Be sure you scroll down using the scroll bar on the right of the text box to see both pages.
If you have questions write FHP@CVOEO.ORG
[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.thrivingcommunitiesvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/fair-housing-april2017-burlington-calendar1-2.pdf”]
Getting a head start on April in March –Note: All the content below in this post
is taken from a web site maintained by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
In April, we come together as a community and a nation to celebrate the anniversary of the passing of the Fair Housing Act and recommit to that goal which inspired us in the aftermath of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination in 1968: to eliminate housing discrimination and create equal opportunity in every community.
Fundamentally, fair housing means that every person can live free. This means that our communities are open and welcoming, free from housing discrimination and hostility. But this also means that each one of us, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability, has access to neighborhoods of opportunity, where our children can attend quality schools, our environment allows us to be healthy, and [for us to grow] opportunities and self-sufficiency.
…commitment to fair housing is a living commitment, one that reflects the needs of America today and prepares us for a future of true integration.
On April 11, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which was meant as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 1968 act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, (and as amended) handicap and family status. Title VIII of the Act is also known as the Fair Housing Act (of 1968).
The enactment of the federal Fair Housing Act on April 11, 1968 came only after a long and difficult journey. From 1966-1967, Congress regularly considered the fair housing bill, but failed to garner a strong enough majority for its passage. However, when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson utilized this national tragedy to urge for the bill’s speedy Congressional approval. Since the 1966 open housing marches in Chicago, Dr. King’s name had been closely associated with the fair housing legislation. President Johnson viewed the Act as a fitting memorial to the man’s life work, and wished to have the Act passed prior to Dr. King’s funeral in Atlanta.
Another significant issue during this time period was the growing casualty list from Vietnam. The deaths in Vietnam fell heaviest upon young, poor African-American and Hispanic infantrymen. However, on the home front, these men’s families could not purchase or rent homes in certain residential developments on account of their race or national origin. Specialized organizations like the NAACP, the GI Forum and the National Committee Against Discrimination In Housing lobbied hard for the Senate to pass the Fair Housing Act and remedy this inequity. Senators Edward Brooke and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts argued deeply for the passage of this legislation. In particular, Senator Brooke, the first African-American ever to be elected to the Senate by popular vote, spoke personally of his return from World War II and inability to provide a home of his choice for his new family because of his race.
With the cities rioting after Dr. King’s assassination, and destruction mounting in every part of the United States, the words of President Johnson and Congressional leaders rang the Bell of Reason for the House of Representatives, who subsequently passed the Fair Housing Act. Without debate, the Senate followed the House in its passage of the Act, which President Johnson then signed into law.
The power to appoint the first officials administering the Act fell upon President Johnson’s successor, Richard Nixon. President Nixon tapped then Governor of Michigan, George Romney, for the post of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. While serving as Governor, Secretary Romney had successfully campaigned for ratification of a state constitutional provision that prohibited discrimination in housing. President Nixon also appointed Samuel Simmons as the first Assistant Secretary for Equal Housing Opportunity.
When April 1969 arrived, HUD could not wait to celebrate the Act’s 1st Anniversary. Within that inaugural year, HUD completed the Title VIII Field Operations Handbook, and instituted a formalized complaint process. In truly festive fashion, HUD hosted a gala event in the Grand Ballroom of New York’s Plaza Hotel. From across the nation, advocates and politicians shared in this marvelous evening, including one of the organizations that started it all — the National Committee Against Discrimination In Housing.
In subsequent years, the tradition of celebrating Fair Housing Month grew larger and larger. Governors began to issue proclamations that designated April as “Fair Housing Month,” and schools across the country sponsored poster and essay contests that focused upon fair housing issues. Regional winners from these contests often enjoyed trips to Washington, DC for events with HUD and their Congressional representatives.
