 We have been joined by Kaya Morris, who's, for those of you who don't know, was a former representative and served several terms with us and is now working with rights and democracy. And she was unable to testify on age 273 when we took this up last week and asked for an opportunity to testify in this in her new role. So we had this extra time today because of the because and and and Kaya had availability and so I was happy to be able to invite her. And so with that, Kaya, I pass you the microphone. Please let us know who you're working for and and share your thoughts on 273, please. Thank you so much. It's so good to see you all. I hope you're warm wherever you are. It's nice and blustery and blizzardy over here. It's fabulous. So my name's, yeah, my name's Kaya Morris and I am the movement politics director for rights and democracy Vermont. And I am pleased to be able to have the opportunity to speak with you today with regards to Bill H273, which we've been dubbing as the BIPOC land access bills. So one of the things that I think it's really important to know is that rights and democracy is really an organization that is fundamentally centered on trying to move folks that are on the margins of the center and the seats of power into those spaces where they can both hold that power and be able to influence the decisions that are being made about their very lives. It is a dedication to ensuring that the voices of those most impacted are informing the work that's happening in in multitude of ways. So what is exciting about this bill and to be clear, we have supporters and endorsed candidates and electeds who are all a part of a very exciting project, which I'll tell you about. But we have also, we're both supporting both Representative China's bill and as well as Representative Sen's bill. But there's a slight difference between the two that I think really needs to be nuanced and supported in this space. So rights and democracy as an organization, if you aren't familiar with us, is a by state organization supporting both Vermont and New Hampshire. We've been a part of many different national movements locally and on regional basis. So as the Green New Deal was rolling out, rights and democracy was at the table. And from that table came a group of individuals that were regionally based out of New England who said, why are we not trying to get work done within our own region? Because if we think about our combined buying power, we actually are the equivalent of the state of California. Whereas there's an opportunity for us to better collaborate across the states to reduce our risk, as we're thinking about trying to take on bold initiatives to address climate change and inequity. And what we also know about climate change and inequity is that it is not just about trying to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. It is the culmination of multiple crises. And especially in this moment, there's an acuteness of how multiple crises are impacting folks that are from different marginalized identities, including those from the global majority or what we might call BIPOC. So when we're thinking about this, we recognize that COVID has devastated our economy. It's devastated family structures. It's devastated the work environments for individuals. Many have been displaced. You all have been deep a part of those conversations. So what is the way that we kind of go from where we are to the world where we most want it to be? So within this regional initiative called the Renew New England Alliance, we are a part of over 150 different nonprofit organizations across every state in New England. That is all that are all lifting up policies and initiatives across three shared areas of focus. We do have, we recognize that there's six different areas that are all very important in interlapping within this climate crisis. There's three that came to the top. And these three that came to the top primarily came from the voices of BIPOC in each state who said, this is what we're seeing, this is what we're feeling, and this is what we're needing. So those areas of focus are around green housing retrofits and housing justice. They are around what is a really exciting initiative that you'll be hearing about soon called Green Justice Stones. And it's also around food justice as well. So what's interesting about these bills and what's interesting most about age 273 is that it's trying to address two out of those three within one bill. It will not solve all the problems. We never purport that, but it has a promising, promising future to be able to create a different pathway as we recognize the one we're currently on is not serving the needs of those most impacted. So we see this as a hopeful approach to collective liberation and we took this work and brought this here to Vermont and New Hampshire and have a statewide coalition of some really incredible individuals, everyone from university level researchers to community organizers, farmers, you name it. And within that we are working on some bills that you all will see in the future. We also have within this thread a climate council that has come together and these are of experts that are BIPOC identified as an affinity space of again researchers, organizers, people who are policymakers, a whole range of individuals who have focused on saying how can we help shape the direction of the state and ensuring that we don't miss an opportunity to really bake in true racial justice and environmental equity into this work. This bill is one that this group has absolutely identified as addressing some of the areas of concern that we've had around ensuring that the hopes, the dreams and demands of those most impacted are central. So what we know is that BIPOC communities, we know what we need to be made to hold from these crises right now. We know that in our bones and you see that happening and being activated in multiple small projects from people beginning homestead initiatives to mutual aid networks that are expanding across the state. We have a deep sense of what it is we need and we're understanding the urgency of the time to get that done. So we should be at that table. We should be leading that table from design to implementation. We