G R E E N A C T I O N

B u l l e t i n o f t h e
Burlington Greens
Volume 1, Number 4 Winter 1989
I n s i d e Th i s I s s u e . . .
Mossman Condos Update
On Be l l Ho o k s
Burlington Youth Green Waterfront Campaign
Statement: Why We Are Politically Independent
T O WA R D A N E C O L O G I C A L
WA T E R F R O N T
Now t hat t he Coal i t i on t o Save t he
Wa t e r f r o n t t h e a l l i a n c e o f G r e e n s
and c onc er ned r es i dent s has at l eas t
temporarily stopped developer Barry
Mossman f rom bui l di ng l uxury
condos on the waterfront, it is well to
recall the ecological perspective that
has given life to the opposition
m o v e m e n t .
The vision of a waterfront park
with plenty of healthful open space
a n d f r e e f r o m c o m m e r c i a l
development has been rejected by
City Hall, the Free Press, and others as
impractical and too extreme. They
oppose an ecological perspective with
a brand of hard-headed pragmatism
t h a t s e e ms t o l e a v e t h e m a k i n t o t h e
me n t a l i t y o f p r o t - o r i e n t e d
developers.
T H E C O N V E N T I O N A L V I E WS
An ecological perspective on the
waterfront differs markedly from the
t w o m a i n c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w s . T h e
The last publicly accessible
n a t u r a l a r e a n e a r t h e
downt own t hat has not been
taken over by commercialism
may soon be destroyed.
rst view, promoted by developers
and real estate speculators, is
motivated almost exclusively by
prot. The goal is to squeeze as much
by Paul Fleckenstein
prot out of the lake front as possible,
regardless of what this means for the
environment or for the long-term
wel f ar e of t he ci t y' s r esi dent s.
Mossman's planned $600,000 condos
that will tower over Lake Champlain
and further spur gentrication in
Ward 3 are an especially appalling
result of this "free market" ideology.
T h e s e c o n d v i e w, h e l d mo s t
not abl y by t he Pr ogr es s i v e
Administration, is that the prot-
or i ent ed mar ket r equi r es some
guidance, but can otherwise be left to
i t s own desi gns. The r ecent
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n c a l l f o r 2 5 %
inclusionary zoning (an ordinance
requiring a certain percentage of units
c ons t r uc t ed t o be " af f or dabl e" ) on t he
waterfront is arguably a pragmatic
position in support of 75% luxury
condo development.
Although the Administration's
concer n f or publ i c access and
affordable housing is laudable as far
continued on Page 6
I NCL US I ONA RY Z ONI NG:
Progressive Response or
Tr i c k l e - D o w n S e l l Ou t ?
in/ Gary Sisco
Inclusionary zoning requires
developers who build more than a
specied number of housing units to
build a number of lower-cost or affordable
units equal to a percentage of the total
number. The percentage of affordable
units and their location, as well as the
denition of "affordable" are all subject
to negotiation before an ordinance is
passed. The Board of Alderman is
currently considering such an ordinance.
The dty of Burlington sxiffers from a
reprehensible lack of decent, affordable
housing for the majority of its citizens.
While the city' s steadily dwindling
supply of affordable housing is largely a
r e s u l t o f t h e s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l
gover nment s' near l y nonexi st ent
housing programs, in Burlington the
crisis has also been greatly aggravated
b y a d i s g r a c e f u l p r o c e s s o f
gentrificationeuphemistically styled
"growth"on the local level.
continued of Page 5
i
PAGE 2
]
ON BEL L HOOKS
Biology and Reason
by Sandra Baird
Bell Hooks, a female black scholar,
r emi nded us at a r ec ent UVM l ec t ur e
of the problem of radsm. Even in the
instance of the Central Park rape,
where a gang of (young) blacks raped
and beat a white female jogger, she
c a u t i o n e d t h a t w h i l e w e h a t e t h e
sexism which fueled that crime, we
cannot forget the war against blacks
turning some men into criminals; nor
can we in our sympathy for the victim
fuel racist stereotypes about the
v i c t i mi z er s .
