We often hear the following phrase, “I’m not against merger, I’m against this merger.” What exactly does that mean? Let’s reason it out.
Let’s begin by assuming the best of possible intentions, that this argument is put forth in good faith, and that those saying it genuinely believe that there is an ideal form of merger they will get behind in the future.
Operating under this premise, the first thing that we observe is that the people who say this are a small group in the Town outside of the Village (TOV). Why would that be?
We believe the reason for this is that many Village residents have made it clear that they do not want to put in the time and effort to work on another merger plan if this one fails. Village residents felt so strongly about this that they petitioned their local government to have a question put on the April 13th ballot regarding complete separation from the Town if merger fails to pass.
Merger Alternatives?
So we have an argument put forth by residents living outside of the Village that states they are okay with merger in theory, but not the merger plan that is presently being voted on. This presumes that that there will be another merger plan to vote on, or that the alternative to a failed merger vote is acceptable to them.
What are the alternatives to merger?
(1) Status Quo / No Change
(2) Sharing Services
(3) Separation
Village residents have made it clear that #1 is not something that they are willing to consider. Many residents who live in the Village have expressed frustration with the current tax inequities, and we believe that viewpoint has become common knowledge.
Regarding shared services, the ballot item that Village residents are voting on specifically states that they do not want to share services with the Town outside of the Village if merger fails.
So with this information in mind, let’s understand what is really meant by those who continue to say, “I’m not against merger, I’m just against this merger.”
If status quo and sharing services outside of merger are unacceptable to Village residents, what does that leave? Separation.
From this we can conclude that “not this merger” means some TOV residents do not take the possibility that the Village will separate from the Town of Essex seriously. Therefore, they believe that a “no” vote on merger will result in something different than separation.
Is this rational? Not really.
The Argument Breakdown
There are 4 main arguments put forth by those who believe the Village will never separate from the Town. Let’s look at each of these arguments in turn.
Argument #1: “The number of people in the Village that are pro-separation is small enough that separation won’t pass when it goes to a vote.”
That is certainly a possibility, but very unlikely. After the merger vote missed by a mere 19 votes in March 2021, over 5% of the Village population were motivated to advocate for separation from the Town in a matter of days. That’s a surprising number of intensely motivated people who feel deeply about this topic.
Argument #2: “When the residents of Essex Junction discover how expensive it will be to separate, and how much their taxes will go up, they will vote down separation based on their own self-interest.”
This one is demonstrably false. As we have discussed here in detail, municipal taxes for residents in the Village are going to go down regardless of whether it is through merger or separation. In fact, municipal taxes for the Village are likely to go down even more in the event of separation. This is a fact based on the budget presentations made by the Finance Director in September of 2020 as well as March of 2021.
Some very desperate souls have been so upset to learn this that instead of adjusting their views to fit these facts, they have instead claimed that the Finance Director is putting out false information to benefit the Village. They insist they know this because they understand budgets and accounting better than the Finance Director, who has a finance degree and does this every day as their job. This is an interesting approach to say the least.
From this, it is abundantly evident that undermining the credibility of the person making the factual statements is the only way in which they can attack the argument. Unfortunately for them, the facts will remain the facts even if they don’t like them. There are no “alternative facts.”
Argument #3: “The anti-merger group will successfully sue to stop the Village from separating from the Town of Essex – even if the Village votes to fully separate.”
Many of us have heard individuals in the anti-merger group talk about “bringing in their lawyers” to stop the Village from separating. According to the April 3rd 2021 Campaign Finance Disclosure Report, the NoMergerNOW PAC spent $500 on “legal advice” at the Burlington law firm Little & Cicchetti. One of Little & Cicchetti’s areas of specialty is “legislative affairs”. This certainly does lend credence to the notion that the NoMergerNow PAC intends to attempt some form of litigation if voting does not turn out to their preference.
However, whether the litigation they discussed is to stop a voter-approved merger or a voter-approved separation is something only time will tell.
