably have been identical to the impact from this year’s repeal.

In fairness to Sen. Miller, she might have some facts to back up her contention, but she was out of town yesterday and did not respond to phone and email messages.

But now comes word of an actual economic study arguing that under the present circumstances (high unemployment; effective zero short-term interest rates), cutting capital gains taxes would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

In a paper written for the New York Federal Reserve Bank, economist Gauti Eggertsson concluded that reducing capital gains taxes “deepens a recession” because it “gives people the incentive to save instead of spend, when precisely the opposite is needed.”

The other item worth a peek is yesterday’s unanimous decision by the Legislative Committee on Administrative Review (LCAR) to reject a proposed rule allowing all-terrain vehicles on state land.

Again, only a peek is needed because there’s no reason to think many Vermonters care much. This is a niche issue. Oh, there’s measurable public opinion on it; a rather substantial majority of the public seems to oppose allowing the ATVs on state land. But only the hardcore environmentalists are passionate opponents, just as only the ATV riders are passionate advocates.

This political perspective is appropriate because the Agency of Natural Resource’s case for changing the rule was entirely political. The scientific evidence – every iota of it – supports keeping the ATVs off public land (and perhaps imposing more restrictions elsewhere). That’s why the actual scientists in the agency opposed changing the rule.

Again, this is observation, not condemnation. In a democracy, political decisions are entirely proper. Top ANR officials might have reasonably concluded that the degradation of the natural resource caused by ATVs, while certain, would be minor, outweighed by the enhanced convenience bestowed on the ATV riders.

(And perhaps enhanced economic activity, though whether allowing ATVs on state land would attract more out-of-state riders to Vermont is conjecture, and would have to be considered against the possibility that the policy would deter some out-of-state visitors who prefer quiet hikes on state land).

Then there’s the management consideration. ANR Secretary Jonathan Wood, neither an ATV rider nor, by reliable report, a great fan of the ATV lobby, has pointed out that some ATVers are riding on state land anyway, legal or no, and that providing some legal access might reduce the trespassing.

Besides, the ATV riders are one of the constituencies to which Gov. Jim Douglas…well, after some reflection, let’s say, one which he likes to please.

Before the reflection, the impulse was to say a constituency to which Douglas panders. But that has an unnecessarily derogatory connotation. Pandering is unavoidable in a democracy, and all office-holders engage in it (See under: Vermont Yankee, Democratic candidates for governor, and). The favored constituency does not think of itself as being pandered to, only as having its needs recognized and its sensibilities honored.

That’s why the Douglas Administration might try to push ahead with the rule change anyway. Honoring the sensibilities of a loyal constituency, even a small one, can be politically appealing.

Archeological dig in St. Johnsbury (from UVM)

If you can no longer bear the suspense, no, the News Guy was not admitted to the “Developmental and Environmental Regulation Seminar” sponsored by Associated Industries of Vermont Thursday.

Neither were any other reporters. At least two, one from the Burlington Free Press and one from Vermont Public Radio, had been told by telephone that wouldn’t be allowed in, so they didn’t show up.

Nobody else seems to have tried. Or cared.

Tough (or stubborn) bunch, that AIV. The combined censure of the News Guy, Shay Totten of Seven Days, St. Michael’s College journalism professor David Mindich (as reported in the Free Press), and even an uncharacteristically hard-hitting Free Press editorial did not shake AIV’s determination to hear speeches by the Secretary of Natural Resources and other senior state officials in secret.

Or maybe not so secret. This conference turned out to be even less a private, invitation-only, session than understood when its closed-to-the-press rule was condemned in Wednesday’s post (just scroll down). Anyone willing to pay the $45 fee could attend.

Come to think of it, a sneaky reporter who was a stranger to the event’s organizers (and one can always hire a ringer) could have paid the forty-five smackers and sat through the entire seminar. What with today’s technology, he could have surreptitiously filmed it and put the whole shebang on YouTube.