And she is right. For too long white
feminists have argued reductionistically
that all men dominate and oppress all
women. In "take back the night"
marches, domestic violence forums, and
rape crisis centers, the enemy is seen as
men themselves as though their biology
determines that they will be rapists,
batterers, and murderers.
Correctly, Hooks challenged this
n o t i o n . W h i l e s o m e m e n e x e r c i s e
violence against women, all do not.
More important, other hierarchies than
sex exist in our society, which make
s ome men t he v i c t i ms r at her t han t he
be women). For instance, all men are
commanded by the state (sometimes in
a f e m i n i n e f o r m a s i n T h a t c h e r ' s
England) to surrender life and limb in
war. Most men are '-'!ced by a profit-
oriented economy (sometimes in the
hands of women) into harsh, often low-
paying jobs, and many victimizers
(who at rare times can even others are
forbidden work at all. Worse, black men
as wel l as bl ack women ar e t hr eat ened
every day in their livelihoods and lives
by a white racism that condemns them
to worrying about even simple
s ur v i v al .
Hooks then enlarged the debate and
reminded us that an ana.^ is of sodety
is not a simple question of biology,
whether race or gender. Unfortimately,
she herself did not go far enough. For by
not pointing out how enemies should be
judged, she left us believing that while
black men were not the problem nor
white women, nor black women, who
suffer the most that all the problems
of sodety and all the dominations come
from those old devils, white men. In her
own form of radsm, she limiped them
into a biologically determined class
which alone causes despair, war,
violence, and poverty.
As we l ook ar oi md at t he l eader s of
nati ons, economi es and churches, the
semi-truth of Hooks' argument is
obvi ous. The whi t e mal e f ace i s i ndeed
prominant. But as reasonable, even fair
people, we must never forget that we
must judge exploiters on what they
think and do, not on who they are at
birth. All of us of every race, class.
gender and age can choose to stand on
the side of justice and ^eedom in
Harlem, in Bensonhurst, in Moscow.
All of us have tiie ability to use our
h u m a n a b i l i t i e s o f r e a s o n a n d
consdousness to choose to help along
the humanproject to create a libertarian
and just sodety, or to stand in its way.
The hope that all of us, of all races,
colors, sexes and dasses will nally use
our avVesome powers to reason our way
to a decent world, largely absent in
Hooks's argument, should not be
lacking in those of us who yearn to
create a sodety of free women and men.

WH Y B E A WO M A N WH E N
Y O U C A N B E A G I R L ?
Lst ustudc, pluck,llposuck, Implant toici In, buff off end paint over all ihose tDublesoma
impertecHons. WecanretDolandrettyourboctyaotiatyouloocanbeatnM
Amarlcan Standard beauty!
A M B H C A N S 1 U I D y U B B U i r f l K H N O L O O E S
A D I V I S I O N O F G E N E R A L MO T O R D Y N A MI C S
C m M E R O A U Z M
P A G E S
M O S S M A N U P D A T E
by Claude Lehman
An Artist's rendering of the Mossrnan Condos.
Battery Park is just visable above the left wing.
At a trial held on October 13, 1989,
Barry Mossman' s proposed 20-unit
condommium project was condemned
by exper t s t o be i n vi ol at i on of
Burlington's Municipal Development
P l a n . A r c h i t e c t s R o l a n d B a t t e n a n d
Turner Brooks and City Planner Beth
Humstone testied in Superior Court
that the facade and physical layout of
Mr. Mossman's proposed building
would, amongst other things, create "a
private enclave" in an area that should
be the "public realm," would "exude
values incompatible" with the needs
and character of the neighborhood, and
would serve as a precedent for
developers to plan projects of a
similarly "arrogant" and "exclusive"
n a t u r e .
