I would like to share a different perspective regarding the Norwich Farm, Norwich Farm Foundation and Norwich Farm Creamery.
The farm consists of approximately 6 acres on which the house and barns are located. The 6 acres consist entirely of lawns, not fields. The buildings’ footprints reduce the 6 acres to much less. The property has no lands or fields for either grazing or haying. This really means Norwich Farm can’t support even a small dairy herd. This fact alone precludes dairy farming at this location. In addition, state regulations are stringent regarding soil quality, wetlands and disposal or storage of manure, all of which mean having even a small dairy herd here is impractical.
Norwich Farm Creamery, a private, for-profit business, has been subsidized by taxpayers for about five years. Vermont Technical College, the owner of the farm, provides the creamery owners with plowing, lawn mowing, waste disposal, heat for the buildings, free use of the $800,000 taxpayer-funded milk processing equipment and a superb home in Norwich at $500-a-month rent. Nice deal!
Norwich Farm Foundation was formed to “save the farm.” At this time they have pledges of approximately $180,000, a far cry from the asking price. Norwich Farm Foundation made an offer well below the asking price, which was rejected, and rightly so.
With the Vermont State Colleges System having a budget deficit of about $30 million, it is essential that the farm be sold to help reduce this deficit. Patricia Moulton, president of VTC, has said the college has a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to maximize the dollar sale of the farm.
It is time for the fantasy that Norwich Farm can sustain a dairy program to end. On June 30, the rental agreement for the creamery will terminate. Let’s move on from this drama. The creamery has been subsidized by taxpayers for far too long.
I wish the creamery people good luck on their future endeavors and hope the can begin a new “value added” dairy operation, if they so choose, in another location.
JOHN M. FARRELL
Norwich
Scenario: My husband and I filed our 2019 federal tax return jointly. His name was first on the return, mine as the spouse. His bank account and routing number were listed for the refund check.
We were divorced in the fall of 2020. The first stimulus came, deposited into his account. The second stimulus came, deposited into his account.
I filed my federal 2020 tax return as a divorced, single person with my bank and routing account number on it, hoping the IRS would process it and send me the third stimulus check. (I did claim, on line 30 of the 1040 form, the recovery rebate credit for the first two stimulus amounts I had not received).
The IRS sent the third stimulus check to his bank account, using the 2019 joint tax return.
I called the IRS, who told me that the IRS “only furnished the information to the Federal Reserve for the stimulus checks to be sent out.” They said “it was a civil matter and to get an attorney involved.”
I called New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s office and am waiting for a response.
I called New Hampshire Rep. Annie Kuster’s office and got an email back: “This is somewhat of a legal issue. Our office does not have any guidance on this particular situation.”
There seems to have been no forethought about this scenario. So many people who were divorced in 2020 and had filed joint federal returns are at the mercy of their ex-spouse to give them half of the stimulus check, or not. I wonder how many other divorced couples are in this situation.
JEAN LIEPOLD
Grantham
As an armchair news hound, I’ve tried six ways from Sunday to understand some people’s death grip on dogma. Going by the rules makes life less complicated, but it blinds the sojourner from discovering why things are as are. Case in point:
According to Carbon Brief, the climate science website funded by the European Climate Foundation, the world will likely exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming between 2030 and 2032. Fortunately, the Biden administration promises to keep climate on the front burner (the CLEAN Future Act, for example), but is that sufficient? To achieve 100% carbon-free by 2035 is a great goal. Its downside is: The milestone could be at least five years beyond the 1.5 degrees Celsius bellwether — a tight schedule for all nations to get on board. Since too much carbon in the air is toxic, we must stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere ASAP.
Carbon is an element, the “C” in CO2, or carbon dioxide, and any petrochemical releases CO2 when burned in the presence of oxygen. There are fuels humans use that aren’t petrochemicals, such as methane, organic trash and RNG (renewable natural gas, which sounds eco-friendly). But don’t be fooled. They, too, release CO2. Advocates of the industry admit RNG’s renewability is due to the availability of feedstock, but so what? Don’t they realize they’re still polluting?
The New York Times says “an administration has only about a year to push major legislation.” The window of opportunity for addressing the climate crisis draws nigh, and who knows what kind of lunatics will occupy the White House in the interim. There’s so much more to be said, so good luck with that.
KEVIN McEVOY LEVERET
White River Junction