For all practical purposes, then, it was a public event, as well as a meeting between regulators and the owners of businesses they regulate. That made the ban on news coverage (and, especially, the acceptance of that ban by the public officials) even more objectionable. It also made the indifference of the rest of the state’s news outfits (excepting the Free Press, Seven Days, and VPR), more mysterious, if not more cowardly.

On the other hand, the all-but-public nature of the event meant there were people inside the meeting who were willing to talk to a reporter in the corridor outside. From their reports, the events within were useful, informative, and not at all shocking.

That YouTube, it seems, wouldn’t have been very interesting, much less the least bit scandalous.

Asked what he had said during his lunch speech, Natural Resources Agency Secretary Jonathan Wood said, “nothing different than if you’d been in the room,” an assessment confirmed by others.

Wood said he had not known the gathering would be closed to reporters until one of them, Candace Page of the Free Press, called him on Wednesday. Describing himself as an advocate of “a free and open society,” who cooperates with journalists, Wood said keeping reporters out of meetings did offer the advantage of allowing people to be more candid than they might be if they thought their remarks would be in the newspaper.

In politely denying the News Guy’s request to enter the meeting-room, AIV spokesman Bill Driscoll made the same point.

“Some people get intimidated,” he said. “They are private and shy about the press.” Having reporters in the room, Driscoll said, could stifle open discussion.

Their point can not be casually dismissed. But neither can this: People do what is in their interest, or at least what they think is in their interest. If IAV and its fellow-sponsors thought that their words and actions in that meeting would win them the approval of the public, they’d invite every reporter in the state and give them lunch for free. It is likely that one reason (though not the only one) they keep reporters out is that they’re not at all sure their words and actions will meet with public approval.

The subject of the meeting, after all, was “environmental regulation,” and many if not most of the business leaders in attendance want to weaken the state’s environmental regulations. Whether or not that is a wise outlook, it is in this state (and most the others) a decidedly minority outlook. Those advocating it probably want to minimize their visibility.

As mentioned Wednesday, the specific regulation (or set thereof) at issue now concerns areas of archeological significance. Or, more precisely, areas that might have archeological significance if we knew what was under them. Considering that some of these sites hold relics of people who lived in Vermont some 12,000 years ago, some people find them fascinating and important. Some do not.

The Agency of Commerce and Community Development has proposed changing the regulations for determining which sites get considered for possible architectural designation under Act 250. According to some archeologists, the proposed change in Section 4.2 would weaken protections because it removes the words “or potentially significant property or resource” from the list of criteria for considering whether a site should be examined for possible archeological significance.

Tayt Brooks, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Housing, and Community Affairs, who spoke at Thursday’s seminar, said there was “some confusion” over this language.

“The proposed rule does not change how we designate archeological sites,” he said, repeating earlier assertions that the administration is only interested in “clarification” of the permitting process.

Even John Groveman, general counsel for the Vermont Natural Resources Council, which opposes changing the regulations, conceded that this was “open to interpretation.” But Groveman said a provision in Section 4.7 requiring that some sites be designated “only in exceptional circumstances,” would prohibit – or at least discourage – looking for possible archeological finds in some areas. He also said the proposed change in the method of funding archeological searches threatened to cut off funding altogether, at least temporarily.

Well, the two sides and their lawyers will fight this out for a while, and Brooks acknowledged that “we will be making some changes and tweaks,” as the process moves along. Meanwhile, for those not immersed in the minutia, a few points:

–What’s the problem? Only a tiny fraction of projects that go through the Act 250 process have any archeological complication. According to the Division of Historical Preservation, in 2006 only 57, or 11 percent, of 501 Act 250 projects even required a site visit, which costs nothing. Only 16 of those projects required any further study, meaning that 97 percent of all projects were cleared for development with no cost to the developer.

–Context is important. Here the context is that Gov. Jim Douglas’s Administration is closely allied with the development community – builders, realtors, and their finances – and intent on “reforming,” which often means weakening, regulations.

