Vermont Meddlers vs. Guite: Update

Since I first wrote last year about the plight of Michel Guite -- a man in Vermont who wants to move a small cemetery on his property, with the blessing of the only known distant relative -- I have noticed a fairly consistent amount of search traffic coming to the blog as people obviously are still curious about the story. When I wrote about it just under a year ago, Guite had been taken to court and he won -- despite the petty and snarling statements of the judge. Now it turns out that there is a new development, and his plans are being blocked by the Vermont District 3 Environmental Commission, who is stupidly applying an environmental statute to deny his permit just because they feel like it, which is how the EPA and all other jack-booted environmental thugs operate.

I learned of this because last night, someone coyly named "Anonymous" made two new comments on my July 2008 post. He (assuming it's a 'he') said he is waiting for my reply "with baited breath," so I thought I'd compose a new post to address his comments. Anon said:

The other side of the coin.

I am writing on behalf of all of those who have been active in protesting Mr. Guite's plans to disinter the Aldrich-Kendall Cemetery in Hartland, Vermont.

I am not against landowner rights at all....

Interesting start. He's been protesting what Guite does with his own private property, and yet claims to not be against "landowner rights" at all. Let's deal in fundamentals here, and call them property rights, shall we?

The rest of what he writes is but a long, drawn out invective against the very property rights he claims to have nothing against, as well as sniping personal attacks against Guite himself. He makes snide remarks about well-paid lawyers finding loopholes, obviously meaning that being wealthy enough to pay lawyers is bad, and that any attempt to avoid onerous and burdensome government legislation is to be frowned upon. Anon appeals to authority, saying that many newspapers -- champions of individual rights that they are -- are reporting Guite's obviously terrible exploits "truthfully... to a fault," whatever that means. Anon even tries to show that Guite isn't a real American because he was born in Canada, and states that "as an American, I am feeling very used."

Finally, in his second comment, Anon aims his criticism at Guite's attempt to circumvent Act 250, and then calls on the private property rights he spent a few hundred words contradicting to say, in reference to his actions to get the cemetery moved, "Also, he has removed private property from those families that he has no permission to have removed."

So, are property rights inviolable or not? And didn't Guite get the blessing from the ancestor of the family in question? Well, yes, he did, but Anon then claims that Guite bought her off.

Finally, Anon, after having edified us all, asks whether I "don't find a little of this just a bit unpalatable." Well, yes sir, I do.

I find your entire meddling stance, your view that your opinions matter when a man wants to dispose of his property as he sees fit, and your incessant and unsubstantiated claims of legal knowledge unpalatable. You have shown yourself to be a small-minded pest, reveling in the use of government force against someone you don't like, whether it's because he's richer than you, or because he's Canadian, or because you don't like his smile.

As I said at the beginning, we're dealing in fundamentals here, and zoning laws, Act 250, the wishes of the community, and your own myopic and irrelevant opinions all fall flat in the face of the inviolable individual rights of life, liberty and property. Your needs and wants do not constitute a claim on the life or property of Michel Guite or anyone else. It matters not if he is the most moral man in the world, or a degenerate philanderer.

This undoubtedly will fall on deaf ears with you, Anon, and you'll cling to the supposed illegality of violating this or that Vermont law. But because a law was passed and is being enforced does not, by necessity, make it right. Remember... fundamentals. The Founding Fathers -- men from the same era as the purported war vet buried in the cemetery -- would have understood this implicitly, immediately.

The opponents, most more articulate than our fair commenter, follow in the mold of the judge who ruled on the initial court case, who said, "Perhaps, it is time for the Vermont Legislature to consider protecting the sanctity of old cemeteries because of the strong community sentiment expressed so eloquently by so many Vermonters who continue to have that strong sense of community, faith, and tradition."

The man (mentioned above) buried in the cemetery is Noah Aldrich, who whether or not he served in the war, was alive in the early years of our nation, and this is what I had to say about him and the Vermeddlers' appeal to community and tradition:

Yes, they have a strong sense of tradition. Unfortunately, it's the wrong one. They instead should refer to ideas from the time of Noah Aldrich and the War of 1812 that they have apparently abandoned; they would then be able to see that property rights trump all their whining about "lust" and "greed" and "heartfelt opposition." In fact, I'd bet that if Aldrich were able to speak up on the matter (and if he were a good old obstinate and no nonsense Yankee) he'd say "Leave the man alone! It's his land; let him do with it as he sees fit."