recognize that those solutions should be driven by the hopes, the needs, the dreams and the demands of those most impacted. We recognize that BIPOC should be compensated for their labor if they're building this workout, which is extractive but it's also necessary because it is almost entirely missing from our current system of government. And these efforts should amplify the current efforts that are already identified by communities as a way to address these different crises. Laila Watson is an Aboriginal elder and activist and she says, if you come to help me, you're wasting your time. But if you come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together. So when we're thinking about these policies when we are reviewing these initiatives, we were considering the impacts more broadly and what that will mean for BIPOC within the state of Vermont. We are absolutely considering the ways in which we are driving the conversation or not just the recipients of well wishes, if that makes sense. We are fully aware that there is a challenge. Even looking at 2017, for example, agricultural data coming out of the USDA, the percent of farms by race in Vermont, we're looking at 1.5% for those who identify as Hispanic non-white, 0.2% of black households are farm owners. We're looking at 0.19 for our Asian American population. We're looking at 0.3% for our Native American. And then those that identify as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander are 0.08 agricultural center to the state. So this is one space in place that's going to be very important. Home ownership as you've heard previously and know as well as you've been studying the economics on this as a part of the charge of your committee is absolutely a gateway towards wealth and towards wealth generation and generational wealth itself. So how do we change this? How do we shift? Who is able to get access to that? What 273 that is fairly unique is that it not only centralizes the wisdom, the genius and the expertise of those most impacted who are already doing frontline work to address this very issue. But it also creates mechanisms to ensure that that wealth is not gone. If you've ever thought about remember the shows where it was like the extreme home makeover thing, right? So they're going to go in and take a family and you had 10 kids that were living in a house or were living in a trailer. We built you this big mansion. We did not teach you financial literacy. We did not teach you about the taxes you're going to have to pay on that house. They did not teach you anything. And so a number of those individuals ended up in worse conditions than they were before they began. And that's not to say that that is necessarily the story that has to happen here or the story that will happen here, but there's absolutely ways to make sure that when we create these programs, people will actually access them and will thrive within them. That there isn't a bootstraps conversation that's still tied to who is able to step into this new space of economic growth, prosperity and promise. So what we want to think about as well is this initiative of folks who we recognize are struggling in this state. We recognize that our BIPOC are feeling this in our bones, and we recognize the revolving door that's happening for many of our BIPOC leaders, business owners, and folks who could absolutely and have every desire came to Vermont to make it their forever home. We're feeling as though they must leave. This gives us a means of being able to reconnect those folks to saying this is the place that you absolutely belong so that we can change these demographics in significant ways. Something that's also interested in this piece is that it's looking at mutual aid and I know that might seem a little unusual when we're thinking about land access and ownership. But what we've also learned within this COVID crisis is that it is the mutual aid networks that have been able to take those individuals who may come into a community, choose to make that community their home that are not from there born there, lived there for years still have ways of being connected immediately to individuals who are on the frontline of creating services, and who those who are able to most support as you can see spring break so we have a lot of traffic happening in the background over here. This is real life though right. So we are seeking to find better ways to connect those individuals who are able to help make sure that you have the basic needs. As you are both dealing with concerns about potential violence because that is a reality in Vermont, as well as getting into community in and of itself. So I think, as I'm thinking about this bill I want to really encourage it's my understanding that we've had quite a bit of testimony around age 232, which does have promise but it's still building on a structure that is currently not effective. It's building on a mechanism that is not accessing the folks that it needs to access. It is not designed by these very good folks who put great deliberative effort into it. It is much more truncated and kind of a vision in its goals, which is fine. There is always a beauty and clarity in working succinctly. However, the story that's necessary for us to be able to make all the different institutions that touch home ownership or land ownership to understand the needs of the changes they need to make. It's going to require for us to do that deeper dive, which I do believe that 273 does help to provide. I do hope that you will come back to this. And it is my understanding as well that the two bill sponsors are happy to work together. And so if there is a space that instead of telling the BIPOC that did this good work that it's not worth it. I think that it is insufficient or that it is wrong by only focusing on adapting the one that was not created by them sends the wrong message at this point in time. And we have a clear opportunity to do better. So I do hope that we can. So I appreciate your efforts on this. I think I have somebody who's a little bored in the background, but that's okay. I'm here with you if you have questions. Hi, thank you. Sorry, I muted. One of the things we have several questions lined up here. One of the