“If you accept that non-citizens have no right to due process, you are accepting that citizens have no right to due process. All the government has to do is claim that you are not a citizen; without due process you have no chance to prove the contrary.”

This from Timothy Snyder, author of “On Tyranny.” This after multiple weeks of the current presidential administration deporting nonwhite U.S. citizens, some of whom were just out picking up a pizza, to El Salvador, a country they had never so much as visited. These people had their proof of citizenship on their person, but “immigration” authorities either didn’t look or didn’t care. I shouldn’t say “deported”; these people were sent straight to a foreign prison—charged with no crime, let alone convicted.

Let no one say this isn’t relevant to Hartford. It’s absurd to think that just because it hasn’t happened here yet, it’s not our business. Is this a platform welcoming of civics, or isn’t it? That’s the only question relevant now.

I’m old enough to remember when Joe Biden wouldn’t suspend the filibuster to pass the voting rights act. Biden and other party leaders claimed the filibuster would be useful when their party was in the minority. Well, where are they now? Are we not currently in a desperate-enough situation to warrant a filibuster until this is stopped, and reversed? Will the so-called opposition party mount any opposition whatever? Or will Bernie and AOC urge us in the next election to vote for Gavin Newsom? (A man who recently video’ed himself throwing away the possessions of people without homes.) If they’re told to endorse such a sleeze, we have reason to fear they will.

This is the danger of faux progressive efforts: redirecting real rage into useless ends. It’s why we need a viable third party. It’s why we need to not buy into the duopoly’s lie that voting third party is a wasted vote. The only way they keep their power is if everyone believes the lie.

• The town’s housing and homelessness committee will soon present the board with a potential survey for Hartford property owners to describe rental housing they may manage. This survey could be voluntary or mandatory. Would you vote to make this survey mandatory for property owners? Do note that, unless it’s mandatory, it’s unlikely that Hartford could adopt any rental regulations beyond the current health and safety code.

I would want to know more about objectives and the potential long and short-term consequences from both rental property owners and those advocating for a mandatory survey, a potential rental registry, and potentially regulating rental properties.  My sense is that it would be valuable for the Town to have complete and accurate information about all rental units but I don’t know enough to provide a simple answer at this point.  I would look forward to learning from the committee, Town staff, and others including economists who focus on the housing market.

• Would you recommend Hartford alter the boilerplate police policy (the “FIPP”) to comport with the Welcoming Hartford Ordinance?

Yes.  The Town should take all possible measures to uphold the WHO, an ordinance that reflects the will of the voters.  Related to this question are others.  How a department had the authority to adopt the Hartford FIPP which is in conflict with the WHO is a matter I want to understand.  Also unclear to me is the VCJC’s interpretation of state statute concerning adoption and modification of the model FIPP.  I’m hearing that state statute, both in language and intent, was designed to allow municipalities the flexibility that the VCJC is now describing as “problematic”.  The formation of a working group between Town staff, VCJC and AG staff and a delegate of the Selectboard’s choice seems like a practical next step.

• If faced with a proposal, like I was, to cut the road paving budget by $300,000, would you have voted in support of my motion to cut the police budget by $100,000 in order to share the cuts more equally across departments? (The $100,000 for police was slated for a staffer that had not yet been hired; it wouldn’t have resulted in a layoff.)

I would want the Town Manager’s recommendation if it came down to an either-or decision of this nature.  For example, what are the potential consequences of not funding the PD staffer position for FYE26?  I wonder if there are process improvements that could be made to preempt, avoid, or ease decision making like this in the future?  For example, why doesn’t the Town bundle road rebuilding and resurfacing projects for one or more seasons into a capital improvement project and potentially use a bond to fund that work?  And could the board communicate criteria and parameters more effectively to allow staff to determine the more granular “how” and “when” questions related to funding?

• Would you have voted to accept the Gaza Ceasefire Resolution proposed to the board by a dedicated group of community members?

Subject to a more thorough review of the language, yes.  Yes, because by the time such a resolution reached a motion, there’s really little point in opposing it.  However, there’s a difference between expressing moral outrage and fighting to win.  I would have wanted to discuss the strategy with the community activists before the item was put before the Board, a move that I did not support.  

What can be achieved by the Town expressing its stance on the conflict using a non-binding resolution?  It carries no weight, conveys no real commitment.  To quote Aric McBay, “There’s a difference between dissidence and resistance.  A dissident believes that those in power are acting badly, that society is unjust, but a dissident doesn’t materially try to stop those things….Resisters put their beliefs into action…they work to disrupt or dismantle the social, economic, and political systems that cause injustice and exploitation.”  If, through local government, Hartford can resist injustices or bad actors (within the Town or elsewhere) I will support that resistance.  I am opposed to consuming Board and staff capacity with non-material expressions of dissidence, however.

• Do you support the efforts of the newly formed clerical workers union in town government?

If by “support”, you mean do I think the Town should negotiate in good faith with a clerical workers union, then yes.  If there are other means of support I look forward to understanding them.

• Would you support at least “Option C” of the Bugbee Center proposal? (This option is a thorough remodel, short of a full rebuild.) Here’s the board packet that contains the proposal: https://www.hartford-vt.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02182025-2914

I support the recommendation of the team leading the feasibility study to form an ad hoc committee to work with the architects, Senior Center staff, and others to evaluate options and make a recommendation to the Board.  Before forming a committee, however, I would encourage the Board to survey and prioritize current Town projects and initiatives.  A committee should be formed and charged in alignment with a timeline when the Town reasonably expects to accept recommendations.  In other words, if the Town thinks the committee’s work will take 6-8 month (for example) it should not be charged two or three years before the Town could expect to act on its recommendations.

