9 ms·

Vermont’s Mormon megacity called off after preservationists sound the alarm

50 points by lando2319 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago
> The charming village centers and idyllic surrounding farms and forests in four historic towns,” reads the Trust’s statement, “would be permanently altered by a development proposal calling for construction of a new planned community in this rural part of Vermont.” Disgusting. The proposed development would be so much more ecologically friendly than spreading those same residents around sprawling “idyllic” “villages.” Not to mention that I doubt many of those “idyllic” existing stuctures have modern levels of energy efficiency. I don’t know why the Trust hates the environment so much.
- subpixel 8y ago
  Those same residents are not coming to VT now, so there will be no village sprawl.
- mc32 8y ago
  Probably for a couple of reasons. One, an outsider, two Mormons, three it's different and upsets the local idea of how to live amongst nature. Anyway, looks like a similar development experiment is still on schedule near Brigham Young in UT.
- duxup 8y ago
  With the 200 square foot apartments idea I'm really not sure this was going to go far....
  - wavefunction 8y ago
    Meekness is a positive trait in the LDS church. I have met a fair number of fantastic people who were/are members of the Church but I saw how many folks struggled under its influence and expectations. The worst aspect of Utah LDS culture is the social shunning if you leave the church.
    - bendmorris 8y ago
      > Meekness is a positive trait in the LDS church. Nominally, sure, just like other Christian religions. There are still plenty of big expensive houses in the Salt Lake area.
    - lightedman 8y ago
      "Meekness is a positive trait in the LDS church." With the self-aggrandizing titles they have and the architecture they have in Utah, I don't think 'meek' is exactly a word they understand, nor 'Truth' considering Smith admitted it was all a lie in court (and was busted for being a disorderly person and an impostor in 1826, about 4 years before Mormonism began) and their internal motto is "Lying for the Lord" as told to me by a former Mormon parishoner who joined my 'church' (we don't pray to any deity.)
    - dqpb 8y ago
      I would argue that the worst part of their culture is their pattern of transferring an entirely confused notion of reality onto their children.
    - gremlinsinc 8y ago
      Mitt Romney is very meek indeed. Joseph Smith threatening 'I will be killed by angel with a flaming sword, if you don't do your duty and become my 15th wife', is also 'meek'. As an ex-mormon, (I was 100% in 2 years ago, and believed everything, I also didn't know about Polyandry, Book of Abraham, Joseph's Polygamy (was told it started w/ BY and ended at 1890's), member since I was 14 (38 now), never missed a day of Seminary, but there's so many things they tell you, that's just not true or correct. The CESLetter.com is a major eye-opener.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > The proposed development would be so much more ecologically friendly than spreading those same residents around sprawling “idyllic” “villages.” Per Wikipedia, the four towns the land is drawn from have a total population of 6,629 people, so a development of 15-20k isn't just accommodating "those same residents", but increasing the area's population several times over.
- mac01021 8y ago
  More ecofriendly than spreading them around, but less ecofriendly than not having those residents at all. So it depends what the alternatives are. And also, they never claimed to be concerned with the global environment. Only with the character of their immediate locale.
jimrandomh 8y ago
This sort of thing happens when people try to build large amounts of housing in the US pretty much anywhere. It's a strategic ploy to drive up housing prices, enriching landlords and homeowners at the expense of renters and young people.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Uhhh, 'more homes' is absolutely the last thing any landlords want as it does the exact opposite of 'driving up home prices'. Especially given this is a new development, there's no erstwhile 'home prices' to drive up ...
  - dvdhnt 8y ago
    The “city” would be carved out of four other cities mentioned in the article. Not only would these new developments compete with those existing areas, it would compete with any planned developments, or potential developments that opponents would prefer to build in the described “city” of only they could acquire the land. Though, I think the grandparent comment meant that blocking new home construction is a ploy to increase home prices and harm renters and the young.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      In absolute terms there would almost assuredly be more homes than less in that scenario - thereby putting downward pressure on housing costs, not upward. This is Economics. Moreover - there is no real competition for land (specific plots and waterside aside). Even in Vermont's largest urban area (Burlington) you can literally go one kilometre in any direction and find tons of open space, even you go a few more, it's empty. Developers can go almost anywhere - if one spot taken, you can literally walk in almost any direction and find suitable land. Which is at least partly why places like Vermont have average home prices of $192K and California (mostly urban) has average home prices of nearly double that. [1][2] In light of the basic economics here, the parent commenter has the onus to prove his more cynical position that this is 'all some kind of evil rent ploy'. Because it's not, and if it were, it would be the dumbest ploy ever, because there's no surplus control or surplus capture. People can build next door to move outside of the supposed economic control. [1] https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ [2] https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article13255952.html https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article132559...
qop 8y ago
Because of course it's a good idea to chase off extremely low crime demographics. What a smart move! /ssssss I'm sure this ain't breaking the hearts of most Mormons anyways. Utah will take them with open arms.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Mormons are decent people overall, but the church is still officially quite homophobic. I wouldn't really want 200,000 (or even a significant percentage of that) homophobic voters moving in next door to me. I like having civil rights.
- ggg9990 8y ago
  I have no problem with Mormons but I still would use any tactics available to stop 200,000 of them from moving into my town of 20,000. I don’t want to be in a 10% minority by virtue of not being Mormon... if I was OK with that I’d live in Provo.
  - qop 8y ago
    You must not be familiar with Mormons then. They're very pleasant people. I'd kill to be outnumbered by Mormons, the neighborhood would improve so much! They're not different people because of their religion. They are Democrats AND Republicans. Tippers and non-tippers. Toilet roll up and toilet roll down. Gif and gif. It's different than if 200,000 Muslims were moving in. Then you might have qualms a la Paris. I grew up in Utah, so of course I have a lot more experience and perspective on Mormons in particular. I'd kill to have them come swarm Hoboken with their wholesome non-caffeinated selves.
    - ggg9990 8y ago
      I know lots of Mormons and I like them. I just like my neighborhood the way it is. If 200,000 Mormons moved in, I wouldn’t move out, but I’d try to stop it. If 200,000 Muslims moved in, I’d definitely sell my house.
      - 8y ago
heneryville 8y ago
I'm Mormon, live in Utah, and am fairly involved in Mormon culture. I've never heard of this project except via Hacker News. If an LDS builder has a plan to build a community, it doesn't mean he's trying to populate it with Mormons. He's even quoted as saying so in the OP. This has nothing to do with Mormonism. Reporting trying to trace a connection is merely pandering to the fact that Mormons being weird makes for a more interesting article, and earned your click.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lewis500 8y ago
Baffling why Vermont's population is aging rapidly, given its "charming village centers and idyllic surrounding farms and forests in four historic towns." This is what young people crave. Millenials just can't get enough charm/farms.
- NegativeLatency 8y ago
  Millennial here. More interested in unfettered wilderness, safe bike routes, and good places to eat than charm/farms.
  - lewis500 8y ago
    I'm joking. this is clearly the agenda of retirees and busybodies trying to keep things just the way they are, to the detriment of young people.

