Vermont's Lt. Governor Is Trying to Seize a Public Road as His Own Private Driveway
The latest car news, reviews, and features.
Vermont's Lieutenant Governor John Rodgers is threatening his tiny hometown of Glover with legal action if the selectboard doesn't concede a public dirt road to him personally. Rodgers Road, about two miles of gravel track in a bucolic corner of a largely rural state, apparently runs through his property. But it's also been a public right-of-way for the lifetime of everyone involved.
The road in question is not a critical piece of infrastructure; travelers have an easy alternative road to get from one end to the other, just a little to the north. That's not really the point, though. Most of the road is considered 'Class 3,' while a small section in the middle is 'Class 4.' An important distinction between road types is that Class 3 roads must be maintained for year-round travel by the town, while Class 4 roads do not. But they're both town highways.
That small stretch of Class 4 in particular is what Rodgers is trying to seize, according to Glover's selectboard meeting minutes from May 5. As those notes specify: '[Rodgers] has proposed making a class four section of Rodger's Road a trail and stated that if this is done, he will not pursue legal action against the town. Alternatively, he stated that if he were to file a suit in court, and succeed, he would close the road to motorized vehicles.'
I wasn't able to quickly confirm exactly why the road already shares the Lt. Governor's last name, but it's possible that his ancestors were early residents when the track was first cut.
Rodgers isn't even the only one with property there—there are eight other houses on Rodgers Road, according to a local newspaper. 'James and Hella Coe own property on the class four section of the road and don't want to lose access,' writes The Newport Daily Express . No kidding!
Glover's attorney reportedly 'advised the town that all documented evidence shows Rodgers Road as a Class 4 town road and the Selectboard asserted that the section is a long standing right of way used by other residents.'
A week later (Thursday, May 22) the town had another selectboard meeting in which 'almost 20 neighbors who say they need to access that section of the road signed a petition asking the town to maintain control of the road,' according to WCAX , the CBS affiliate in Orleans County, where Glover is.
The Lt. Governor hadn't responded to the local news for comment as of midday Friday, so it remains to be seen whether he wants to make good on his threats of judicially beating the town into submission on the matter. Not exactly a super highway, but it looked like a perfectly passable public way as recently as August 2024 when Google's Street View car went down it. Google Street View screenshot
WCAX had previously shared some of a Zoom meeting earlier this month between Glover's selectboard and Mr. Rodgers, who seemed to be trying his hardest to come off like a villain in the first act of a Pixar movie. 'I've spent a lot of money on lawyers, and I'll spend more if I have to … If I win. I'm going to shut the road down completely. There'll be no access. If you win, you're going to spend a whole bunch of money on lawyers and then have to spend money fixing up the road,' Rodgers said.
Glover Selectboard Chair Phil Young's response concisely articulates the opposing view: 'It doesn't make sense to me to give up a right-of-way that we've had for 200 years.' Vermont Roads is a great resource for finding dirt routes in the state. Here's a screenshot of Rodgers Road from that site. You can also find that kind of info on ArcGIS, which highlights the same section of Rodgers as Class 4. Vermont Roads screenshot
WCAX did some real journalism and dug up emails recounting contentious encounters between Mr. Rodgers and town road crews, reporting: '… a road crew member alleges that Rodgers called him a moron.' and that Rodgers said, 'I have over 20 years of public service serving this town and this area. To have these lowlifes discriminating against me is a serious slap in the face.' I'm not sure what he means by discriminating, but slinging personal insults at the public works crews in a town of about 225 people doesn't seem like a prudent way to politic. Here's a crop of one of the state's official maps of Glover, with Rodgers Road highlighted in purple. Vermont Agency of Transportation
As it stands, the town and the state's Lt. Governor seem to be at an impasse. 'If we don't negotiate, we'll go to court … I can close a section of the road and you can sue me,' the local county paper quoted Rodgers saying. He apparently 'contends the class four section of the road hasn't been a road since the horse and buggy.' That's very easily disproven, as a Google Street View car cataloged the whole thing just last summer.
I guess I can see why Rodgers would want the road to himself—sure, I'd like the road in front of my house to be my own private property too, why not? But his apparent tactic of strongarming the town seems so bizarrely short-sighted and high-risk, low-reward. I've actually been to Glover, Vermont (it's lovely), and I'd be surprised if as many as a dozen different cars trundle down that two-mile stretch of dirt road any given week. So, best-case scenario, he gets that down to zero, at the cost of all his legal fees and indefinite bad blood with all his neighbors? Just let the people have their dang dirt road, man.
