As the Legislature pursues an actual housing policy in the absence of Gov. Phil Scott, who is focused solely on regulatory reform, there’s my question.

Shouldn’t we be thinking big?

Like “a record-breaking bond issue to jumpstart our supply of affordable housing” big.

Back in 2017 the Legislature and governor approved a $37 million affordable housing bond. In the ensuing two years, then-senator Michael Sirotkin, then chair of the Senate Economic Development Committee, proposed a second bond of $35 million (2019) or $50 million (2020). His efforts fell short, in part because then-treasurer Beth Pearce expressed concern about Vermont’s total indebtedness,

Well, it’s more than time to reopen that question and, honestly, push it as far as we possibly can. I’d aim high, maybe $250 million, and see what I could get. Why not? If we have a housing crisis, shouldn’t the response be proportionate?

Of course I would want this bond to be carefully crafted. All parties involved in building a program that gets maximum bang for the buck.

The governor seems to think that investing in public goods like housing is equivalent to putting money in a pile and setting it on fire. In fact, creating more housing would spur economic activity throughout the economy and allow much-needed workforce expansion. It’s like those tax increment financing districts the governor loves so dearly, except much more so. The economic growth would more than pay for the interest on housing bonds. It would ease our school funding crunch by expanding property tax bases and providing opportunity for more families to live here and send their kids to local schools.

A few figures for your consideration. Vermont’s total state and local indebtedness ranks 49th out of the 50 states at $4.72 billion. Only Wyoming has borrowed less. Our per capita borrowing is less than half that of California, which is actively considering a massive housing bond of its own. A $250 million housing bond would increase our indebtedness by… 5.3 percent.

I think that’s doable.

Do you remember when Pearce’s opposition helped sink a second housing bond? Her stance was actually a lot more nuanced. She didn’t oppose borrowing of any kind; she only said it should be within the limits set by the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee, which annually reviews the affordability of state borrowing. She said bonding for housing was “an option,” but she would prefer cash outlays.

What’s changed since then? Our budget is suddenly much tighter because of we’ve spent virtually all of the federal American Rescue Plan Act funds that floated our budgets in recent years. And our housing crisis is one hell of a lot worse than it was in the year 2020.

That $37 billion bond, according to Pearce’s office, “leveraged federal and state money, tax credits, and other resources to build nearly 800 units of housing in Vermont.” It was a great success. But it wasn’t enough. Now is the time to do more. Don’t open the spigot a quarter turn; crank it all the way open. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.