Is it real, or pretty?

Honestly: “Continuing to grow the full-time resident base is critical to keeping it real” just can’t pass unchallenged.

I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that some residents keep a town “real,” and others do not. Summer residents, weekend second-home owners and winter skiers are contributing members of the community, supporters of arts, culture, and a not insignificant amount of economic activity. What they may lack in children in the school system they more than make up for in other areas.

This statement harkens back to a remark made during the debate on school funding in which someone categorized childless couples and old people as undesirables.

I’m not going to argue that affordable housing is not an issue in Vermont. It is. It is an issue driven by zoning laws (such as Stowe’s) that insist on spreading housing out over 5-acre parcels, encouraging sprawl, destroying contiguous woodlots, carving up farmland, and fostering an unnecessary dependence on private transportation. It is driven by laws governing standards and practices in construction that are no doubt well-intentioned, but make retrofitting an old house unaffordable (and thus uninhabitable) and add substantially to the cost of new construction.

But if Stowe wants to maintain such zoning for aesthetics, then Stowe is not truly interested in “keeping it real.” Stowe is interested in keeping it pretty. And Stowe has been interested in keeping it pretty for decades.

This is not a new thing to be laid at the feet of uncaring new buyers and part-time residents who don’t have an appreciation for Stowe’s much-vaunted romantic past and those steadfast, robust and real citizens who built her. That’s not the Stowe they were sold, and that’s not the Stowe they bought into.

That’s the Stowe those who have been here for decades remember. And while the mid-20th century was a rollicking good time for Stowe, romanticizing those years won’t turn the clock back. For better or worse, that time has passed and Stowe is now a regional economic engine, a tourist attraction, with a few full-time residents still clinging, barnacle-like, to her backside. We’re interesting to have around, but ultimately we get in the way of progress.

The virtues of having a labor force living within the community is only obvious during weather bad enough to prevent workers from getting to their jobs, or when an employee can’t get to work because they live too far out in the hinterland to access public transportation. At no other time is having employees living in the town they work in considered even remotely desirable.

At least, not in the 21st century. If it were, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters would have subsidized worker housing; so would Ben and Jerry’s, IBM, General Dynamics, and any number of other large employers. Nobody sits around fretting about whether people who work at Green Mountain Coffee Roasters can afford to live in Waterbury. The company is a “destination employer,” with people driving from as far away as St. Albans and north of Hardwick.

Increasingly, travel and tourism is a destination employer, drawing its workforce from outside the area. That has been standard in Western resorts for decades. Employees are drawn from surrounding towns or pack themselves into rentals, relying on sheer numbers to bring housing costs down. Not unlike how young people in Stowe manage today, or, for that matter, managed in my day.

Stowe has jobs, and recreation, but what does Stowe really offer those of us on limited incomes? Stowe caters to the carriage trade; there’s very little in Stowe that wage employees can afford. Housing is just the beginning of it. The grocery stores have limited selection and high prices. The restaurants offer $16 hamburgers and $25 entrées.

Wage employees can afford five things in this town: sports, beer, church, volunteering, and the public library. Of those five, the only one you actually have to be a resident to get full benefits from is the library. And there’s a very nice library in Hyde Park.

Stowe does need “real” people. It needs real volunteers to run its fire and rescue services. That’s where Stowe needs “real” people. So, that being the case, incentivize those volunteer positions with housing stipends, thus providing affordable housing for those manning the services Stowe depends on — or hire professionals.

There was a time when Vermont sold locals as part of the scenic package, but those days are increasingly distant. It is, I believe, the rare tourist who comes to Stowe hoping to meet a “real” Vermonter.

Increasingly, it is the second-home and vacationer community that makes Stowe “real.” They’re the people out and about, in the taprooms, restaurants, theaters and concerts. If trends continue, they may well end up being the town’s social fabric.

Do I want to stay? I do. But that doesn’t mean I want to turn the clock back to 1985. We need the jobs and economic vitality that come with building these second homes and catering to these vacationers. Do I feel public policy and zoning can be used to keep older residents in their homes, and make housing more affordable? I do.

I might even support such a plan. But not if it comes at the cost of designating my household “real” at the expense of my neighbors, who may not live here, but have just as much invested in Stowe as I do.

Tamara Burke lives in Stowe.