Got some spicy infrastructure drama happening in your town? Tell us about it: tips@thedrive.com.
Pro car critic since 2012. Andrew's also been an off-road tour guide, repo man, and Baja co-driver, among other things. Lifetime car nerd, amateur tinkerer, very slow casual racer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump-Musk Alliance Dissolves as They Hurl Personal Attacks
Pinned President Trump and Elon Musk's alliance dissolved into open acrimony on Thursday, as the two men hurled personal attacks at each other after the billionaire had unleashed broadsides against the president's signature domestic policy bill. While meeting with Friedrich Merz, Germany's new chancellor, in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump broke days of uncharacteristic silence and unloaded on Mr. Musk, who until last week was a top presidential adviser. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon,' Mr. Trump said. 'I've helped Elon a lot.' As the president criticized Mr. Musk, the billionaire responded in real time on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Mr. Musk wrote. 'Such ingratitude,' he added, taking credit for Mr. Trump's election in a way that he never has before. Mr. Musk had been careful in recent days to train his ire on Republicans in Congress, not Mr. Trump himself. But he discarded that caution on Thursday, ridiculing the president in a pattern familiar to the many previous Trump advisers who have fallen by the wayside. What started as simply a fight over the domestic policy bill sharply escalated in just a few hours. Within minutes of one another, Mr. Trump was making fun of Mr. Musk's unwillingness to wear makeup to cover a recent black eye, and Mr. Musk was raising questions about Mr. Trump's competency as president. The public break comes after a remarkable partnership between the two men. Mr. Musk deployed hundreds of millions of dollars to support Mr. Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. After Mr. Trump won, he gave Mr. Musk free rein to slash the federal work force. And just last week, Mr. Trump gave Mr. Musk a personal send-off in the Oval Office. The president praised Mr. Musk as 'one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced' and gave him a golden key emblazoned with the White House insignia. Mr. Musk promised to remain a 'friend and adviser to the president.' But now Mr. Musk, who has left his temporary role, has turned into the most prominent critic of a top presidential priority. Mr. Musk has lashed out against the far-reaching policy bill in numerous posts on X. He has called it a 'disgusting abomination,' argued that the bill would undo all the work he did to cut government spending and hinted that he would target Republican members of Congress who backed the legislation in next year's midterm elections. Mr. Trump on Thursday said Mr. Musk's criticism of the bill was entirely self-interested, saying he only opposed the legislation after Republicans took out the electric vehicle mandate, which would benefit Tesla, Mr. Musk's electric vehicle company. (Mr. Musk has previously called for an end to those subsidies.) The president also downplayed Mr. Musk's financial support for him during the campaign, arguing he would have won Pennsylvania without Mr. Musk, who poured much of his money and time into the critical battleground state. Mr. Musk also on Thursday rebutted Mr. Trump's statement that Mr. Musk 'knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here.' 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Mr. Musk wrote, sharing a video of Mr. Trump saying he was disappointed in Mr. Musk.
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Group In Tax Exemption Dispute Over Non-Religious Activities
The Catholic Charities Bureau provides services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Catholic organization qualifies for a tax exemption even though its operations were not primarily religious. The decision overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Under Wisconsin law, certain religious organizations may be exempt from paying taxes, including unemployment compensation taxes. This is similar to laws in other states that provide exemptions based on specific criteria. In other words, tax-exempt status for federal income tax purposes doesn't always translate to state income or other tax exemptions. In this case, Wisconsin law exempts any 'church or convention or association of churches' an services provided '[b]y a duly ordained, commissioned or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his or her ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order.' The exemption also covers nonprofit organizations 'operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches,' but only if they are 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. (CCB) and four related organizations sought an exemption because they are separately incorporated from the Diocese, but claim federal tax-exempt status under the Roman Catholic Church's group tax exemption (this 'umbrella' treatment is common in the tax-exempt world). The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, finding that CCB and the related organizations were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes because the charitable services went beyond theology. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, finding that drawing those lines violated the First Amendment. The Catholic Charities Bureau has, it says on its website, provided 'services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior' for more than 100 years. Today, CCB boasts more than 50 programs serving more than 10,500 people—services are not limited by race, color, national origin, or religion. That apparently innocuous distinction was one of the arguments used by the state against CCB. The organization's activities did not qualify as 'typical' religious activities because they serve and employ non-Catholics. The state also found that CCB does not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith,' and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular (non-religious) organizations. Congress enacted the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) in 1935 to provide benefits to unemployed workers. The FUTA tax rate is 6% on the first $7,000 paid to employees during the year and is paid by all employers unless they qualify for an exemption. Notably, FUTA exempts church-controlled religious organizations 'operated