Thanks to this alliance, environmentalists and their allies view any proposed rules change with suspicion.

“If you look at what’s happening with ANR (Agency of National Resources) and their attempt to streamline permitting and eliminating staff for enforcement, this is all part of a concerted effort by the Douglas Administration to build whatever, wherever, as much as possible,” said Rep. Tony Klein of Montpelier, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

–Never (or almost never) in the entire history of the human race has anyone proposed changing rules just for “clarification.” Process is not important; substance is. If the Administration wants to change the rules, it surely wants to change the results, perhaps not so that contractors can “build whatever, wherever,” but so they can build more, faster.

Which was precisely one of the goals of Thursday’s meeting. As Bill Driscoll acknowledged, the business community believes the permitting process is “too unpredictable, too open-ended, in terms of the delays and the costs involved.” IAV and its co-sponsors are allies of (and its members are campaign contributors to) the Governor.

None of which proves that some streamlining of the permitting process is not a good idea. Jonathan Wood’s point that permits ought to be granted “not to the applicant who can survive the (permitting) process but to the applicant who can comply with the regulations” seems sensible on its face.

But it is a good reason why, even if nothing much transpired at Thursday’s meeting, the public ought to know what goes on at these meetings just in case something does.

NOTE: The News Guy is taking next week off. New postings resume August 10.

Archeology dig in St. Johnsbury (from UVM)

If you can no longer bear the suspense, no, the News Guy was not admitted to the “Developmental and Environmental Regulation Seminar” sponsored by Associated Industries of Vermont Thursday.

Neither were any other reporters. At least two, one from the Burlington Free Press and one from Vermont Public Radio, had been told by telephone that wouldn’t be allowed in, so they didn’t show up.

Nobody else seems to have tried. Or cared.

Tough (or stubborn) bunch, that AIV. The combined censure of the News Guy, Shay Totten of Seven Days, St. Michael’s College journalism professor David Mindich (as reported in the Free Press), and even an uncharacteristically hard-hitting Free Press editorial did not shake AIV’s determination to hear speeches by the Secretary of Natural Resources and other senior state officials in secret.

Or maybe not so secret. This conference turned out to be even less a private, invitation-only, session than understood when its closed-to-the-press rule was condemned in Wednesday’s post (just scroll down). Anyone willing to pay the $45 fee could attend.

Come to think of it, a sneaky reporter who was a stranger to the event’s organizers (and one can always hire a ringer) could have paid the forty-five smackers and sat through the entire seminar. What with today’s technology, he could have surreptitiously filmed it and put the whole shebang on YouTube.

For all practical purposes, then, it was a public event, as well as a meeting between regulators and the owners of businesses they regulate. That made the ban on news coverage (and, especially, the acceptance of that ban by the public officials) even more objectionable. It also made the indifference of the rest of the state’s news outfits (excepting the Free Press, Seven Days, and VPR), more mysterious, if not more cowardly.

On the other hand, the all-but-public nature of the event meant there were people inside the meeting who were willing to talk to a reporter in the corridor outside. From their reports, the events within were useful, informative, and not at all shocking.

That YouTube, it seems, wouldn’t have been very interesting, much less the least bit scandalous.

Asked what he had said during his lunch speech, Natural Resources Agency Secretary Jonathan Wood said, “nothing different than if you’d been in the room,” an assessment confirmed by others.

Wood said he had not known the gathering would be closed to reporters until one of them, Candace Page of the Free Press, called him on Wednesday. Describing himself as an advocate of “a free and open society,” who cooperates with journalists, Wood said keeping reporters out of meetings did offer the advantage of allowing people to be more candid than they might be if they thought their remarks would be in the newspaper.

In politely denying the News Guy’s request to enter the meeting-room, AIV spokesman Bill Driscoll made the same point.

“Some people get intimidated,” he said. “They are private and shy about the press.” Having reporters in the room, Driscoll said, could stifle open discussion.