questions that I have that are that are not fundamental to what the content of the bill is. But the challenge here for, for me and for us is to say, to get there in the way that we're used to, which may not be the way that we need to use to get there. And when it comes to bills like this, I find myself sometimes I feel like I'm much more of an engineer than I am a creative. And I'm trying to figure out the best way to move forward without saying we're diminishing the importance of the bill. And without, so we're, you know, trying to find a way and even that phrase is such a stereotypical legislative phrase, we need to find the path. And so, you know, with that, what do I need to learn? Because there's a there's a part of this where we can't just say, this is perfect, let's pass it. Right. You know, oh, look, it has this it's not that it's long it has this amount of money in it which up until this year was like a foreign language. And so I'm just, I just want to try to put across, you know, that that I'll speaking for myself and is this idea of making, making room for the voices making room for the concepts making room for this so that we can find that way forward. Because we are this system that created this. Right. And this is asking us to either create a place where we can allow it to happen outside the system. So that it can be a new system. I just these are just thoughts across my mind when I'm trying to when I'm when I'm trying to think this through. And I'll just leave that with you. No, I appreciate that. So I think, I think you're on the right track I think what just needs to be balanced here is so what's currently happening is that you have, you have 232 and you're trying to make 273 fit 232. But that same innovation can be used to find ways to make 273 include aspects of 232 in reverse. So what's also really important I think that can be helpful when you're thinking about this I mean this is this is a sea change that's happening. So when you talk with folks from the Vermont Land Trust. It's a conversation. It is an absolute conversation, and there's a need for a vehicle and there's a need for a mechanism to get guidance around how to do this, do it, do it better. One of the aspects I did appreciate about this was the support of building in wealth management. Because that's something that people just don't think about they don't even know what the possibilities are. You know how that could be possible you could have a small amount and be able to create further wealth that I love the components in here that talk about cooperative ownership collaborative ownership that there might be the potential for multiple people to I do apologize Thank you my love. So that we might be able to build in components, he's live on TV. They may be able to build in components that would help to support, even thinking slightly differently about single home ownership that sole proprietorship that single person that has that farm, and it's trying to make it work on a single, you know, as a solo initiative rather than that as a collective, which will reduce the risk and increase the reward. Right. So that those are some of the pieces that I think are positive in here, and that would help probably a little bit more easily it is hard to see how you fit to 73 into 232 and I think maybe if you flip it on its head, that might make a bit more sense. Representative Blumling. Thanks, Sharon. Hello, Kaya. I as one of the sponsors of 232, and I want to make sure that, you know, I'm, I'm stating this correctly so I'm, I'm, I've never, I think this is totally distinct pieces of legislation, one, bakes into the mission of the state's kind of largest clearinghouse for housing and conservation efforts. The idea that access to BIPOC access to land and home ownership is a part of the mission. And it, it's a kind of a small s small j social justice kind of bill it, it's, it, it, it, it, I, because, and I think that the hcb itself is, you know, under its current leadership is really trying to move this issue and work with all the governance network. But I think the reason to codify it is that it's there beyond the current leaders, you know, and it acknowledges the historic conditions and practices that have made access to land and home ownership so difficult for BIPOC people. The h273 is a much bigger, broader issue and, and, you know, my assumption is that, you know, what we have been taking testimony on it, and my assumption is that that are. I guess I would argue that they're they're not the same at all and 232 232 a portion of it could even fit into a 79 and that we are talking about housing in in that. And it's, it's now grown there are different pieces of it, you know, I don't I don't know what our plan is as a committee. I guess I guess I just wanted to be clear about that because we've heard in testimony yesterday. I think they're been there's been concern that 232 was was kind of the bill that this committee was taking up as a social equity. And I think there are we I mean they're probably five or six bills that we have in the hopper right now. And, and to serve 273, because of the reasons you talked about because of its origins and the process that developed it was a particular interest to me, and why I signed on as a co sponsor but at any rate. I think you're really right to point out the distinctions and and my assumption is in this committee you can correct me chair from wrong but that they are really we are viewing them as distinct. At this point, yeah, because I mean to 273 is the vision and 273 is really laser focused on on a lot of issues that we don't ever laser focus on. And that's about helping the affected communities. In this case of BIPOC community with programs that aren't with with programs that we're not used to funding, quite frankly, because we're not used to this kind of laser focus. You know, and it's, and it's, but it's a complete to me it's a completely different bill I understand from at least one aspect there's that there's that feeling but they're to the size of the size of 273 it's not because it's too big, but because it's multifaceted and getting it right will require a different focus. And to do it in a way that is bonafide to use a legal term ish, you know, it's