2024 Washington-Chittenden House candidate survey
October 27, 2024 | Compiled by Waterbury Roundabout
The Vermont State House in October. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
The Washington-Chittenden House district has two seats representing the towns of Waterbury, Bolton and Huntington and Buel’s Gore. Four candidates are running for these spots: Incumbent Waterbury Democrats Tom Stevens and Theresa Wood; Waterbury Republican Jonathan Griffin, and Huntington Independent James Haddad.
Waterbury Roundabout asked them why they are seeking a seat in the state Legislature, what issues are of high importance to them, and their opinions on topics they are likely to consider if elected.
Responses for Griffin, Stevens and Wood are below. Haddad’s responses were submitted past deadline and will be added on Monday.
Final candidate forum Nov. 1
Also, the candidates have one final community forum scheduled in Waterbury before the Nov. 5 election: Friday, Nov. 1, from 7 to 8:30 p.m. at the Main Street fire station. The public is invited to this free event to meet and ask the candidates questions.
Jonathan Griffin - R, Waterbury
James Haddad - I, Huntington
Tom Stevens - D, Waterbury (incumbent)
Theresa Wood - D, Waterbury (incumbent)
Name, age, occupation (your day job or jobs)
Jonathan Griffin, 37, Civil Engineer
Thomas Stevens, 63, Retail Associate
Theresa Wood; recently retired (June) from consulting on disability issues
Have you run for elected office before? If so, what elected offices have you held?
No - This is my first time as a candidate.
Yes - Village Trustee of Waterbury Village, Selectboard of Waterbury, State Representative
Yes - State Representative
List other qualifications you have that you believe are relevant such as education, boards you have served on, organizations you have volunteered with, etc.
Board of Directors at Blush Hill Country Club, Board of Directors at Hunger Mountain Childrens Center, Civil and Environmental Engineering Technology Advisory Board Member for Vermont State University. Graduate from University of Vermont, Licensed Professional Engineer. Vermont’s Young Engineer of the Year 2021.
I have served on the Board of Revitalizing Waterbury, and chaired the Downtown Designation committee that led to RW becoming the economic development driver to our downtown. I also served on the Board of Trustees for Downstreet Housing and Community Development, including four years as chair. I graduated with a BFA from Boston University.
I have a Bachelor's Degree in Business from Vermont State University (formerly Johnson State College); I served as Director of Developmental Disability Services and as Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living prior to leaving state government. I directed the Vermont office of a national health care company that ran a chronic care program for Medicaid recipients. I also served as chair of ReBuild Waterbury after Tropical Storm Irene, helping 105 families to safely return to their homes. I worked with the Agency of Transportation as a Community Liaison during the multiple road and bridge projects in and around Waterbury. I have volunteered and served in leadership positions with several community organizations including Waterbury Historical Society, Waterbury Rotary Club, and Revitalizing Waterbury. I have also volunteered with Waterbury Area Senior Citizens and was a governor appointee to the State Program Standing Committee for Developmental Disabilities.
Why are you running for a seat in the Vermont State Legislature? What issues are high priorities for you that you would sponsor legislation to advance them?
I have been motivated to run due to what feels like the ever-increasing burden of legislation which directly increases costs via new fees and taxes or indirectly increases cost by increasing regulatory burdens. I would like a legislature which supports innovation and modernization and spends the next biennium looking at existing legislation for improvement rather than trying to enact dozens of new laws.
I am running to continue working on the development of responsible and affordable housing, as well as issues such as compensation, paid family leave, enhanced child care and economic development.
With my background in human services, this is an area that I will continue to focus on. These are issues that impact all Vermonters from birth to death such as public health, child care, homelessness, services for people with disabilities, older Vermonters, and those with substance use disorder, as a few examples. I am also concerned with assisting constituents in accessing their government in ways that are responsive to their needs. I will work towards creating a more climate resilient Vermont, including addressing issues relating to flood mitigation. In listening to folks in this district and around the state, it is clear that affordability is an issue that the Legislature will need to pay close attention to.
The cost of public education in Vermont is in the spotlight with multiple contributing factors including school district budgets, school facility needs, equity in distributing tax dollars, and the state’s complex funding formula. Consensus is building that change is needed to rein in costs while maintaining quality education. What direction would you like to see the state take?
We need to map what an IDEAL education system would include; how do we measure what successful implementation would look like? Without clearly defining specific measurable outcomes and identifying the metrics to track progress, it will be impossible to map the path from our current state to our future state.