Under former Secretaries James T. Lynn and Carla Hills, with the cooperation of the National Association of Homebuilders, National Association of Realtors, and the American Advertising Council these groups adopted fair housing as their theme and provided “free” billboard space throughout the nation. These large 20-foot by 14-foot billboards placed the fair housing message in neighborhoods, industrial centers, agrarian regions and urban cores. Every region also had its own celebrations, meetings, dinners, contests and radio-television shows that featured HUD, state and private fair housing experts and officials. These celebrations continue the spirit behind the original passage of the Act, and are remembered fondly by those who were there from the beginning.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
http://www.rooflines.org/4710/fighting_community_opposition_in_the_age_ofopposition/ via @Shelterforce
On Nov, 8, voters across the country heard the affordable housing call and approved numerous state and local housing funding measures that will make it possible for more of our neighbors to live in safe, healthy, and affordable homes. This was a real achievement in housing advocacy, but the work is far from over. Developers, local governments, and advocates must now move to convince the neighbors of proposed housing developments to accept more affordable homes into their communities.
The election that brought over 37 affordable housing measures to the ballot in eight states also elevated toxic rhetoric about people of color and other populations. The public discourse has changed, and that’s likely to affect our efforts to build support for affordable housing development and counter community opposition. Here’s what you may hear about affordable housing in your community, and how to prepare for it:
Racial animus. In the wake of the election, there have been many reports of hate-based harassment and intimidation across the country. An offending segment of our population feels newly empowered to use racist language in all types of situations. While racism and fear of difference have always been, at the very least, an undercurrent of some forms of community opposition, in recent years it’s largely been implied, not overt. You may see an uptick in overt racism in siting conversations.
What to do? While it would be satisfying—and, arguably, right—to call out racist language directly when you hear it, research tells us that this is likely to backfire, causing the speaker to defensively double-down on the prejudiced belief. Instead, a study this year found that “a short conversation encouraging actively taking the perspective of others can markedly reduce prejudice.” It argues for holding small-group conversations and facilitators trained to listen and find common ground.
Misinformation. You’ve likely heard much about the success of fake news during the presidential campaign. Misinformation this election cycle may have had a distinctive rightward bent, but don’t pat yourself on the back if you lean left. All of us are susceptible to information that confirms what we already believe, regardless of its factual accuracy. Don’t be surprised to see an increase in the misinformation about your work being posted online and handed around in anonymous flyers around the neighborhoods where you work.
What to do? Don’t write up a “frequently asked questions” page correcting the lies being told about your work. By emphasizing the misinformation—even when you later correct it—you’re just driving it deeper into peoples’ consciousness. Instead, first tell your truth (“Our apartments increase neighborhood safety.”), then signpost the misinformation and explain the motive behind it (“There is a myth circulating that affordable housing increases crime, promoted by a small new neighborhood group formed to fight our proposal.”), and finally give a brief, clear alternative explanation, repeated in graphics if possible (“In fact, by starting a neighborhood watch program and installing security cameras, we’ve helped create a 13 percent decrease in property crime in another neighborhood where we work. We want to work with you to have a similar positive impact here.”).
Ideological conflict. Research into persistent opposition to affordable housing has shown that spatial ideology—an individual’s set of beliefs around who can live in and use a particular place, and who has the right to participate in decision-making about a place—can be predictive of opposition to, or support of, affordable housing. The recent push to disenfranchise groups of Americans through voter ID laws and other restrictions is an example of a narrow conception of spatial rights, and the electoral contest was rife with rhetoric supporting a conscribed idea of to whom America truly belongs. Opposition may now more frequently focus on delegitimizing prospective low-income residents, perhaps as “not American” or simply “not from here.”
What to do? Unfortunately, ideology might be hard-wired, and thus addressing spatial ideology head-on might not be effective. At the same time, there are likely to be people in your community who believe lower-income people have an equal right to live in a place. Find these potential supporters by emphasizing the values of diversity and inclusion, and give this group a clear way to take action and vocalize support of your work.
Distrust of institutional authority. The success of populist presidential candidates from both parties points to, among other things, Americans’ growing distrust of institutions. Whether it’s in banks, the news media, or government itself, people across the political spectrum have lost faith. Unfortunately, affordable housing development connects to all sorts of things many of our neighbors have come to doubt: taxation, finance systems and entities, and zoning, just to name a few.