primarily for religious purposes' from paying unemployment tax, the result of an exemption granted by Congress in 1970. Since then, 47 states have adopted language that is identical to, or nearly identical to FUTA's language. FUTA tax may be offset by credits of up to 90% for state unemployment taxes paid—all states have complementary statutes that impose, at a minimum, the coverage mandated by federal law. This tax is only paid by employers, not employees. The tax funds unemployment programs. (CCB noted in its petition that employees have separate unemployment coverage. Wisconsin bishops previously created the Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP) 'to assist parishes, schools, and other church employers in meeting their social justice responsibilities by providing church funded unemployment coverage.') CCB applied for an exemption under state law. The Department of Workforce Development determined that CCB and its sub-entities were not primarily operated for religious purposes and denied the exemption. CCB appealed, and after a hearing, the administrative law judge reversed the decision. However, the Labor and Industry Review Commission reversed the reversal (stay with me), finding that the exemption turns on an organization's 'activities, not the religious motivation behind them or the organization's founding principles.' Since CCB provided secular (non-religious) services, the Commission concluded that they do not qualify for an exemption The matter went to court (outside of the administrative channels) and ended up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held on March 14, 2024, that CCB's 'activities are primarily charitable and secular' and not religious, which means it would not qualify for the exemption. CCB filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in May of 2024. Parties do that when seeking a review of the case—typically, it's in response to another court decision. In that petition, CCB noted that in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in two cases (St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota and California v. Grace Brethren Church) to determine whether the imposition of state unemployment taxes on certain religious organizations under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and related state statutes violated the First Amendment. But, CCB argued, while those cases were resolved, the Court expressly declined to answer the First Amendment questions, resulting in a split among courts. If the Supreme Court decides to hear a matter, it's called a grant of certiorari—by practice, at least four justices must vote to hear the case to be granted cert. Usually, cert is granted in a case of considerable importance or one involving a split. A split happens when courts disagree on a matter of federal law, reaching different conclusions about its application—that's what CCB argued happened here. In its petition, the questions presented by CCB were: The state argued that no split of authority existed on the constitutional question and further contended that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision does not directly conflict with the decisions of any federal circuit or state high court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the state, granting certiorari in December of 2024. The scope of the case was, however, limited to Question 1. (Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior?) Dozens of amici curiae briefs were filed before the decision. When it comes to legal issues before the Supreme Court, those with an interest or expertise in the subject but who aren't a party to the litigation may also file briefs to explain their point of view. These briefs are called amicus briefs and are filed by a party known as an amicus curiae, which translates to "friend of the court.' The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute violated the First Amendment by discriminating against religious organizations based on their methods of religious expression. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' She went on to write that CCB would, under the state's interpretation, qualify for the exemption 'if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics.' However, CCB's Catholic faith, however, bars them from doing exactly that. That means, she explained, that eligibility for the exemption 'ultimately turns on inherently religious choices.' While the state argued that the exemption was intended to draw stark theological lines, Sotomayor went on to write that the exemption 'functions at an organizational level, covering both the janitor and the priest in equal measure.' The Court acknowledged the importance of the government maintaining 'neutrality between religion and religion.' But, Sotomayor wrote pointedly, 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.' With that, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case was overturned. The news was welcome by the Diocese. 'At the heart of Catholic Charities' ministry is Christ's call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception,' said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. 'We're grateful the Court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond.' 'Wisconsin shouldn't have picked this fight in the first place,' said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, who represented CCB. 'It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.' The Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Justice Sotomayor delivered the unanimous opinion for the Court, while Justices Jackson and Thomas filed concurring opinions. The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (No. 24–154).
Bloomberg
33 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Steel Deal Seen Closing by Merger Deadline After Trump Pivot
Nippon Steel Corp. and United States Steel Corp. are on pace to finalize their $14.1 billion combination with US President Donald Trump's administration ahead of a deal deadline later this month, capping an 18-month saga to combine the steelmakers into the world's second-largest producer. Talks on the deal between the companies and the US government are ongoing and expected to reach a conclusion before a June 18 merger agreement deadline, according to people familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity given that talks are confidential. US Steel and Nippon Steel declined to comment. A Treasury Department spokesperson declined to comment.