First, to do no harm to the educators and the students and the education they do receive. Second, watch for and listen to the next round of study being conducted now. It is not useful to simply say “cut the local budgets” – each district is proud of their schools and approaches their budgets in what they consider thoughtful ways. The state’s responsibility falls to raising the money passed by local districts. We have tapped so many resources already, and the current property tax equation is out of whack due, in part, to the rising cost of real estate and what is now an out-of-balance reliance on the increasing taxes placed on homestead properties. There will be no easy solution, especially when you add the politics and realities of using tax dollars for private schools, lack of desire to close schools, and a hesitance to merge districts.
First, there are no simple answers to this question. We need to ensure that we have a strong public education system, which is the foundation of democracy. That being said, we have over 20,000 fewer students than we did 10 years ago and yet, we haven’t, as a state, really changed our education system. There is a disconnect in how the system is set up – establishing what budgets are at a local level and then needing to pay for them at the state level. The system has also gotten too complicated and when it cannot be easily explained to the people footing the bill, that’s a problem. Right now we are incentivizing small schools on the one hand, and urging consolidation on the other. Everyone wants to address these issues, except when it comes to their own school. The common level of appraisal is a factor that vastly changes the local tax rates, and I’d like to see some investigation into a statewide CLA, for instance.
The number of individuals and families in Vermont without stable housing continues to grow. Cuts to the state’s motel-hotel emergency housing program are resulting in more vulnerable people being unhoused. What steps would you support to ensure safe shelter for more Vermonters?
This is a difficult question, Vermont has a housing capacity issue. I believe we need to work on the root causes and look into adding capacity to the housing market in all sectors. I believe this will provide for the greatest opportunity to provide housing for everyone. Engaging the private sector to help solve this problem is likely the most efficient way forward. The legislature should collaborate with entrepreneurs, builders, and housing providers to identify what pain points they run into and how they might be unburdened by them. Once the housing capacity issues is resolved I am optimistic that there will be fewer Vermonters who are unsheltered.
As long as we rely on shelters, or shelter-like facilities like the motels, we are not fully seeking solutions. A small number of motels have been sold to local housing providers, but many of the ones used for this program have succeeded in enriching the owners without solving for the human services needed to help provide stability. Given our lack of dollars, it has proven impossible for the state to purchase or to provide funds for purchase of more hotels and, as we are seeing in the continuing saga of the use of the Waterbury Armory for family shelter, proposals are being made without regard to cost or whether qualified organizations are running such situations. Making funds available and then accounted for should be the first step, and development of legitimate service organizations, or properly funding the ones we have will be necessary before we can ensure safe shelter.
My committee and the full House of Representatives passed a bill to address this issue last year; it failed to pass the Senate. However, there is a summer task force that is set to make recommendations for long term policy that my committee, House Human Services, will take up again this year. Currently, we have insufficient number of shelters for those who are homeless. Again, the systems in place have not adapted to a post-COVID era and we need to recognize that with roughly 3,000 homeless individuals in the state, affordable housing has to be a very high priority.
Affordable housing continues to be in high demand across Vermont and poses a challenge for people to settle and remain in the state. The legislature has eased some regulations around development and poured millions of dollars into housing initiatives. What more can the state do to drive more affordable housing opportunities?
The ACT 250 reform which eased some regulation also added new/additional restrictions. The reform simplified high density development in urban areas. This is a great first step in the right direction however there are still large obstacles which need to be addressed. High density development in urban areas can only be accomplished by large scale developers/investors. We need reform which encourages entrepreneurs and investors across the entire income spectrum to participate in solving the housing affordability crisis. I’ll give credit where its due, the VHIP and VHIP 2.0 programs were great incentives to jumpstart entrepreneurs, home owners, and other housing providers. Continuation of these programs paired with or replaced by other incentives and regulatory reform would further incentivize participation. With my experience in supporting the manufactured housing industry, I believe there are also other technological opportunities to consider such as prefabricated housing units, site built e-homes, and the recently approved manufactured home duplex which could increase density in existing manufactured housing communities.
We need to continue to build, and the momentum we have seen with the number of groundbreakings is heartening, but that will be short-lived, as these projects were the result of funding two years ago. It takes that long to put together deals and the right permitting. By cutting funds now, we will see less units constructed in 2026 and 2027. And while we have heard testimony about the needs and possible solutions, raising the necessary funds ($100-$200 million for 10 years) is not possible at this time, and perhaps ever without a large federal contribution. Lowering zoning standards, or environmental standards, or public safety standards will not be helpful.