What to do? First, people who have lost trust will hear a developer mention “partnering with the government” and translate that into an attempt to paper over a profit-making arrangement. Step away from the marketing talk and use plain language to explain what you do, and why it is successful. Second, reframe the role of these perceived-suspect institutions. A new paper from Enterprise Community Partners and the FrameWorks Institute recommends that we help people understand the role of government in affordable housing by explaining, “the role of systems in shaping outcomes for people and … communities,” and by, “zooming out” to tell broader stories that explain the impact of housing issues on an entire community. You know your work is about more than simply units; help others understand this too.
Countering community opposition has never been easy, and I hope to hear that these predictions have not come true, but even if they do, our work can have a long-term impact on decreasing bias. There is evidence that white people living in diverse neighborhoods “endorsed fewer negative stereotypes, and [feel] closer to Blacks as a group.” When we create diverse, inclusive communities, we help decrease prejudice and division. That’s something truly worth fighting for.
Executive Summary from the White House Housing Development Toolkit: September, 2016
[FYI Please note this toolkit was issued under President Obama’s administration.]
“Locally-constructed barriers to new housing development include beneficial environmental protections, but also laws plainly designed to exclude multifamily or affordable housing. Local policies acting as barriers to housing supply include land use restrictions that make developable land much more costly than it is inherently, zoning restrictions, off street parking requirements, arbitrary or antiquated preservation regulations, residential conversion restrictions, and unnecessarily slow permitting processes. The accumulation of these barriers has reduced the ability of many housing markets to respond to growing demand.”
Read it all here> http://tinyurl.com/WhiteHouseDevpToolKit 23 pages easy reading.
– San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reform-land-use-promote-shared-growth-of-new-9283703.php
By Jason Furman | September 25, 2016 | Updated: September 25, 2016 8:34pm
Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle
When certain government policies — like minimum lot sizes, off-street parking requirements, height limits, prohibitions on multifamily housing, or unnecessarily lengthy permitting processes — restrict the supply of housing, fewer units are available and the price rises.
It is no secret that cities like San Francisco, New York and Washington, D.C., face challenges in the availability and cost of housing. But policymakers and economists have increasingly recognized both the role that certain inappropriate land use restrictions play in raising housing costs — not just in major cities but across the country — and the opportunity for modernizing these regulations to promote shared growth.
Basic economic theory predicts that when the supply of a good is constrained, its price rises and the quantity available falls. In this respect, the market for housing is no different: When certain government policies — like minimum lot sizes, off-street parking requirements, height limits, prohibitions on multifamily housing, or unnecessarily lengthy permitting processes — restrict the supply of housing, fewer units are available and the price rises. On the other hand, more efficient policies can promote availability and affordability of housing, regional economic development, transportation options and socioeconomic diversity.
Research suggests that local barriers have become more restrictive in recent decades. One way to measure this is comparing the sale price of houses with construction costs. This gap typically reflects the cost of buying land — which increases with tighter land use restrictions. Indeed, the gap has increased in the past two decades: House prices from 2010 to 2013 were 56 percent higher than construction costs, a 23 percentage-point crease over the average gap during the 1990s.
Of course, many land use regulations can have benefits for communities. Environmental reasons in some localities may make it appropriate to limit high-density or multiuse development. Similarly, health and safety concerns — such as an area’s air traffic patterns, viability of its water supply, or its geologic stability — may merit height and lot size restrictions.
But in other cases, barriers to housing development can allow a small number of individuals to enjoy the benefits of living in a community while excluding many others, limiting diversity and economic mobility.
This upward pressure on house prices may also undermine the market forces that typically determine patterns of housing construction, leading to mismatches between household needs and available housing.
Improving land use policies can also create benefits for the U.S. economy as a whole. High- productivity cities offer higher-income jobs than low-productivity cities and often attract workers who move from other cities, naturally bringing more resources to productive areas of the country. But when unnecessary barriers restrict the supply of housing and costs increase, then workers — particularly lower-income workers who would benefit the most — are less able to move.
All told, this means slower economic growth: Some researchers have estimated that GDP could have been almost 10 percent higher in 2009 if workers and capital freely moved so that the distribution of wages across cities was the same as in 1964.