Instead, we're left with meddling gnats who believe that their wants, emotions and "strong community sentiment" are a necessary claim on the property of others.

See, Anon? None of your muddled information and confused argumentation has changed my tune. If the man owns the land, the man owns the land. That's all there is to it. Now mind your damn business.

Guite Speaks Out On Vermont Property Rights Case

In July, I wrote about what I saw as a case of the state meddling with the property rights of a citizen who simply wanted to build a nice house on his own property. The conflict came in because he needed to move -- respectfully, of course -- a small 200-year old family cemetery to do it. After being taken to court over it, the owner of the land, Michel Guite, won.

A month later, Michel, who is also the President of the Vermont Telephone Company, kindly left some comments on my blog, and promised to respond with more detail later. He did so last week, and agreed to let me repost his comments here. You might want to read my original post first to get a sense of what the issues were and how the Boston Globe reported it.

Some months ago I promised to reply to your interesting comments in support of moving a little cemetery on my farm in Hartland Four Corners, VT.

Because this topic sparked substantial outside-of-Vermont interest, including a Boston Globe page one headline, a Yahoo News 'Top-10 Stories of the Week' ranking (with an accompanying story of man asking to be buried in a beer can), and was featured in dozens of newspapers across the country, I have wondered how to reply.

The following might help.

Hartland Four Corners, VT, is a community of kind and welcoming people, and Vermonters, and Hartland residents, are tolerant of situations much more peculiar than moving a small cemetery. For these reasons, it seemed to me the Globe article was a bit patronizing about Vermont and Vermonters. Vermonters in my region, for example, have had the highest Internet usage in North America, year after year, for over a decade. Vermonters are informed, practical, with some of the best high school rankings in the U.S., and a tradition of integrity and fairness.

So here are a couple of facts the Globe overlooked you might find of interest.

The Globe story began by reporting that many local Vermonters were outraged because the grave of a Noah Aldrich, who died on the farm in 1856, was being moved, after Noah so bravely served as a veteran of the War of 1812! I suppose it isn't terribly important, but Noah Aldrich of Hartland, VT, was never a veteran of any war, and few people allege that he was. A Hartland resident who gained notoriety for being part of an astounding 10 years of environmental lawsuits against the local Unified Buddhist Church who formerly used my farm as a meditation retreat, apparently found the Globe reporter, or they found each other, and agreed together Noah was a veteran. However, veteran's names are easily confirmed via the Internet. Most hard-working Vermonters don't have time to get outraged over this sort of silly allegation.

Similarly the Globe photo of a white-picket-fenced cemetery is a fun, and gossipy, tall tale not supported by facts. The US government publishes aerial photos of most U.S. farmland, and has done since about 1938. This data, too, is on the Internet, and makes clear what most Hartland residents already know. The picturesque white picket fence, and charming cemetery sign, and stately trees in the Globe's photograph, were installed in 1983 by a nice lady from Beverly Hills, CA, named Stacey Sevano, whose husband was a TV producer and former manager for Frank Sinatra. Stacey rarely visited the farm, sold after two years, and according to local lore first came to the farm driving a 1955 T-Bird. Her T-Bird has more historical significance than anything so many millions of Globe and Yahoo viewers saw on the Globe's front-page photo. I don't under-estimate the importance of Stacey Sevano's contributions to history. I would love to hear some of her memories about Frank Sinatra. However the stage set she built in Hartland, VT, in 1983, is simply not the same as 1770 history.

Yes, I am moving some Aldrich graves from 1770-1853. These graves were placed on an open and tilled farm field, according to local custom. Then, before the family departed in 1853, they placed three headstones. Now, after 150 years of weather, and more recent acid rain and vandalism, these are all badly damaged. One stone is a 5% fragment, and was found buried with 95% gone. One is a 55% fragment, with 45% gone. All three are being restored in Boston, and the graves relocated to a new and protected site several hundred feet distant. The Aldrich family supports this move. Most people in Hartland do too, and take the reasonable view that -- with 700 or 800 such tiny private family cemeteries in Vermont -- family members and property owners have the sole right to make decisions about how these should be treated.

Anyway that's the summary. No Aldrich veteran of 1812. The ancient cemetery is mostly a Hollywood stage set. The graves were in an open field and are being moved to a more protected site, with Aldrich family support.

I admired that you -- more than many other outside-Vermont sources -- brought some welcome humor and skepticism to this gossipy Boston Globe report. Come up and visit. We have some 800 lb bales of hay for sale.