As noted, the Legislature has eased regulatory conditions and made housing a priority in changes to the Act 250 process. However, specific state investments over a sustained period of time, coupled with partnership with private developers will be necessary for at least the next 10 years. Continued support for the Vermont Home Improvement Program which has been successful in bringing housing on line will be important. On the local level, I will continue to advocate with the Department of Buildings and General Services to gain local ownership of the former Stanley/Wasson site and to ensure that the 51 South Main Street housing project gets underway.
Do you support the Waterbury armory as a site for an emergency shelter?
Maybe. I support utilizing it to support families with children. I do not support using it for any other form of congregate shelter given its proximity to the elementary school.
Maybe
Maybe. I support the use of shelters to assist people who are homeless. However, I believe that must be done with good planning, communication with the town, and a qualified provider. To date, the state has failed to do these things.
As large-scale flooding becomes more common in Vermont, what are the top 2-3 priorities you would like to see the state and municipalities embrace to be better prepared for future flooding events?
With the uncertainty of exactly what, when, or how an event can occur this is a difficult question to answer. I think having each community prepared to respond to an event and be willing to share resources especially when the events are more localized than they were for Tropical Storm Irene will allow all communities to recover more quickly. I would like to prioritize infrastructure. We need to make sure our emergency service providers are able to get to where they need to be. When bridges and large culverts fail, it exacerbates recovery efforts because they take so long to reconstruct. Looking at all infrastructure in each community and identifying its susceptibility to failure will allow communities to prioritize their highest risk infrastructure for upgrades. For housing I would like to see a revolving loan fund set up which helps building owners in the flood plain access low/no interest loans to construct flood mitigation projects on their properties. Rather than having property owners request FEMA buyouts which remove their property from the Grand List and also take away much needed housing, it would be ideal if Vermonters can stay in their homes and they could be retrofitted to withstand these extreme flooding events. Currently properties owners in the flood plain have to pay high premiums for flood insurance. If those properties are elevated above the base flood elevation the premiums are significantly lower. In this situation, a property owner could apply for a loan to elevate their home and then pay back the loan with the savings from their reduced insurance premiums. As this money is already being spent by property owners this program provides the opportunity to reallocate those funds on flood resilience.
A more professional Office of Resilience that is created to provide better communications with municipalities and long term recovery groups, as well as to liaison with FEMA and other agencies. We need to be ahead of where we are now in understanding not only the science of flooding, but also the costs associated with either “building back better” or helping communities rebuild. It should be a hard and deep conversation that will be difficult but necessary.
For Waterbury, addressing the corn field behind Randall Street will help not only Randall and Elm, but the entire downtown area. This is one of the top priorities. Last session we enacted legislation to require improved river corridor management, and it will be important to provide oversight to that process. The state has been historically focused primarily on recovery and much less focused on resilience. This has started to change, and we will need to continue to monitor those changes. I will work with local town officials to gain support of the town’s resiliency plan submitted to Vermont Emergency Management this summer.
While the climate-change spotlight is on flood mitigation, do you think it’s important for Vermont to continue to work to reduce carbon emissions given the Vermont Climate Action Plan goal of achieving net zero by 2050?
Yes. I believe Vermont should continue to adopt new technology, become more efficient, and utilize sustainable energy sources. I do not believe that Vermont needs to achieve net zero by 2050 if it cannot be done economically. Vermonters will always elect to do the best they can with what they have available to them. The legislature is elected by the people to represent their best interests. I choose to believe that individual constituents in our district will help Vermont make progress towards net zero as they are able. The Global Warming Solutions Act should be revised to make the carbon reduction targets GOALS. There is no doubt that the majority of Vermonters, myself included, support reducing greenhouse gas emissions but we shouldn’t do it at the expense of our most vulnerable population.
Yes
Yes.
Do you support a ban on assault-style firearms?
No - I do not support any new restrictions on firearms in Vermont. I strongly support the expanded background checks, waiting periods, and other due process to ensure an individual may lawfully acquire a firearm. I would also support education around firearm safety.
Yes
Yes
Does Vermont need additional gun regulations? Why or why not?
I do not believe that Vermont needs additional gun regulations. With rising crime and homicides in Vermont, and very recently in our community, I do not support additional gun regulations which would disproportionally affect law abiding citizens who voluntarily comply. I believe people have the right to protect themselves and feel safe and secure in their homes. I understand that people on each side of this issue have deeply held opinions, and I respect all of them. I also believe regardless of our opinions we all want safe communities.
I would still like to see an appropriate registration system, as well as more safety regulations. I would like to see accountability for gun owners, just as we have for automobiles, for example.