The Mossman condomi ni ums,
priced from $300,000 to $600,000, are
located in ward 3, the poorest
neighborhood in Burlington, a brutal
irony most appalling to opponents of
the project. T^e Coalition to Save the
Waterfront, a group that includes
Youth Greens, Burlington Greens, and
a number of other commimity activists,
has fought the case in court, without a
lawyer. Beatrice Bookchin of the
Bur l i ngt on Gr eens has been t he
spokesperson, representing the group
dur i ng sever al hear i ngs, and
conducting the group's case at the trial.
Ms . B o o k c h i n a n d h e r c o h o r t s
hope the court will deny Mossman the
p e r mi t h e n e e d s t o b u i l d h i s
condominiums. However, they see the
Mossman project as simply one in a
chain of many greedy ventures that
threaten the Burlington Waterfront.
They know, that regardless of how the
cour t deci des, a ci t i zen' s movement
must grow in opposition to the forces
of the market economy on the
wat er f r ont and el sewher e. The ef f or t t o
stop the Mossman project has been an
or gani zat i onal cat al yst , br i ngi ng
activists together for the common
purpose of ghti ng prot-ori ented
development.
Gr e e n A c t i o n h a s
several purposes. VVe wish. to:
criticaUy ^airiihe : public p6
support the efforts of grassroots
orgdnizatlbns {!6: ^addre6s sbcial
and onvironTnental problems,
and present a Green perspective
t hat ex pl or es t he i nt er
relationships between social and
ecological issues. We hope that
Green Action will also foster a
muc h needed al t er nat i v e dnd
ecological vision of what our
ivmnuinity could be.
Letters Policy
We welcomeirespprises
Action article of fewer tiian 2^
. wor ds / .
Subscriptions
If you would like to receive bi
monthly issues of: Green ApHon^
please send your name and
address along v/itk $1(|; fpr:.$;
|XT yotir Ui Crrai Arlion.
ro Hox 45(t7, Burlington, VT
()54(h. Your nancial support
would !xj much approdattd.
i
PA GE 4
]
B U R L I N G T O N Y O U T H G R E E N S
TA K E T O T H E S T R E E T S T O
S AV E T H E WAT E R F R O N T
by Eugene Resnick
The Burlington Youth Greens have embarked on an
extensive campaign to save the waterfront from the
combined forces of developers and City Hall. The group
contends that opposition to individual projects such as
Central Vermont Railroad's mega-development scheme
and Barry Mossman's proposed 20-unit luxury condo
enclave below Battery Park, is not enough to create a
public oriented waterfront. Rather than simply reacting to
the onslaught of proposals, the group is attempting to
build a citizen movement that would ght for an
a l t e r n a t i v e v i s i o n o f o u r wa t e r f r o n t .
The Greens, along with supporters, are distributing a
brochure to every household in Burlington. The brochure
envisions the waterfront as the "great lungs" of a
congested city, free from additional commercial and for-
prot development. Pamphleteers have begun the
campaign in the two wards containing the central
waterfront. They have completed Ward 3, receiving an
overwhelmingly positive response, and have nearly
nished door knocWng in Ward 5.
The Youth Green canvassers are highly critical of the
back-room dealing which has engendered citizen passivity.
With little participation or opposition, projects such as
Mossman's proposed fortress or Northshore's gradual
col oni zati on of the northern stretch of the waterfront have
been going through the planning process almost
unnoticed. The Youth Greens empharrlz:.- io people the
importance of formulating their own vision of the
waterfrontand actively participating in shaping its future.
After distributing the brochure, the group intends to
petition the entire city with a call for "no for-prot
development on the waterfront."
As the battle continues for the most desirable piece of
undeveloped land in Burlington (both for developers and
for the public), the Youth Greens believe creating a public-
ori ented waterfront wi l l requi re op l i ti on to the
dynamics of the market economy. For it is ultimately the
market economy which will privatize and commodify
Burlington's "great lungs."