What we do know is that litigation will not be cheap and it appears from the April 3rd Finance Campaign Disclosure that the anti-merger PAC has only $350 left.
Let’s be very generous and assume the total costs of litigation will be capped at around $5,000 (even though the costs are likely to exceed $20,000). At $5,000 for litigation plus the $4,918.54 spent on just the reconsideration vote taking place on April 13th, the NoMergerNow PAC alone would have spent roughly $10,000 advocating against merger and separation and trying to prevent both from happening. This is more than 4 times the cumulative increase that would take place over 13 years from merger being implemented. Talk about being bad at math and budgets!
Spending thousands of dollars doesn’t seem like a rational act for those who are deeply concerned about a change in taxes that they incorrectly label a “tax shift.”
Argument #4: “The Vermont Legislature will prevent the Village of Essex Junction from separating from the Town of Essex even if the Village votes to fully separate.”
The legislature is an unknown factor in any Vermont charter change. However, we think it is unlikely that the legislature would prevent separation based on two key points.
First, there is precedent for a successful separation of this type. In 1921, the then Winooski Village succesfully petitioned the Vermont legislature to separate from Colchester and become its own city.
Second, the Village state representatives have written an open letter endorsing both merger and separation. In this letter they acknowledge that there are many hurdles to overcome for the Village of Essex Junction to separate from the Town of Essex. However, already having at least two state representatives advocating for separation will be quite helpful in overcoming those obstacles.
Final Thoughts
That was a lot of information to break down. Let’s recap these arguments by addressing them in ascending order of likelihood.
Argument #2 is our biggest loser. “When the residents of Essex Junction discover how expensive it will be to separate, and how much their taxes will go up, they will vote down separation based on their own self-interest.” There is zero chance of this happening with the information we have to-date. Based on the FYE2022 budget and grand list figures municipal taxes for residents in the Village are going to go down regardless of whether it is through merger or separation.
Argument #1 is almost as unlikely as the previous one. “The number of people in the Village that are pro-separation is small enough that separation won’t pass when it goes to a vote.” If merger fails to pass and Village residents believe the only path to tax equity is through separation, the number of residents pushing for separation is likely to increase very quickly. We have already seen the number of Village residents advocating for separation drastically increase over the last month.
Argument #4 is more likely than either #2 or #1, but is still far from convincing. This argument goes, “The Vermont legislature will prevent the Village of Essex Junction from separating from the Town of Essex even if the Village votes to fully separate.” Remember, there are two reasons this argument isn’t worth hanging your hat on: (1) There is precedent for villages separating from towns and becoming their own city, and (2) there are two state representatives already stating they will advocate to the legislature that separation is both an appropriate and necessary action if merger fails.
Argument #3 is by far and away the most likely to occur and our favorite to review. Why is it most likely to occur? The owner of the NoMergerNow PAC is known for being litigious, and they have reported seeking legal counsel already. Why is it our favorite? Because of how incredibly absurd it is to spend $4,918.54 in six weeks fighting against something that would cost less than half of that spread over the course of 13 years! If the anti-merger folks try to go into overtime by spending funds on litigation, the multiple by which they will have overspent compared to merger increases exponentially. This is a hilariously irrational action regardless of whether merger or separation eventually takes place. To be clear, the fact that it is the most likely to occur (and certainly has the amusement factor) does not mean that it is likely to be successful in preventing either merger or separation from happening.
In summary, the phrase “I’m not against merger, I’m against THIS merger” is, at its core, a statement regarding how likely the speaker thinks separation will occur if the merger vote fails to pass. It’s a form of gambling that has consequences for real people in both the Town outside of the Village, as well as people living within the Village. It is also an irresponsible gamble that is likely to harm a lot of people. We urge everyone to think critically about this important choice in front of our community, and to carefully think through the consequences before forming a decision. Let’s be reasoned and measured in our decisions.
Now is not the time to roll the dice.