On the other hand, smarter land use and housing policy can promote both growth and equity. While most land use policies are appropriately made at the state and local level, the federal government can also play a role in encouraging smart land use regulations. Today, the Obama administration is releasing a new toolkit at http://bit.ly/2d4dVAc that highlights best practices that localities have employed — including streamlining permitting processes, eliminating off-street parking requirements, reducing minimum lot sizes, and enacting high-density and multifamily zoning policies — to reduce overly burdensome land use restrictions and promote mobility and economic growth.
Reforming land use policies can have important benefits for local residents and the nation as a whole, not only raising economic growth, but ensuring that its benefits are widely shared among all Americans.
Jason Furman is the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
Okay dear readers, this is a wonky article but for those of you interested in HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule it is a good read. (Ted Wimpey)
“For most of the Fair Housing Act’s history, its requirement to “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing” has been largely dormant. With the advent of the new AFFH rules in July 2015, however, there is some promise that this provision might be taken more seriously.”
http://tinyurl.com/AFFH-rule-FHA-DetailDevils Link to ROOFLINES, the Shelterforce Blog,
I am sharing here in full an article about a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision with significant fair housing and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing import for planning, zoning and permitting of residential housing development that was published April 28, 2016 in the legal issue blog site, “Manatt.” Especially check out the three basic “Practice Pointers” at the end of the article for the main take away.
— https://www.manatt.com/real-estate-and-land-use/Landmark-Discrimination-Case-Fair-Housing-Act-Thwarts.aspx —-
—————————————————-
Real Estate and Land Use
Apr 28, 2016
Landmark Discrimination Case: Fair Housing Act Thwarts NIMBYs
Avenue 6E Investments, LLC v. City of Yuma (March 25, 2016)
Author: Michael M. Berger
Why It Matters: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision in favor of the City of Yuma, Arizona, and concluded instead that there was sufficient evidence to present to a jury that the City had rejected the developer’s application for an increase in zoning density for reasons of barely disguised animus toward the expected residents of the new development. The Court held that issues of disparate treatment and disparate impact under both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the federal Fair Housing Act needed to be tried.
Facts: The plaintiffs/developers acquired 42 acres of undeveloped land with the intent of building a “moderately priced” housing project. They are known in the area as a developer of Hispanic neighborhoods. Although the General Plan allowed for homes on either 6,000- or 8,000-square-foot lots, a prior owner had it zoned for 8,000-square-foot lots. Unfortunately, the economy would no longer support lots of that size and the developers sought a rezoning to the smaller size which in turn would allow increased density. The City had done some studies, concluding that its population was racially divided, with most of the low-to-moderate-income housing in the areas populated by Hispanics. These developers wanted to develop their housing on the border of a predominantly white area.
The City’s General Plan acknowledged that racial segregation is wrong and that large-lot zoning raises housing costs and impairs the ability of the City to provide housing for moderate-income buyers. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning to smaller lots and recommended that the City Council do so as well. The City Council, however, was besieged with NIMBY complaints and thinly veiled anti-Hispanic charges, complaining that these particular developers were known to “cater to” the people responsible for the vast majority of major crimes.
Two other facts had some import. First, there were similarly priced and modelled homes available elsewhere in Yuma, a fact that the City thought absolved it of any claims of disparate impact. Second, a fact that proved difficult for the City to impress on the Court was that, in the preceding three years, this was the only rezoning request that had been rejected out of 76 applications.
The developers filed suit under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of the Equal Protection guarantee, as well as for disparate impact and treatment under the Fair Housing Act. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City on the sole ground that the adequate supply of similar housing elsewhere in the City automatically foreclosed any finding of disparate impact.
The Decision: The Court of Appeals reversed. When the opinion began with a paean to the Fair Housing Act and the way it “strikes at the heart of the persistent racism that so deeply troubles our Nation,” something that the provision of more affordable housing can help to cure, it was apparent that the conclusion was foregone: judgment reversed.