For more information, call Julie or Meghan at 658-9297 or
write the Burlington Youth Greens at Box 5672, Burlington,
Ver mont 05402.
A CAL L TO SAVE
THE WATERFRONT
UNBRI DLED GROWTH
O R
OPEN PUBLI C SPACE?
As open spaces in Burlington continue to disappear
at an alarming rate, the waterfront stands out
thankfully as a potentially tieautiful setting for
public enjoyment and recreation. The long stretch
of land hugging the lake has somehow eluded
development, though It was formerly built up by
heavy industries. The urban waterfront is cluttered
with mostly unused railroad tracks, the rusty shells of
past Industri es, not to menti on scattered debri s and
barbed fencing. Imagine the whole of the water
front cl eared of the debri s and cared for. Pi cture a
collection of gardens, walks, bike paths, plantings,
open elds, and areas left to preserve the natural
integrity of the lake front; an area within easy walk
ing and biking distance of most of Burlington (espe
cially the crowded Old North End), where the fresh
lake breeze and magnicent sunsets can be en
joyed without the din of speeding cars.
Example of The Burlington
Yout h Gr eens' Br ochur e
P A G E S
Inclusionary Zoning, Continued from Page 1
The cost of housing in Burlington has
been rising for the past decade at a rate
which is roughly double that of income. To
obtain a mortgage in Burlington today
realistically requires a minimum annual
household income of $40,000 or more.
Hence, if present trends are allowed
to continue, we can expect a large and
growing portion of the city's middle class
to enter a rental market which is already
tight to the point of bursting. Low-income
and working people especially welfare
In Burlington, the housing
crisis has been greatly
aggravated by gentrica-
tioneuphemistically styled
"growth,"
mothers and worki ng women wi th
children, who bear the of the housing
crisis^will continue to pay fifty percent or
more of their income for rent, to double
and triple-up with other families, or to
lose their housing altogether.
S E L L O U T ?
The question is what should be done
about the housing crisis. The answer is
that the crisis demands much bolder steps
that the current proposal for inclusionary
zoning. The housing crisis is not the result
of zoning problems; it is the result of an
inherently immoral social system that
t u r n s e v e r y t h i n g i n c l u d i n g
housing^into commodities to be bought
and sold by those who have the money.
Those who don't have the money simply
lose. In this case, they lose their housing.
Inclusionaiy zoning fails to confront,
much less address, the root causes of
Burlington's housing crisis. First, the
proposal begins with an unacceptable
presupposition; namely, that the current
wolf-pack of "developers" and real estate
speculators will be allowed to continue
using the city for its own private hunting
ground.' It takes for granted that
speculators will continue preying on the
poor and working people of Burlington,
that "developers" and other proteers will
continue paving what little open land
remains in the city with parking lots,
shopping centers, luxuiy condominitmis,
and mansion-like private homes costing a
quarter of a million dollars or more.
The proposal represents, in short.
another variation on the Reaganesque
"trickle-down" theory advanced by Jack
Kemp and other acolytes of supply-side
economicthis time glazed with a
"progressive" rhetoric to make the same
old story more palatable, and spiced with
an ordi nance that seeks to ensure that at
least a few drips, a handful of affordable
housing units, actually "trickle down" in
fact as well as theory. Since the city is
going to be virtually destroyed by
gentrication and the current form of
cancerous "growth" anyway, let's at least
make sure the peons receive a few crumbs
from the monied banquet table.
Nine years ago the "progressive"
electoral movement won its rst campaign
under the slogan "Burlington is not for
sale." Today, we are greeted with a
proposal that atly states the city's going
price.
Even if we accept the proposal on its
own terms, as spel l ed out i n the
Community and Economic Development
Ofce (CEDO)-commissioned report in
support of inclusionary zoning, we nd
that it will hardly make a dent in the
housing problems facing the city. The
report states that if its recommendations
had been adopted in 1980, the city would
have gained roughly 100 new units of
affordable housing. (It does not estimate
The current wolf-pack of
"developers" and speculators
will be allowed to continue
using Burlington for its
hunting ground.
how many units would have been lost
during the same period, because of
increased luxury growth, gentrication,
conversion of housing to commercial
space, and other factors.)