Best regards,


Michel Guite
South Meadow Farm

I just might have to make a visit! Though I'm not sure what I'd do with 800lbs of hay... Now, if we were talking about fresh maple syrup, that would be another story.

All in all, this is a perfect case study reinforcing the need to question virtually every word written in the newspaper. My thanks go to Michel for giving us this behind-the-scenes view.

Man Dares to Invoke Property Rights in Vermont

This morning's Boston Globe carried an interesting piece detailing one property owner's quest to build a house on his own land, and the town that apparently has forgotten what property rights are.

When a former Wall Street analyst from Greenwich, Conn., set his sights on a lush parcel of 150 acres here, he knew he wanted to live atop its highest peak, surrounded by panoramic views and rippling meadows studded with red clover, Vermont's state flower.

There was only this hitch: A short distance from the site where J. Michel Guite envisioned building a house was a white picket-fenced burial ground with the graves of a War of 1812 veteran... Guite was concerned that the cemetery would trouble his children when they played in the tall-grass fields.

The cemetery, he decided, had to go. He gave notice that he intended to move three of the marked grave sites.

Sounds great. A 150-year-old cemetery is in your way on your own property. Move it! But wait... what's that sound? Oh yes. Lawyers, and protests from townspeople.

"With the lust and greed for development breathing down the necks of some of the most beautiful and special places in Vermont, it is our responsibility to protect and preserve the sanctity, integrity, and history of our cemeteries," Joy Fagan, president of the Vermont Cemetery Association, wrote in a letter to the court. ...

"When somebody is buried, you'd think that the future generation would not even think about moving it for personal gain," said Richard Brousseau... {emphasis added}

Well there you have it. An evil, greedy man is trying to use his property as he sees fit, for his own personal gain! Anathema! And he's going to try and move skeletons to do it! Outrage!

The law in Vermont in narrowly defined such that only certain relatives can legally protest a cemetery move, and none exist in this case. In the end, Guite actually won his case, despite the fact that the meddlers found a distant relative to officially protest the move. They found Marcia Neal from Colorado, who is the great-great-great-granddaughter of Noah Aldrich.

The thing is, she eventually changed her mind and sided with Guite, and in the process, really ticked off the townsfolk. Citing her "Western-bred belief in the sanctity of private property" she "reached a deal with Guite under which she agreed to remove her opposition to his plans, and he agreed to move the graves to one of two nearby sites. Neal said she received no monetary compensation."

When the townspeople got upset with her, she had this to say:

"It's just my judgment," she said. "Who am I to say that I'm right and they're wrong?"

Sigh. Still, though she doesn't know to have the courage to stand up and say "It's my judgment, and it's right!", she did actually make the right decision.

The judge in the case ruled correctly, but wasn't happy about it.

But the judge, Joanne Ertel, noted that she had little choice but to permit the move because of a restrictive Vermont law. She went on to say: "Despite the fervent and far-reaching opposition to his plans, Mr. Guite has persisted in his quest. The court finds it difficult to fathom his persistence in the face of such widespread and heartfelt opposition. It's hard to imagine introducing yourself to a community with an action that the community finds abhorrent."

To which I would say, "To hell with the community! It's my goddamn land!" I hope everything works out for Guite, but it doesn't look good. Someone else is considering a lawsuit, and others are calling for new legislation.

Meanwhile, calls have gone up for the Legislature to revise a Vermont statute - which permits only a narrow band of immediate relatives to object to a cemetery move. {Judge} Ertel also urged the Legislature to take up the matter.

"Perhaps, it is time for the Vermont Legislature to consider protecting the sanctity of old cemeteries because of the strong community sentiment expressed so eloquently by so many Vermonters who continue to have that strong sense of community, faith, and tradition," she wrote in her decision. {emphasis added}

Yes, they have a strong sense of tradition. Unfortunately, it's the wrong one. They instead should refer to ideas from the time of Noah Aldrich and the War of 1812 that they have apparently abandoned; they would then be able to see that property rights trump all their whining about "lust" and "greed" and "heartfelt opposition." In fact, I'd bet that if Aldrich were able to speak up on the matter (and if he were a good old obstinate and no nonsense Yankee) he'd say "Leave the man alone! It's his land; let him do with it as he sees fit."

Instead, we're left with meddling gnats who believe that their wants, emotions and "strong community sentiment" are a necessary claim on the property of others.