Not a ‘Manuscript’ This is certainly an old book, but not a manuscript [True 802: “Precious Pages,” April 22]. It has the hallmarks of having been printed from set type. Stephen Alexander League City, Texas Great Scott Ken Picard’s April 15 article regarding the Julian Scott birth home in Johnson has ignited a virtual firestorm of public concern and outrage over the imminent demolition of this iconic part of Vermont’s history and heritage [“Dwelling on the Past: With Little Fanfare or Public Debate, the Historic Boyhood Home of Civil War Artist Julian Scott Is About to Be Torn Down”]. While I know these are busy and troubled times, I urge concerned Seven Days readers to immediately contact Gov. Phil Scott and Vermont representatives and senators in an effort to find a way to preserve the Julian Scott home so that it may be open to the public and serve as a lasting memorial to Julian Scott’s contribution to our history and the preservation of our republic in the 250th year of its founding. George “Ned” Spear Swanton Circus Fan Was it serendipity that you ran a story about Circus Smirkus last week [“Up in the Air,” April 22], or did you know that April 18 was World Circus Day? I have been a circus fan since my brother took his Ivy League degree and spent the next 20 years as a performer. Now he runs a youth circus program in Phoenix, Ariz., that is geared toward low-income schools and inner-city parks. His T-shirt reads: “Anyone can join a circus!” I hope Circus Smirkus will be able to pick up the pieces, not just for the traveling show that so many of us enjoy (and the joy of hosting those troupers) but also for the many children in the program who experience the moment of “Yes, I can!” Ann Larson Essex ‘Ride the Bus!’ Thank you for covering the dire situation of our public bus system in two stories last year [“Green Mountain Transit’s Budget Outlook Improves — for Now,” October 13, 2025, online; “Out of Service? Fewer Passengers, Reduced Schedules and Soaring Costs Have Left Green Mountain Transit and Its Riders Searching for a New Route,” July 16, 2025]. I have ridden Burlington buses for 45 years, and I am horrified by how empty the buses are these days. Come on, people, ride the bus! Cars are dangerous, expensive, stressful, polluting and demand huge amounts of pavement (i.e., tax dollars). Buses are pleasant, timely and relaxing. They would be even more so if more people rode them. A word of advice: Riding the bus takes practice. Don’t give up right away. Once you understand the routes and what to expect in terms of timing, buses are super reliable. When I lost my car, I discovered half of my errands were unnecessary, and — the big surprise — I was happier not trying to squeeze them in. Life became calmer riding the bus. Thank you to the new Green Mountain Transit director, Clayton Clark, for preserving essential routes. He seems to care about riders and drivers. What a concept! Now, everybody else, join us. Buses are great! Cynthia Norman Burlington True Haiku [Re “Weybridge Haiku Contest Winners Muse on the State of the World, 17 Syllables at a Time,” April 15]: Judges, Julia say thankyou for capturing essenceof haiku contest. P.S. Enter next year! George Bellerose Weybridge Bellerose is the administrator — and multiyear winner — of the Weybridge Haiku Contest. Sticker Shock My husband and I were looking at the chart titled “The Future of Education Taxes” in [“Tax Burdened: Education Reform Won’t Address Property Tax Rates for Years. As Delinquencies Rise in Pockets of Vermont, Leaders Seek Both Short- and Long-Term Solutions,” April 8]. It shows a home valued at $300,000 currently paying an education tax of $1,470. We got out our property tax bill to compare. Our house value is $368,000, and we pay $4,150.33 in education tax. So that seems off in some manner. Are we missing something? Vicky Loven Monkton Editor’s note: Multiple factors determine how much Vermonters pay in property taxes, including the town in which they live and household income. The $1,470 figure in our chart was based on a combined household income of $60,000. Grounds to Complain The University of Vermont is an amazing place full of wonderful people — students, staff, faculty and administrators. I am encouraged by President Marlene Tromp’s efforts to engage with the community, and I appreciate her willingness to listen [“The Cats Whisperer: UVM’s New President, Marlene Tromp, Has Been Delighting Students and Staff Simply by Listening to Their Ideas” December 10, 2025]. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting with President Tromp on a few occasions. She is sincere and truly cares about the campus, the city and the state. However, I am concerned about some recent decisions made under her leadership. The elimination of the UVM Grounds Crew in favor of private contractors — carried out in February 2026 — was a serious mistake. It undermines UVM’s “Our Common Ground” mission statement and contradicts the values President Tromp herself espouses. The Grounds Crew, represented by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, sought a seat at the table with the UVM administration to work toward a mutually beneficial solution. Sadly, that conversation never occurred. A similar situation is now unfolding between the UVM administration and United Academics, the UVM faculty union. The administration has moved to unilaterally adjust the workload for many faculty, with some facing a 20 percent reduction in the effort they can devote to the courses they teach. This would have a direct impact on thousands of students, and it’s the wrong decision. More than 450 faculty members have signed a petition asking President Tromp to pause this effort. The faculty have clearly spoken. I hope President Tromp will listen — and, more importantly, act. Joseph Kudrle Essex Junction Kudrle is interim copresident of the faculty union at the University of Vermont. Making Waves [“Wake Boat Shake-Up: Vermont’s Strict Wake Boating Rules Are About to Get Even Tougher,” April 8] tells only part of the story, and one critical statistic presents a misleading impression. The article states that wake boats