I continue to support common-sense gun regulations that protect Vermonters while maintaining the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
A joint legislative committee is charged with studying whether Vermont needs a stronger system of county government to shift decision-making and resource allocation to a more regional level. Do you think stronger regional government would allow Vermont to better address issues such as the housing shortage or flood mitigation strategies? Why or why not?
No, I don’t think this would benefit Vermont. I see it as adding an additional layer of complexity and financial stress that would do the opposite of what is intended. If Vermont were a larger State then perhaps this would make sense but almost none of our current systems or institutions align with our county structure so adding county government would seem unproductive to me.
Regional government, in theory, might be helpful with respect to certain relationships with the federal government. I highly doubt there is appetite for creating regional governments with more elected officials at this time, but I am open to hearing about the work the committee has done and will present next year. In the meantime, our current statewide government, especially in the Governor’s administration, has to communicate with local municipalities and long-term recovery groups, and with the federal government, in a more responsive way. We’re left dangling and hungry for real information, and we are not getting it in a timely way.
I need more information before I make a decision about this. I’m not sure that adding another bureaucratic level in a state the size of Vermont with less than a million residents, totally makes sense.
Do you believe that President Joe Biden was legitimately elected in 2020?
Yes
Yes
Yes
“Affordability” is the buzzword of this election season. What one improvement would you support to move the needle on making Vermont a more affordable place to live?
Vermont cannot become more affordable if we continue to increase taxes and fees. I believe the legislature needs a freeze on new spending and should look exclusively at innovations and modernization which improve the delivery of State services. We need to be realistic and meet Vermonters where they are at – we cannot sustain new legislatively imposed financial burdens such as increased utility rates, double digit property tax increases, or the threat of doubling the cost of home heating. For me, I believe not supporting the affordable heat act (ironically named), changing the Global Warming Solutions Act mandates to goals, and reducing barriers to the construction of housing would prevent the needle from moving in the wrong direction and ultimately driving people out of Vermont.
There is, of course, no one thing that will move the needle. Universal health insurance may help, but chances of it passing are infinitesimal. Limits on insurance, rent, and other “market-based” industry increases would help, but are out of our current control. Focussing on reforming the education funding may provide some tax relief in the future.
Fully implementing Act 76 is already making impacts on the affordability of high quality child care and early learning, critical to Vermonters and Vermont businesses. Recent data shows small in migration of working age families to the state. This is one way to make our state more affordable.
Reader submitted question: How can Vermont better curb crime associated with illegal drug trafficking?
This is an area that I am not well educated in. I have opinions but they are based on anecdotes and not reputable facts or data. Currently, I believe enforcing the existing laws and holding criminals accountable for their actions would help curb crime.
Whether it is a capacity (in other words, money and manpower) issue or not, our public safety departments should assure us that they are working in tandem with other public safety agencies, mental and physical health agencies, the federal government and surrounding states (and countries). We have witnessed a lot of catch and release of suspected traffickers, and I don’t know what the best solution will be that protects civil rights and the rights of the community.
Enforcement of the laws that already on the books.
Reader submitted question: When can we expect an affordable balanced budget with decent infrastructure as a byproduct of tax paying?
Infrastructure is the one thing we can spend money on that benefits all Vermonters, business owners, and visitors. I am supportive of infrastructure to improve flood resiliency and safety on our transportation network.
While not required by law, we pass a balanced budget every year, and a significant portion of that budget includes the Transportation Bill, which is full of federal dollars with a state match, and which covers quite a bit of our infrastructure needs for the year.
The Vermont legislature always passes a balanced budget. This year’s budget was less than 1% different from the Governor’s proposed budget. I do believe we are spending more on K-12 education that we can afford, and I believe we need to reign in the cost of health care to make any real changes in affordability in VT.
Finally, fill in the blank. The best thing about the Washington-Chittenden House district is ________.
Our community members. It’s not hard to find examples of selflessness, public service, volunteering, or other kind deeds on our community forums.
Each town has a vibrant community and is unique in its own way. That’s precious to me.
The people who live here!
Please add anything else you’d like people to know about yourself and your ideas.
Thank you for taking the survey!
If elected, I will work diligently to be informed and make date driven decisions that have our districts best interests in mind. I will advocate for our communities and always work to keep you here!
It has been a privilege and an honor to have served these communities for 16 years, and I ask for your vote to continue the work we’ve been able to do to benefit Waterbury, Bolton, Huntington and Buels Gore and the State of Vermont.
It’s an honor and privilege to represent the people of this community. I don't take it lightly and I don’t take it for granted.