50 points by lando2319 8y ago

> The charming village centers and idyllic surrounding farms and forests in four historic towns,” reads the Trust’s statement, “would be permanently altered by a development proposal calling for construction of a new planned community in this rural part of Vermont.” Disgusting. The proposed development would be so much more ecologically friendly than spreading those same residents around sprawling “idyllic” “villages.” Not to mention that I doubt many of those “idyllic” existing stuctures have modern levels of energy efficiency. I don’t know why the Trust hates the environment so much.

subpixel 8y ago
Those same residents are not coming to VT now, so there will be no village sprawl.
mc32 8y ago
Probably for a couple of reasons. One, an outsider, two Mormons, three it's different and upsets the local idea of how to live amongst nature. Anyway, looks like a similar development experiment is still on schedule near Brigham Young in UT.
duxup 8y ago
With the 200 square foot apartments idea I'm really not sure this was going to go far....
- wavefunction 8y ago
  Meekness is a positive trait in the LDS church. I have met a fair number of fantastic people who were/are members of the Church but I saw how many folks struggled under its influence and expectations. The worst aspect of Utah LDS culture is the social shunning if you leave the church.
  - bendmorris 8y ago
    > Meekness is a positive trait in the LDS church. Nominally, sure, just like other Christian religions. There are still plenty of big expensive houses in the Salt Lake area.
  - lightedman 8y ago
    "Meekness is a positive trait in the LDS church." With the self-aggrandizing titles they have and the architecture they have in Utah, I don't think 'meek' is exactly a word they understand, nor 'Truth' considering Smith admitted it was all a lie in court (and was busted for being a disorderly person and an impostor in 1826, about 4 years before Mormonism began) and their internal motto is "Lying for the Lord" as told to me by a former Mormon parishoner who joined my 'church' (we don't pray to any deity.)
  - dqpb 8y ago
    I would argue that the worst part of their culture is their pattern of transferring an entirely confused notion of reality onto their children.
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    Mitt Romney is very meek indeed. Joseph Smith threatening 'I will be killed by angel with a flaming sword, if you don't do your duty and become my 15th wife', is also 'meek'. As an ex-mormon, (I was 100% in 2 years ago, and believed everything, I also didn't know about Polyandry, Book of Abraham, Joseph's Polygamy (was told it started w/ BY and ended at 1890's), member since I was 14 (38 now), never missed a day of Seminary, but there's so many things they tell you, that's just not true or correct. The CESLetter.com is a major eye-opener.
ceejayoz 8y ago
> The proposed development would be so much more ecologically friendly than spreading those same residents around sprawling “idyllic” “villages.” Per Wikipedia, the four towns the land is drawn from have a total population of 6,629 people, so a development of 15-20k isn't just accommodating "those same residents", but increasing the area's population several times over.
mac01021 8y ago
More ecofriendly than spreading them around, but less ecofriendly than not having those residents at all. So it depends what the alternatives are. And also, they never claimed to be concerned with the global environment. Only with the character of their immediate locale.