No one, it goes without saying, is
arguing that the city couldn't use another
100 affordable housing units. But clearly
this is not enough.
D O U B L E S T A N D A R D S
The Greens object, also, to the provision
which allows developers a density waiver
(permission to build more imits in a given
amount of space) when they are creating
affordable housing. This provision, too,
enshrines one of the system's maxims in
law. What this provision essentially says is
that the poor and working people of this
city are not entitled to basic requirements
for a decent life: things that are simply
taken for granted by the middle class and
wealthynamely, a decent amount of
living space for play and cookouts,
privacy, quiet, sunlight, and fresh air.
What this provision says, in effect, is that
these minimum reqviirements for a decent,
healthy, indeed, human life are also merely
commodities to be enjoyed by those who
can afford them, and denied to those who
c a n n o t .
The time will be soon upon us when
these points will be strictly academic.
Open space and ecologically developable
land is rapidly disappearing in Burlington.
The Greens bel i eve t hat t he ri ch and t he
middle classes have already occupied
more than their fair share of Burlington's
desirable living space. It is time now for
the low-income and working people of the
c i t y t o b e p r o v i d e d t h e s a me
opportunities. That struggle for the
remaining open land will either be waged
now or it will not be waged at all. If it isn't
waged, the land will simply be developed
for the rich, and that will be that.
M I N I M U M H O U S I N G P R O G R A M
Given the objective social and ecological
realities confronting Burlington in 1989, a
mi ni mum housi ng program woul d
require:
Rent controla minimum step which
woul d at l east sl ow, i f not hal t t he
spiralling rent increases forcing tenants
into over-crowded living situations or out
of their homes all together.
A general moratorium on luxury
growth, the destruction of existing
housing, and the conversion of existing
housing to ofce and commercial space.
A general freeze on the granting of dty
permits for institutional expansion, until
s u c h t i m e a s i n s t i t u t i o n s l i k e t h e
University of Vermont and others make
subst ant i al , concret e eff ort s t o meet t hei r
social obligations to the laiger community
particularly regarding the creation of
new, attractive student housing.
A gr eat l y i ncr eased muni ci pal
commitment, in the form of generous
nancial grants, to grassroots efforts like
the Burlington Community Land Trust
and ot her aut onomous act i vi st and di rect -
service organizations, with the goal of
bringing as much housing as possible
rental units and private home alike
under direct community control.
An increased funding commitment to
continued on Page 6
i
On October 28, a soapbox-style "Save the Waterfront" rally called
by the Greens on Church Street attracted over 150 people.
Ecological Waterfront, Cont.from Page 1
as it goes, the larger picture seems to
have escaped its notice. In fact, the
continued defense of "pragmatic" and
"balanced" development on the
waterfront is premised on assumptions
that may run counter to the best
interests of the dty as a whole.
T HE MYT H OF BAL ANCE
F i r s t , c a l l i n g f o r " b a l a n c e d "
developmentmeaning a mix of profit-
o r i e n t e d c o mme r c i a l a n d r e s i d e n t i a l
u s e s p l u s s o me p u b l i c p a r k
spaceassumes that we are already in a
mo r e - o r - l e s s b a l a n c e d s i t u a t i o n . No t
true. At any given lunch hour one can
count at l east 400 cars on the waterfront
f r o m P e r k i n s P i e r t o t h e o l d Mo r a n
generating station. Battery street is
already a busy four-lane boulevard
blocking pedestrian access to the lake.
City Hall is working to implement a
waterfront i nfrastructure pl an that
would allow major development. And
the Southern Connector highway still
^reatens to dump even more cars onto
tl\e waterfront.
In addition, luxury development
will exacerbate an already unacceptable
housing situation. The gentrifying
effects of luxury condominiums will be
borne most heavily by residents of Ward
3the area of the city least able to
afford increased housing costs.