Their point can not be casually dismissed. But neither can this: People do what is in their interest, or at least what they think is in their interest. If IAV and its fellow-sponsors thought that their words and actions in that meeting would win them the approval of the public, they’d invite every reporter in the state and give them lunch for free. It is likely that one reason (though not the only one) they keep reporters out is that they’re not at all sure their words and actions will meet with public approval.

The subject of the meeting, after all, was “environmental regulation,” and many if not most of the business leaders in attendance want to weaken the state’s environmental regulations. Whether or not that is a wise outlook, it is in this state (and most the others) a decidedly minority outlook. Those advocating it probably want to minimize their visibility.

As mentioned Wednesday, the specific regulation (or set thereof) at issue now concerns areas of archeological significance. Or, more precisely, areas that might have archeological significance if we knew what was under them. Considering that some of these sites hold relics of people who lived in Vermont some 12,000 years ago, some people find them fascinating and important. Some do not.

The Agency of Commerce and Community Development has proposed changing the regulations for determining which sites get considered for possible architectural designation under Act 250. According to some archeologists, the proposed change in Section 4.2 would weaken protections because it removes the words “or potentially significant property or resource” from the list of criteria for considering whether a site should be examined for possible archeological significance.

Tayt Brooks, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Housing, and Community Affairs, who spoke at Thursday’s seminar, said there was “some confusion” over this language.

“The proposed rule does not change how we designate archeological sites,” he said, repeating earlier assertions that the administration is only interested in “clarification” of the permitting process.

Even John Groveman, general counsel for the Vermont Natural Resources Council, which opposes changing the regulations, conceded that this was “open to interpretation.” But Groveman said a provision in Section 4.7 requiring that some sites be designated “only in exceptional circumstances,” would prohibit – or at least discourage – looking for possible archeological finds in some areas. He also said the proposed change in the method of funding archeological searches threatened to cut off funding altogether, at least temporarily.

Well, the two sides and their lawyers will fight this out for a while, and Brooks acknowledged that “we will be making some changes and tweaks,” as the process moves along. Meanwhile, for those not immersed in the minutia, a few points:

–What’s the problem? Only a tiny fraction of projects that go through the Act 250 process have any archeological complication. According to the Division of Historical Preservation, in 2006 only 57, or 11 percent, of 501 Act 250 projects even required a site visit, which costs nothing. Only 16 of those projects required any further study, meaning that 97 percent of all projects were cleared for development with no cost to the developer.

–Context is important. Here the context is that Gov. Jim Douglas’s Administration is closely allied with the development community – builders, realtors, and their finances – and intent on “reforming,” which often means weakening, regulations.

Thanks to this alliance, environmentalists and their allies view any proposed rules change with suspicion.

“If you look at what’s happening with ANR (Agency of National Resources) and their attempt to streamline permitting and eliminating staff for enforcement, this is all part of a concerted effort by the Douglas Administration to build whatever, wherever, as much as possible,” said Rep. Tony Klein of Montpelier, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

–Never (or almost never) in the entire history of the human race has anyone proposed changing rules just for “clarification.” Process is not important; substance is. If the Administration wants to change the rules, it surely wants to change the results, perhaps not so that contractors can “build whatever, wherever,” but so they can build more, faster.

Which was precisely one of the goals of Thursday’s meeting. As Bill Driscoll acknowledged, the business community believes the permitting process is “too unpredictable, too open-ended, in terms of the delays and the costs involved.” IAV and its co-sponsors are allies of (and its members are campaign contributors to) the Governor.

None of which proves that some streamlining of the permitting process is not a good idea. Jonathan Wood’s point that permits ought to be granted “not to the applicant who can survive the (permitting) process but to the applicant who can comply with the regulations” seems sensible on its face.

But it is a good reason why, even if nothing much transpired at Thursday’s meeting, the public ought to know what goes on at these meetings just in case something does.