The Court of Appeals was unable to disregard the bright light of the fact that out of 76 applications, the only time the City had denied a zone change in the past three years was this one. There could be no explanation for the denial other than racism, particularly in light of some of the communications made by neighbors to the City Council about the presumed criminal proclivities of the anticipated residents of the new development. Nor would the Court have anything to do with the trial court’s idea that the presence of similar developments elsewhere in Yuma obviated the problem. Indeed, it merely emphasized the fact that the City was racially divided and at least some of its residents wanted things to remain that way.
There appeared to be no principled opposition to the requested zone change. As the Court of Appeals put it, the record was replete with “code words” and “veiled references” for the Hispanic influx that the neighbors anticipated, turning the development into a “low-cost, high-crime neighborhood.” The case had no chance on appeal.
Practice Pointers:
Even as Governors of some states are declaring their unfounded and fearful opposition to the resettlement of refugees from Syria in their states, Vermont continues to be welcoming, not only to Syrian refugees but for many others fleeing war, persecution and political or religious oppression. That is as it should be, not only for humanitarian reasons but because it is good for the nation, the states, communities and the world.
For more than twenty five years, the United States has offered assistance to refugees through the U.S office of refugee resettlement. Burlington, Vermont is one of the designated refugee resettlement communities. In recent years the number of refugees and immigrants coming from Africa, East and Central Asia to Vermont has significantly increased. Every year the U.S. Congress decides the number of refugees that will be admitted into the U.S. during the fiscal year. In 2014, the U.S government admitted a total of 58,238 refugees into the U.S and approximately 50% of the 58,238 or 29,219 admitted to the U.S fell below 20 years of age.
Process
Once refugees have been approved for admission to the U.S., refugee resettlement agencies (Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program (VRRP) for the state of Vermont) initially helps to resettle the new refugees including securing housing for them, and providing basic assistance with community orientation, medical screening, employment search services, English language instruction for those coming from non-English speaking countries as well as school orientation to the New Americans.
Life has not been easy for these New Americans. The International Rescue Committee explains that numbers of refugee families have survived traumatic life events including years of political conflict, exposure to war-related violence and deprivation, and chaos in refugee camps. Potential risk factors encountered by refugee children and youth include separation from family members, lack of access to education and health care, recruitment into armed forces, sexual exploitation, the loss of home, and exposure to war-related trauma.
Additionally, refugee youth in the U.S. face further challenges such as new language acquisition, social isolation and alienation, social adjustment with peers, negative peer pressure, grief and bereavement, discrimination, cultural misunderstanding, and adjustment to a new educational system. According to the International Rescue Committee, “Associated psychosocial stress can hinder refugee children’s ability to learn English, perform adequately in school, and develop peer support networks”. Because of these challenges faced by New Americans, our efforts to create welcoming communities are all the more important.
Economic and cultural benefits to our state
Despite the challenges that New Americans have to overcome, they have proven to be outstanding achievers in educational advancement and demonstrate a strong work ethic. They are highly motivated to advance themselves and to contribute to their new communities in a positive way. In other words they are a plus to our communities not a negative.
In Vermont we should keep in mind that we are losing population, especially younger people; the state has a declining population which is growing older and at the same time it has the 4th lowest unemployment rate in the country at 3.6 percent. So, many local companies are tapping into the refugee labor pool. Refugees contribute much to the workforce. At the same time, although this is foremost a humanitarian gesture, admitting more refugees can also be a boon for businesses and local economies, particularly in smaller states with labor shortages. There is an interesting recent article to read from PRI about “Vermont businesses” that focuses on a Burlington industry example in particular. New Americans are also market consumers for our local businesses and tax payers – both income taxes and sales taxes – as well as property tax payers as they begin to own real property.
Given both the benefits to our communities and to the refugees themselves of having open welcoming and inclusive communities, we need to continue to welcome and embrace the diversity and economic dynamism that New Americans bring for the good of all concerned.
The 2016 Homelessness Awareness Day and Vigil was held at the Vermont State House in Montpelier on January 7th. Two House committees Housing, General and Military Affairs and Human Services had a joint hearing on homelessness, taking testimony on housing and homelessness issues. A number of other hearings regarding homelessness happened in the building during the course of the day.