The last publicly accessible natural
a r e a n e a r t h e d o wn t o wn t h a t h a s n o t
been taken over by commercialism may
soon be destroyed. Calling for its
pr eser vat i on i s har dl y ext r eme;
preservation would be signicant step
toward restoring a balance between our
human community and nature.
I DEOL OGY OF PROGRESS
Secondly, the current drive to develop
the waterfront accepts prot-oriented
growth as inevitable and the ideology
that social progress stems from
devel opi ng, mani cur i ng, and
el i mi nat i ng nat ur al ar eas . The
Inclusionanf Zoning, Cont.
create adequate, clean, and safe shelters
for the city's homeless population (with a
view towards giving the homeless as
much control as possible over their living
space), and to housing the homeless as the
city's rst priority group.
A determined, sustained effort by the
city of Burlington to initiate and help
undeveloped waterfront has been a
s o u r c e o f e m b a r r a s s m e n t f o r t h e
Adminisfration and developers. In a era
o f g l o b a l w a r m i n g a n d t h e
simplication of complex organic life to
a deadening artificial landscapein the
name of "progress" and "growth"that
we cannot preserve a natural treasure
from expanding commercialism should
be what is embarrassing.
Again, in the name of pragmatism
and balance, bureaucrats and policy
makers cling to conventional notions of
development. Instead of being thankful
that the plans of the last two decades to
despoi l t he wat er f r ont have not
materialized, instead of seizing on our
opportuni ty to begi n remaki ng our
relationship with nature, and instead of
celebrating a nature that is everywhere
el se bei ng dest r oyed, t hey ar e
proceeding with development as usual,
E C O L O G I C A L A L T E R N A T I V E
Instead of embracing the existing
natural areas, the lake, and the natural
diversity of the waterfront. City Hall's
a n i z e a c o n f e d e r a t i o n o f Ve r mo n t c i t i e s
and towns, united in a struggle for a
H o m e R u l e A m e n d m e n t t o t h e V e r m o n t
constitution. Among other things, home
r u l e w o u l d a l l o w c i t i e s a n d t o w n s t o
institute alternative, progressive corporate
and individual taxes so that they would
have ways of generating new funds to
meet their housing and other social and
v i e w o f t h e w a t e r f r o n t i s s t i l l a n t i -
ecological. The plans for the waterfront
park that were recently released by the
C o m m u n i t y a n d E c o n o m i c
Development Ofce call for the erection
of a board walk cdong the water, in front
of a manicured lawn and closely kept
shr ubber y. One wonder s i f any
consideration was given to enhancing
what is already there: the existing trees,
wildowers, dozens of birds and small
mammal s, wi l d berri es, and i nf ormal ,
meandering pathways.
The challenge of the waterfront is
n o t t o " b a l a n c e " t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e
environment, business, and the "public"
in a new slick waterfront plan. If we do
t hi s, no amount of superci al
env i r onment al i s t r het or i c wi l l s av e t he
waterfront We should, instead, strive to
cr eat e a wat er f r ont t hat i s an ext ensi on
o f t h e l a k e , n o t o f o u r ma r k e t . We
s h o u l d w o r k f o r a w a t e r f r o n t w h e r e
people and nature can exist in a
complementary, ecological balance,
ecol ogi cal needs wi t hout r el yi ng
exclusively on the property tax for the
bulk of their capital.
It is past time to struggle for what is
merely "possible" under the existing
system. TTie "possible" has become the
unacceptable. It is now time to organize
and ght for what is right, and to change
what is possible.
P A G E ?
]
W H Y W E A R E P O U T I C A L L Y
I N D E P E N D E N T
The Burlington Greens Statement on the Ward Six Election
Co n t i n u e d f r o m Ba c k Co v e r
Board of Alders. The present Democratic candidate
in the W^rd Six race has been endorsed by the
Progreesive Coalition. If he wins the election, the
Progressive Coalition would nally have the majority
on the board that it has long been wanting. Ironically,
our nonparticipation in the Ward Six election may
well give the Progressive Coalition the opportunity
to move forward with their agenda.
