A Utah developer’s vision for a 20,000-resident, sustainable planned community nestled on 5,000 acres in the hills of Royalton, Sharon, Strafford and Tunbridge seems to be getting exactly the reception that one might expect, ranging from mere skepticism at one end of the public opinion spectrum to outright hostility on the other. Indeed, perhaps the only people who have greeted with enthusiasm David Hall’s plan are those who have sold their property to him, or hope to. 

The first public protest of Hall’s grand experiment in social and environmental engineering is scheduled for Friday in South Royalton, where opponents are scheduled to gather at 5 p.m. at the Chelsea Street Bridge. This follows a visit that Hall made to the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission recently at which, according to VTDigger, Gus Speth of Strafford, founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council, pronounced Hall’s NewVista project “the biggest existential threat to this area that I can imagine.” State Rep. Jim Masland, D-Thetford, also denounced it as “antithetical to what we do here. It’s bizarre and fascinating. I can’t imagine how he thinks Vermonters will get with the program.”

Hall’s public response has been relatively mild. He seems to recognize that he’s a dreamer dreaming a long dream that will not be realized in his lifetime — or maybe ever, if the technology on which he is depending doesn’t pan out or other complications intervene. In any case, he says that if he can’t convince the communities where he has been buying land — he’s acquired 1,500 acres so far —that the project has merit, he won’t try to ram it through. In this respect, at least, Hall’s vision poses not so much a threat as it does a challenge to the bona fides of Vermont’s supposed green ethos.

He makes the case that current patterns of development simply are not sustainable, and humans therefore need to reduce their carbon footprint on the Earth — by 90 percent in the case of NewVista residents, who would occupy a maximum of 200 square feet of personal space but have ready access to large communal buildings to accommodate all sorts of activities. The result would be a compact, walkable community of three- and four-story buildings that would be surrounded by agricultural lands and wilderness.

If this sounds vaguely familiar, it is perhaps because planners in Vermont have for years been emphasizing the importance of promoting development in compact urban centers while avoiding sprawl in the open countryside. While this notion has a certain abstract appeal for environmentally conscious residents of the Green Mountain state, it’s less attractive to many on a personal level. “Oh, absolutely, they want to stay in single-family homes, absolutely,” Hall told staff writer Rob Wolfe earlier this week. “But they don’t understand that’s not sustainable for the next generation and the generation after that. It’s a cultural battle. Do we move away from single-family homes (to) more density and have that style of life, or do we stay with single-family homes.”

There are many things about Hall’s plan that strike us as wildly implausible and maybe even a little creepy, especially in its organizational principles and structures. But on one level at least, NewVista invites everyone to examine their assumptions about future living patterns and what sort of accommodations will be required to create truly sustainable communities of people who take their responsibilities to the future seriously.