• What would you like to see on the street level of the forthcoming Coolidge Block redevelopment?

To the extent that the Board has a voice in those decisions I would welcome the opportunity to participate in shaping that space.  That said, first I would want to learn more about the public private partnership agreement taking shape between the landowner, developer and Town and reasonable expectations for/from each party.

• Americans often take vacations to visit societies around the world that build almost exclusively walkable areas. (It turns out that all humans love these areas.) Scholars understand that what took the U.S. in the other direction in the 20th century—actively preventing walkability—was the influence of big money interests on governments, mixed with racism. Hartford was largely built at the densities of the rest of America, car nearly always required. Would you spend your political capital to help create a truly walkable center (or three)? Would you vote to spend town money to map our water and sewer lines, so we know where we can build more densely?

Regardless of the motivation, knowing the location (and condition) of Town infrastructure seems vital to providing the services fundamental to local government.  I recall hearing about efforts to map water and sewer lines years ago.  My default position would be to fund completion of this work if it is incomplete but I would want to understand the current status and reason for suspending the work. 

Many years ago when I read “A Pattern Language” I was sold on the need to design spaces – whether dwellings, institutions, or civic spaces – for humans.  The question, however, seems to take a giant leap from brainstorming to implementation.  If this idea was on “brown paper” at a development brainstorming session, yes, I would put one of my “star stickers” on it.  But before making further commitments I would obviously want to see some level of concept development.

As usual, writing for myself and not the board or town. Budget and Candidates Night is the night of Monday Feb 24th, 7-10pm, at the high school auditorium. I hope to see you there!

Below are the questions for board candidates that I would be keen to hear their answers on. Perhaps they could answer here. If they want to respond at greater length, I encourage them to post elsewhere and provide us a link here. Anyone who doesn’t have another place to post is welcome to email a response to me, and I’ll publish it at my website. (I would of course post a link here.)

• The town’s housing and homelessness committee will soon present the board with a potential survey for Hartford property owners to describe rental housing they may manage. This survey could be voluntary or mandatory. Would you vote to make this survey mandatory for property owners? Do note that, unless it’s mandatory, it’s unlikely that Hartford could adopt any rental regulations beyond the current health and safety code.
• Would you recommend Hartford alter the boilerplate police policy (the “FIPP”) to comport with the Welcoming Hartford Ordinance?
• If faced with a proposal, like I was, to cut the road paving budget by $300,000, would you have voted in support of my motion to cut the police budget by $100,000 in order to share the cuts more equally across departments? (The $100,000 for police was slated for a staffer that had not yet been hired; it wouldn’t have resulted in a layoff.)
• Would you have voted to accept the Gaza Ceasefire Resolution proposed to the board by a dedicated group of community members?
• Do you support the efforts of the newly formed clerical workers union in town government?
• Would you support at least “Option C” of the Bugbee Center proposal? (This option is a thorough remodel, short of a full rebuild.) Here’s the board packet thst contains the proposal: https://www.hartford-vt.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02182025-2914
• What would you like to see on the street level of the forthcoming Coolidge Block redevelopment?
• Americans often take vacations to visit societies around the world that build almost exclusively walkable areas. (It turns out that all humans love these areas.) Scholars understand that what took the U.S. in the other direction in the 20th century—actively preventing walkability—was the influence of big money interests on governments, mixed with racism. Hartford was largely built at the densities of the rest of America, car nearly always required. Would you spend your political capital to help create a truly walkable center (or three)? Would you vote to spend town money to map our water and sewer lines, so we know where we can build more densely?

Hi all,

~representing my own views here and not those of the full Selectboard or town~

Wanted to let you know that at Tuesday’s board meeting, 6pm at Town Hall, we will hear remarks from the Executive Director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council. This is the organization that drafted the state boilerplate policy our police adopted, which seems to force local police into cooperating with federal immigration authorities, despite Hartford voters’ wishes in 2020.

While it’s not warned in the agenda, I imagine there’s a chance we’ll hear from the incoming police chief, Constance Kelley, who goes by Connie, on the matter. I’m keen to learn where Chief Kelley lands on this.

The VCJC has previously alluded to their alleged power to not train or certify our officers if we alter their boilerplate. In no uncertain terms, Vermont law states that towns have the right to alter this boilerplate to prohibit cooperation with immigration authorities. I’m interested in hearing what latitude the Executive Director feels he has with jurisdictions that follow the letter and spirit of state law.

Remember that you can also witness/participate in the meeting via Zoom over your dinner, or simply write an email to the board and/or town manager.

Zoom link for meetings: 

https://zoom.us/j/549799933

Email to reach all board members: selectboard@hartford-vt.org

Town Manager: jhaverstock@hartford-vt.org

It doesn’t look like the board will vote on Tuesday, so this will be a question for the new board in March. I, for one, will be recommending the police adopt a policy that follows the Welcoming Hartford Ordinance and not the state boilerplate.

Making immigrants, queer/trans people, and the disabled into unworthy “others” in our society was the start of a much darker time in history past. But let’s be clear: this didn’t start under Donald Trump. Joe Biden’s monthly average deportation was 57,000 humans, every month across his presidency. In his first month, Trump has deported 37,660. So let’s oppose this… but let’s not forget we oppose it no matter who’s doing it. Let’s keep the same keen eye and open critique on a Democratic president if there should be one later.

Sticking out our own necks to protect our neighbors, all our neighbors, is the foundation of a society.