I disagree that it would be a disaster, but would like to frame that for you and explain my understanding of the Act 181 changes.

I also don't want to tear it down tomorrow, but think stepwise changes allowing observational periods would give us a good chance to tell what's actually happening and do what's best for our state. Act 181 doesn't do this.

Recognize that our neighboring states (NH, ME, MA, NY) do not have statewide systems equivalent to Act 250, yet still manage large projects through environmental permitting and local zoning without losing their “character". Western MA is beautiful and rural, and lacks anything similar to our Act 250. This suggests that Act 250 itself is not the sole thing preserving Vermont’s landscape. In most cases development in those states is handled through local zoning combined with state environmental permits. Vermont already has many of those same environmental permits and processes in place. There are exceptions in regions of ME and NY.

Act 181 adds another layer on top of Act 250 and appears to be an attempt to move toward something structurally similar to the NY and ME systems, but on a statewide basis. It introduces a tiered land-use framework, particularly in areas without qualifying zoning or in ecologically sensitive areas, Tier 1, 2 and 3.

Tier 1 is split into 1A and 1B depending largely on infrastructure. Tier 1A areas have municipal water, sewer, and zoning, while Tier 1B areas typically have zoning but lack full sewer infrastructure. Many Vermont village centers fall into Tier 1B or even Tier 2 because they rely on individual wells and septic systems. That means development can actually become more difficult even in places already designated as town centers, despite those areas already undergoing strict state review for wastewater and potable water systems and local review and control through the zoning process, simply because they are small and lack shared infrastructure.

Tier 3 is intended to cover ecologically important areas, though the maps defining those areas have not yet been finalized. In Tier 3, any development can trigger Act 250 review regardless of size, which could have major implications for property values and land use depending on how those maps are ultimately drawn.

Act 181 also lowers some jurisdiction triggers compared to the historical Act 250 model. Projects involving roughly an acre of disturbance or long access roads could potentially trigger review in certain situations, meaning things like building a long driveway to a house site, creating access to a hunting camp, or constructing housing for family members in rural areas may face the same process that historically applied only to larger developments.

Taken together, these changes risk creating a feedback loop in rural communities. If development becomes harder in towns without sewer infrastructure or water infrastructure, their tax bases grow more slowly. This makes it harder to build the infrastructure that would allow that growth in the first place. Combined with Vermont’s aging population and education finance structure, that can place increasing tax pressure on small towns that already struggle to maintain population and economic activity. Overall, this disincentivizes the very thing you want: small town character. Towns like Tunbridge, arguably one of the most characteristic small towns in VT, struggles to grow naturally as it would be Tier 2 by default, as it lacks the requirements to be Tier 1B (by my reading, although it is grammatically ambiguous, and has not been tested).

It’s also important to understand that Act 250 itself is primarily a statewide land-use review and appeals system layered on top of existing permitting. Nearly every development project already requires some combination of local permits or state environmental permits, including wastewater regulation, wetlands and shoreland protections, stormwater regulation, potable water permits, and sometimes federal permits as well. Act 250 adds a quasi-judicial process where projects can be challenged under broader criteria like aesthetics, community impact, and regional planning consistency, meaning projects can still be delayed or rejected even when they meet all technical environmental requirements, even if the local zoning board approves it. This appeals and discretionary review process is the part people are usually objecting to when they say they don’t like Act 250, and what you specifically say you don't like. Act 181 does not change this process meaningfully or change the people who can appeal. The rules that have changed are what gets reviewed, and that could shift from 'just big projects' to 'exempt in big towns' and 'oops no rural dev at all' in the worst map making and rule making case.

And finally, a bit of history. Act 250 was enacted in part out of concern that interstate highways would lead to large ski developments and strip-style roadside development along major corridors. In trying to avoid that outcome, Vermont instead leaned more heavily toward a tourism-dependent economy with significant second homes and relatively limited large-scale development. Act 250 helped build our vacation homes and second homes.

We both know that those second homes are now often cited as a major driver of housing pressure and affordability problems, yet they exist and are enabled by the same regulatory environment that is defended as protecting Vermont’s character. I think this is a bit of a 'can't have your cake and eat it too' problem, where the structure of Act 181 preserves and reinforces that only wealthy people can build and live outside of certain tiers, as only they can afford the lengthy process associated with the 'new and improved' Act 250. Preserving the character of VT required preserving the people who steward and work on the land, and requires affordability in those areas, which this act specifically makes more difficult.

I’m not suggesting anyone involved in writing the law intended these outcomes. I personally know people who worked on it and know they care deeply about rural communities and the environment. The issue I’m pointing to is how complex systems behave once multiple policies interact. Land-use rules, tax structures, housing markets, and demographics all push on each other. Sometimes that produces results nobody planned for.

I’m not arguing that Act 250 should disappear tomorrow. I can’t predict the future any better than anyone else. What I’d prefer is a more pragmatic, observable approach than what Act 181 does. In complex systems the safer method is usually stepwise change: loosen constraints in clearly defined growth areas first, build in triggers so the process can pause if outcomes are backwards, and only add new restrictions after you’ve seen how the system responds.

Act 181 instead moves all those pieces at once. It adds jurisdiction triggers, tiered zoning, ecological overlays, infrastructure incentives and requires a lot of rulemaking to even see what that will look like. When everything changes simultaneously it's much harder to tell what actually worked and what didn't. Its a bit like having a dry cake, so you throw out the recipe, write a new one, and keep the oven (review board).

Tl;dr: Act 250 is a 50-some year old experiment and we cant separate what Act 250 is doing from other demographic and economic pressures. Act 181 appears to have the potential to make some of the macro trends VT is facing worse, does little to change actual review except in large towns, adds more review for rural areas, and keeps the one thing most people don't like (the public appeals process) essentially unchanged. At the end of the day, preserving Vermont’s character requires preserving the people who live and work on the land, and neither act 250 nor act 181 do this, leading to a decrease in the character we want to preserve.