Opening the hearing was nationally recognized pediatrician Dr. Megan Sandel (principal investigator on Children’s Health Watch, Associate professor at Boston University’s School of Medicine, and Medical director, at the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership at Boston Medical Center), who has done path-breaking work on the effects of housing insecurity and homelessness on children. She gave a brilliant presentation on “Housing as a Vaccine: A Prescription for Child Health.”
At that hearing, Representatives and attending members of the public also heard from Vermont homeless service providers Linda Ryan (Director of Samaritan House) and Sara Kobylenski (Executive Director of Upper Valley Haven) on the latest trends and some recommended solutions to end or decrease homelessness in Vermont.
At Noon, community members, legislative leaders, administration officials, and advocates took the State House steps for a vigil to remember our friends and neighbors who died without homes, and to bring awareness of the struggles of those still searching for safe and secure housing. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and other legislative representatives and advocates joined and spoke at the vigil.
How can Housing be a Vaccine?
Dr. Megan presented data to support her thesis that housing can be protective for health. The quality, stability and affordability are important determinants to heath of all people. That means improving housing can provide multiple benefits. According to Dr. Megan, timing and duration of housing insecurity matter greatly to a child’s health. By increasing availability, affordability, and quality of housing, the health effect of housing insecurity can be decreased. Dr. Megan also provided specific evidence regarding housing quality and children’s health. For example, developmental issues, worsening asthma and other conditions have been tied to specific housing conditions such as pests, mold, tobacco smoke, lead exposure and so forth, and tied to long term effect with poor health outcomes.
According to Children’s Health Watch, “unstable housing, hunger and health are linked” because evidence shows that being behind on rent is strongly associated with negative health outcomes such as high risk of child food insecurity, children and mothers who are more likely in fair or poor health, children who are more likely at risk for development delay, mothers who are more likely experiencing depressive symptoms. Research conducted by the National Housing Conference from Children’s Healthwatch illustrates that there is no safe level of homelessness. The timing (pre-natal, post-natal) and duration of homelessness (more or less than six month) compound the risk of harmful childhood health outcomes. The younger and longer a child experiences homelessness, the greater the cumulative toll of negative health outcomes, which can have lifelong effects on the child, the family, and the community.
Several community representatives spoke in support of increasing housing affordability by targeting more public funding to support housing affordability and housing stability and adding to state housing directed funds with a $2 per night fee on hotel, motel and inn stays.
This is the last grant-funded post, so we’ll try to keep it snappy, not sappy. What do we know about housing, anyway? Not a lot, but a good deal more than when we signed on to this gig 10 months ago.
For what they’re worth, we’ll leave you with a gratuitous thought and an anti-climactic ranking.
Housing can’t simply be left to the private market, any more than health care or education. It’s time for people to accept that resolving the housing-affordability crisis will require significant new governmental investment; and alleviating the socioeconomic and racial segregation that continue to stand in the way of fair housing choice, all across the country, will require concerted government intervention. Why shouldn’t the right to decent housing and fair housing choice be a public policy priority commensurate with the right to health care or the right to receive an education?
Rankings abound at New Year, so here’s one with an ancillary question: Rent or buy? 504 counties around the country are listed in order of rental affordability — that is, the percentage of local median income that’s required to pay median rent of three-bedroom apartment in that county. Also listed is the affordability percentage of a median priced home. Compare the percentages to see whether it’s more affordable to rent or buy.
No. 1 in rental affordability (or unaffordability) is Honolulu, at 73 percent. Buy. No. 505 is Huntsville, Ala., at 23 percent. Buy.
You can get to the Excel table by clicking here.
The only Vermont county in the table is Chittenden (listed as Burlington/South Burlington). Sorry, Bellows Falls, Bennington, et al, but that’s the way of these national surveys.
Burlington/South Burlington comes in at No. 152 in rental affordability, at 40 percent. Buying affordability: 46 percent. The recommendation: Rent.
That’s despite the fact that, according to the table, the cost of a 3 BR apartment in Burlington/South Burlington went up 12.2 percent in the last year.
Sounds a little high to us (so much for the 3.3 percent figure we’ve been hearing) but again, what do we know?
Could be worse.