are currently restricted to 30 of Vermont’s “roughly 800 lakes and ponds.” This is highly misleading. Seven hundred twenty-seven of those water bodies, more than 90 percent, are already protected from wakesports by long-standing rules regulating where powerboats can travel over 5 mph. Because wakesports require speeds over 5 mph, they are already prohibited on the vast majority of Vermont lakes. The rule amendments don’t create new restrictions for these 727 lakes; they were never legally available for wakesports. The current debate only concerns the 73 lakes large enough to support higher-speed motorized use. Designating 18 (25 percent) of the 73 “higher-speed” motorboat-eligible lakes for wakesports is a reasonable, balanced approach. Furthermore, the article overlooks what triggered the current rulemaking. It was not due simply to petition pressure. The Department of Environmental Conservation’s proposed amendments result from the agency’s acknowledgment that the original 2024 rules were developed without adequate consideration of safety impacts on traditional lake users. Current wake boats generate waves two to four feet high, carrying dangerous energy far beyond the distances the 2024 rules assumed. These massive wakes disrupt traditional activities, including paddling, sailing and waterskiing. Correcting a rule that overlooked these physical realities isn’t making it “even tougher”; it’s getting the rule right. We urge the Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation and Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules to approve these amended rules for the 2026 summer season. Tom Ward Thetford Center Ward is a board member of Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes. This letter was cosigned by Meg Handler, Diane Lehder, Jim Lengel, Dani Sharpe and Jack Widness, representing lakes Iroquois, Willoughby, Elmore, Fairlee and Raponda. Vermont’s watersports community has already made significant concessions, and by all accounts, the 2024 rules are working. Not a single substantiated complaint has been brought against a wake boat owner operating under the current framework. Yet before those rules have had a chance to take hold, the Agency of Natural Resources is proposing to cut the list of approved lakes nearly in half. That’s not refinement; that’s a reversal. What’s striking is that the case against further restrictions comes from ANR’s own leadership. Secretary Julie Moore acknowledged that rewriting the rules so soon risks confusing the public, has consumed staff time, and that the number of wake boats in Vermont is minuscule compared to other watercraft. She called the level of focus on this small group of boaters “frustrating.” If even the agency driving this process questions its priorities, Vermonters should be asking the same question. I live on Lake Iroquois in Hinesburg. Under the proposed rules, I would lose the ability to wake surf on my home lake, where I have followed every rule put in place since 2024 and years prior. Public understanding of the rule change has been limited, and it has fallen on us as stewards of our lake and sport to educate all users we meet on the lake. Rodney Putnam Hinesburg Putnam was a source in Kevin McCallum’s story. I was glad to see an article written about wake boat regulations. However, it’s written to make the boat owners look like victims of tight regulations. In the first paragraph, you state that there are 800 lakes in Vermont and that they can only use 30. If you want to put it in those terms, then acknowledge that only 90 of our lakes are over 100 acres. You chose to quote Rodney Putnam’s erroneous question, “So why do we have to stop doing it completely?” They won’t. They will still have 18 lakes to use. You state the feud as “between the relatively small number of wake boat owners and those who prize the peace and tranquility of Vermont’s lakes.” It is not the number of boats that matter — it is their enormous impact. One example: The director of the Aloha Foundation stated that on Lake Fairlee they must call all their swimmers and paddlers off the lake when one wake boat is out on the water. Hundreds of people must stay on shore while a few people in one wake boat overpower the lake. Their waves are up to 12 times more powerful and three times higher than those of a regular ski boat. Being caught in a wave while swimming or in a small boat is very dangerous. So, yes, we do prize peace and tranquility on our lakes, but we also prize safety. Jean Gerber Thetford Center It is incontrovertible: Wake boats will destroy the natural ecology of any lake. A single pass of its motor can churn up a lake bottom — undisturbed for hundreds or thousands of years — wreaking havoc on all of the bioactivity that is necessary for a healthy lake. With all of the environmental downsides, with the knowledge that the enforcement of any of these regulations is sheer fantasy and that real damage can occur with a single violation, I am asking: Why? I cannot understand why our Agency of Natural Resources, which spends millions of dollars to conserve and protect our environment, decided to permit wake boats. Surely there couldn’t have been much of a clamor by Vermonters. At price tags that range from about $60,000 to $500,000, I can’t imagine that there are many Vermonters demanding them. I suspect this is all industry-driven from sales elsewhere, with Vermont representing an additional recreation destination for the salespeople to mention. Many of us would welcome their complete ban on all Vermont inland waters. Why has the decision always been between “bad” and “really bad”? Vermont has already invested millions of dollars in laws, personnel, activities and infrastructure to support our freshwater lakes. A ban on wake boats will come some years from now, and the state will be spending millions more to rectify the damage. I leave you with a single question. Given the certainty of environmental degradation, what exactly is the benefit that the ANR sees in permitting wake boats on our waters? Peter Shea Burlington The post Letters to the Editor (4/29/26) appeared first on Seven Days. ...read more read less