Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Housing Balance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Researchers urge treating farmland conservation and affordable housing as linked goals
Summary
A group of researchers presented case studies from Vermont, Maine and New York outlining policy tools to protect agricultural land while expanding affordable housing. Presenters said recent state proposals aim to align planning and tax tools but raised concerns about impacts on seasonal properties and farmworker housing.
A team of researchers told a legislative committee that Vermont should treat agricultural land conservation and affordable housing as interconnected priorities rather than competing ones.
"Rather than operating within a framework of ag land conservation versus affordable housing development, it is actually more accurate and constructive to consider them in tandem," said Jennifer Morgan Davey, one of the presenters.
The presenters summarized Vermont's current-use and Act 250 frameworks, described proposed changes under Act 181, and compared state approaches in Maine and New York. They said state policy debates center on how to avoid development sprawl while creating more housing that farmworkers and other low-income residents can afford.
Why it matters: presenters said Vermont faces simultaneous pressures from rising home prices and loss of farmland. They noted a steep decline in the share of renters able to afford a median-priced Vermont home (presenters cited figures dropping from 32% in 2021 to 6% in 2023) and said the state has set targets to build additional housing (presenters referenced a target of 41,000 new homes; date in the transcript was unclear). At the same time, presenters said the state has lost a majority of farmland since the late 1960s and that farmworkers are among the most housing-insecure populations.
Key facts and policy mechanisms presented
- Act 250 and current-use programs: Presenters described Vermont's long-standing land-use review under Act 250 and the "current use" tax program, including the land use change tax. They said Act 181 creates a future land use mapping process (run by regional planning commissions and towns) that can be used to apply for Act 250 exemptions in identified growth areas.
- Land use change tax and proposed changes: The team discussed recent and proposed adjustments to the land use change tax and how those could interact with housing incentives (they noted one proposal that would broadly reduce the land use change tax and questioned how that might affect the affordable-housing incentives created under House Bill 134).
- Vermont Housing & Conservation Board and local partners: The Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) and nonprofits such as the Champlain Housing Trust were cited as ongoing sources of grants, loans and easement funding that can be used to simultaneously protect farmland and support farmworker housing.
- Maine case study: Maine's current-use program requires at least 5 contiguous acres and $2,000 in annual agricultural sales to participate; municipalities may use temporary easements (up to 20 years) to lower property taxes. Presenters said a 2021 bill (HP 988, transcript citation) that would have imposed an impact fee on vacant secondary residences did not pass in 2022; opponents cited impacts on resident-owned seasonal camps and private-property concerns.
- New York case study: New York's agricultural assessment and agricultural districts programs prioritize production farmland, with eligibility and assessment formulas tied to soil class and gross agricultural revenue. Presenters said New York sets higher revenue thresholds for enrollment (for larger parcels a $10,000 annual gross revenue test; smaller parcels must meet a higher threshold in some cases) and limits enrollment periods (five-year terms). New York also uses initiatives such as the New York Housing Compact to promote infill development and offers interest-free loans for farmworker housing.
Questions from committee members focused on details and unintended consequences. Representative Bauchner asked how Maine's proposed vacancy fee would define a "vacant second home"; a presenter said the draft definition in that bill treated a nonprimary residence as "vacant" if it was unoccupied for 189 nonconsecutive days in a calendar year. Representative Nelson and others raised concerns about seasonal camps and hunting cabins that are not winterized, which presenters said was among the reasons that the Maine bill failed.
Committee members also asked about interactions between Act 181/Act 250 exemptions and the current-use program; presenters said towns are in an interim phase as they consider whether to apply for the new exemptions and that details of the transition remain to be clarified.
Presenters and committee members noted the challenge of supporting new or beginning farmers. The presenters highlighted New York's Farmland Protection Program and agricultural easements as a mechanism that can reduce land prices and make transfers to new farmers more feasible.
Taper: Presenters offered to provide additional detail to the committee on technical questions (for example, the timing and rules governing Act 250 exemptions and the land use change tax) and recommended coordination among state agencies, regional planners and conservation and housing funders to align goals.
