Why Housers Should Sit on Planning Commissions
And defining conflict of interest rules.
Though we call it a housing crisis, the challenges to housing people in our current time offers a significant opportunity to reinvigorate our local economy and create solidarity.
We recently gained an opportunity in my adopted hometown. Upon a vote of no for a set of rather anemic zoning updates by our Board of Alderman, three Rutland City Planning Commission seats became open by resignations. This presents the opportunity for a new iteration of the commission that represents all key constituents of the housing ecosystem.
A planning commission with representation made up of citizens, business leaders, developers, landlords and other housing professionals is a group that represents the housing ecosystem in your neighborhood. Without housers on your planning commission, redevelopment authority board, development review board, etc. your community reduces its capability to invest in smart housing solutions.
It may be helpful for my readers to talk about some of the objections we get here and how we mitigate those objections in ways that could help the effort in your town.
Our local houser, nominated by our mayor, received a no vote of her appointment. The objection most referred to was the likelihood for a conflict of interest down the road.
To be clear, conflicts do present themselves, most notably when a public commission is charged with allocating money or approving a project. To demonstrate, if a member of the commission were to benefit directly from a vote concerning funds for a project owned by said commissioner, that member must recuse themselves.
In Vermont as in most other states, there are well-defined conflict of interest laws. In my former home state of Massachusetts, for example, I was administered a class and then tested on conflict of interest laws when I was in the employ of a city economic development department. Elected officials also maintain the same on conflict of interest law in Massachusetts.
What is This, Minority Report?
If the same situation occurs in your community, you should argue for said houser’s appointment and point out that conflicts of interest need to occur to seek remedy. Refusing the appointment of an individual because of a possible future conflict, a perceived conflict which has not made itself apparent through experience is not a conflict.
Our city lacks a specific procedure for dealing with conflict of interest training. This is no reason to prevent qualified candidates from participating. (we don’t train our elected on C of I rules, so we cannot appoint people who may have a C of I in the future). It’s the responsibility of the city to properly administer the laws and procedures present in our system. Eluding to conflicts that don’t exist but may score political points, as one example for their occurrence, does nothing to solve our housing crisis.
We’re currently advocating for a look at what processes are lacking concerning conflicts of interest so we can remedy the issue present. We are also actively supporting the appointment of housers to fill some/all of the seats currently available. All the more so because our city was in the midst of a five year review of our zoning regulations, with smaller lot sizes and more liberal use of ADUs just two of numerous changes on the table for review.
Our group, Partners In Housing steadfastly supports a better housing ecosystem through the full participation of everyone with authority to weigh in on housing. With full representation from those developing, managing and investing in our city’s housing, the Planning Commission will help to realize the goal set by our current administration of 1000 units of housing in five years.
Stay tuned as I report on how this effort is going. Oh, and did I mention we have two seats open on our Redevelopment Authority. A great time to consider moving to Vermont and contributing to our community!
