He clearly missed the title of the law, which is the Scenic Road Law. It
was passed in 1977. The Vermont Legislature debated it and thought
about it and stated in the law that its purpose is "to preserve through
planning the scenic quality of [the state's] rural landscape, and enable
municipalities to designate town scenic highways which may be improved
in accordance with standards combining aesthetic and functional
criteria" (Public Act No. 58 of 1977, Section 1).
I definitely do not agree with everything the Vermont Legislature does,
but having spent some time at the Legislature, it is clear they do
process bills thoroughly - some might say ad nauseam. When the
Legislature passes a bill that states that "Scenic Road" designation
means to preserve through planning the scenic quality of the state's
rural landscape, it has meaning. Judge Durkin obviously looked to the
legislative background and intent of the law and found it very
significant. Judge Durkin determined that "scenic" has a clear meaning
and that by passing a law concerning scenic byways, the Legislature
intended to protect those scenic byways from just becoming any other
highway with all sorts of disjointed and disruptive activity scattered
along them.
The administrators of VTrans should get on with doing their primary job
and concentrate on working to improve their performance at road and
bridge maintenance, rather than offering what I feel are their political
opinions into an issue where they clearly should not be offered.
Jim Boylan
Waitsfield
{loadnavigation}