jimrandomh 8y ago

This sort of thing happens when people try to build large amounts of housing in the US pretty much anywhere. It's a strategic ploy to drive up housing prices, enriching landlords and homeowners at the expense of renters and young people.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
Uhhh, 'more homes' is absolutely the last thing any landlords want as it does the exact opposite of 'driving up home prices'. Especially given this is a new development, there's no erstwhile 'home prices' to drive up ...
- dvdhnt 8y ago
  The “city” would be carved out of four other cities mentioned in the article. Not only would these new developments compete with those existing areas, it would compete with any planned developments, or potential developments that opponents would prefer to build in the described “city” of only they could acquire the land. Though, I think the grandparent comment meant that blocking new home construction is a ploy to increase home prices and harm renters and the young.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    In absolute terms there would almost assuredly be more homes than less in that scenario - thereby putting downward pressure on housing costs, not upward. This is Economics. Moreover - there is no real competition for land (specific plots and waterside aside). Even in Vermont's largest urban area (Burlington) you can literally go one kilometre in any direction and find tons of open space, even you go a few more, it's empty. Developers can go almost anywhere - if one spot taken, you can literally walk in almost any direction and find suitable land. Which is at least partly why places like Vermont have average home prices of $192K and California (mostly urban) has average home prices of nearly double that. [1][2] In light of the basic economics here, the parent commenter has the onus to prove his more cynical position that this is 'all some kind of evil rent ploy'. Because it's not, and if it were, it would be the dumbest ploy ever, because there's no surplus control or surplus capture. People can build next door to move outside of the supposed economic control. [1] https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ [2] https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article13255952.html https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article132559...

qop 8y ago

Because of course it's a good idea to chase off extremely low crime demographics. What a smart move! /ssssss I'm sure this ain't breaking the hearts of most Mormons anyways. Utah will take them with open arms.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Mormons are decent people overall, but the church is still officially quite homophobic. I wouldn't really want 200,000 (or even a significant percentage of that) homophobic voters moving in next door to me. I like having civil rights.
ggg9990 8y ago
I have no problem with Mormons but I still would use any tactics available to stop 200,000 of them from moving into my town of 20,000. I don’t want to be in a 10% minority by virtue of not being Mormon... if I was OK with that I’d live in Provo.
- qop 8y ago
  You must not be familiar with Mormons then. They're very pleasant people. I'd kill to be outnumbered by Mormons, the neighborhood would improve so much! They're not different people because of their religion. They are Democrats AND Republicans. Tippers and non-tippers. Toilet roll up and toilet roll down. Gif and gif. It's different than if 200,000 Muslims were moving in. Then you might have qualms a la Paris. I grew up in Utah, so of course I have a lot more experience and perspective on Mormons in particular. I'd kill to have them come swarm Hoboken with their wholesome non-caffeinated selves.
  - ggg9990 8y ago
    I know lots of Mormons and I like them. I just like my neighborhood the way it is. If 200,000 Mormons moved in, I wouldn’t move out, but I’d try to stop it. If 200,000 Muslims moved in, I’d definitely sell my house.
    - 8y ago

heneryville 8y ago

I'm Mormon, live in Utah, and am fairly involved in Mormon culture. I've never heard of this project except via Hacker News. If an LDS builder has a plan to build a community, it doesn't mean he's trying to populate it with Mormons. He's even quoted as saying so in the OP. This has nothing to do with Mormonism. Reporting trying to trace a connection is merely pandering to the fact that Mormons being weird makes for a more interesting article, and earned your click.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lewis500 8y ago

Baffling why Vermont's population is aging rapidly, given its "charming village centers and idyllic surrounding farms and forests in four historic towns." This is what young people crave. Millenials just can't get enough charm/farms.

NegativeLatency 8y ago
Millennial here. More interested in unfettered wilderness, safe bike routes, and good places to eat than charm/farms.
- lewis500 8y ago
  I'm joking. this is clearly the agenda of retirees and busybodies trying to keep things just the way they are, to the detriment of young people.