If the Democratic-Progressive candidate does win
the Ward Six election and if the Progressive Coalition
does thereby receive its majority, we wonder whether
i t wi l l :
Call for a moratorium on growth, and provide a
genuine people's waterfront > a park.
Take serious steps to reduce the volume of
automobile trafc in Burlington by refusing to
widen Main Street or to construct new parking
garages, measures that would only bring more
vehicles into the city, and by instituting better
public transportation.
Fight the construction of UVM's proposed Stafford
Building, where research on biotechnolog
ultimately, for corporate use is to be constructed.
Show greater concern for tenants by raising the
ght for rent control once again, and refusing to
make tradeoffs with developers in the name of
"inclusiuonary zoning."
Democratize city government by giving greater
powers to the Neighborhood Planning Assemblies
and by agreeing to the election of members of
major dty commissions.
Actively fight to establish a city environmental
board, to be elected by the people of Burlington,
that will be empowered to make legally binding
environmental impact assessments and to issue or
deny permits for new construction in the city.
Carry on a serious and unrelenting fight for Home
Rul e i n t he st at e of Ver mont .
We regard it as utterly unethical, even arrogant,
for members of the Progressive Coalition to claim
that when Greens participate in ward and citywide
elections, they function as. "spoiler^' and "sectarians."
The same charge could have been made against
Bernard Sanders' own campaign for congress last fall.
This kind of mud-slinging, together with gossip-
mongering, has been historically directed against all
independent political movements and campaigns
that refused to work with mainstream parties.
T h e d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e Gr e e n s a n d t h e
Progressi ve Coal i ti on are far-reachi ng. We
particularly oppose the Coalition's tendency to deal
with environmental solutions as mere "planks" to ll
growing gaps in its largely growth-oriented program.
We oppose the Coalition's "tradeoff politics and
"lesser-evil" mentality that has increasingly delivered
Burlington into the hands of developers and that now
threatens to block the creation of a true people's
waterfront. We oppose the Coalition's narrow
electoral approach, and we seek instead to foster the
emergence of a true popular movement and a new
ecological politics in which people are actively
involved and demands for social justice are satised.
Finally, we are particularly shocked by the
unethical and arrogant claims that the Progressive
Coal i t i on has a monopol y on creat i ng an
independent political movement in Burlington and
in Vermont generally. Bluntly, a very good case can
be made that the Progressive Coalition has long
betrayed Sanders' 1981 assertion that "Burlington is
not for sale." After eight years of Progressive rule,
there is very little of Burlington that is left to sell.
WH Y WE A R E P OL I T I C A L LY
I N D E P E N D E N T
The Burlington Greens Statement on the Ward Six Election
We are announcing that we will not be elding a Green candidate in the December 5 special
aldermanic election for Ward Six. The tenure of this contested seat lasts only a few months, and the
campaign is likely to focus mainly on specic ward issues. We plan to conserve our resources for
future campaigns that will cover more wards and that will raise citywide as well as neighborhood
issues.We are not supporting the Democratic or Republican party candidate in this race. We oppose
both of the established parties on principle, regardless of their candidates. These parties are essentially
vote-getting machines whose leaders are more accountable to vested economic interests than to
citizens as a whole. They have been largely indifferent to ecological issues. By contrast, we are seeking
to create a principled new politics, to build an independent, accountable, and democratic ecological
movement that carries its policies into the public realm openly and honestly.
Former Mayor Sanders and Mayor Clavelle both claim that they have been unable to enact the
world-redeeming policies of the Progressive Coalition because they have lacked a majority on the
continued on Page 7
Next Issue: Biotechnology, UVM,Trasportation,
Environmental Report and more.
Gr een Act i on ! Summer 1989