going to require us to focus on it and not and not mistake it for something else. I appreciate that chair and I appreciate that representative I think where I think where the distinction is for me as well is that get that work probably does need to have Vermont Conservation Board does need to have some changes made to it. It does. And there should be a both and world. This is a big project. I cannot imagine that the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board was a small project when it was created, and it was trying to address a huge problem. So, similarly, we're asking for that kind of level of work and recognizing that this is a process is a strange biennium. I think things are going to take time for us to work our way through, but I don't, I mean that when I don't see in 273 where it asks for the htb to disappear, you know, for it to be I'm not seeing that language specifically where it's asking for that to sunset somehow. So that work needs to happen, no matter what I think you're spot on on that. And as well, we do need to also start thinking bigger and broader, because that narrow scope is making folks feel like this for mine is not the place that they can call home. And they want to, thanks for chickens in their backyard like everybody else. Right. Representative Kalaki, then Murphy. Thank you chair and hello, Matt, Kyle. Welcome. The image over your left shoulder looks like prints to me. And it is, it is snowing here and I have been playing all morning. Sometimes it snows in April. That song is so I don't know if it is Prince but anyway, that's what I've been singing today. Looks like it to me. I, I, I, I think the intention gets fuzzy with the board composition. I see what the intention is but it is broadly due to race, ethnicity, sex, geography, language preference, immigrant or citizen status, sexual orientation, gender identity, socio economic status or disability status. And people are keep recalling this a BIPOC bill, but that's a part of it. But the board who's making the decisions is primarily BIPOC and has not seated those other kinds of people with with those specific issues on the governance structure of this. To me it's incongruent and it can be both like it is but then I think the board is incongruent or it can be through a BIPOC lens, and then the board that it is defined here seems right to me, but they they're not messing with me. I appreciate you raising that so I think where this comes from as well I think part of the spirit behind this if you were familiar with Act one which established the ethnic and social equity in schools working group. That was a group that as well had a whole list of folks that were like we wanted to make sure that we're baked into that particular working group. What came from that I mean again because being able to say oh no we just have to get folks that are, you know, from this particular identity. Unless there were very specific protected categories did not really resonate but what we know is that these are these are very intersectional identities. So what you ended up with was the most diverse body in the entirety of Vermont state government of amazing experts who have come in that hold multiple identities within this so I think part of the naming is making it a it's restating the legislative intent around that. So while it is being called BIPOC it came from the dreams of BIPOC but again as I spoke to collective liberation. You know, if one of us is not free that none of us are free. So we can just say like oh it's just for us and good luck everybody else, but also recognizing that within the larger we and the larger us we do hold. It's very rare that somebody has just one identity that they ever walked the earth with, or that impacts their ability to access wealth to access land ownership to access these pieces that are necessary for us to reach through equity. Does that make sense. So I appreciate that. For my disability, for my disability experience I feel like the disability community is invisible, completely in this bill correct and it's, it's, it's called out that it's for us as well. Correct, but I don't see, I don't see how, how. So I really, really worry that and I can be both I, but, so I'm saying it can be a BIPOC lens and that's, and then that's governance or if it's this other thing. I think the board structure needs to this, not about as valid, you know, correct, correct. And I mean and there still is the appointment component to that. What we found with the ethnic studies piece, even within those that were seated within state government is that there was typically somebody who did hold a BIPOC identity who also fit in a different category that was happy to be there. So we looked at the total composition of that group there are multiple individuals that have disabilities and varying disabilities, everything from a black male with autism to a young LGBTQIA teenager, who identifies as FEM, who is deaf, like it all crossed and someone who is also, you know, has a disability so we had this huge range of folks that came through and so those voices were absolutely kept there. That advocacy was 100% there, but it also was not just it gives space for people who have been advocating for this work but are not at the table to be at that table. So these are individuals who have been fighting for disability rights, but they're not the ones coming in front of your committee. So that makes sense. So I appreciate exactly what you're saying I feel that very, very acutely, but I think that's also why they wanted to make sure that they didn't not list those things so that we can be aspirational in this work to have a better job of getting real representation. Well, a lot, a lot more listed. Coming from particular organizations which was good. I think that I think there should be a list of someone with lived disability experience as well, or from that perspective. Otherwise I just don't. If we're going to be specific and name the seats, like this bill does, I think it just needs to be more inclusive. I can say, no, no, no, I appreciate that and I can say, okay, no, I think that's a completely relevant addition to this. There are some pieces where you can't necessarily name all classes. Okay, then the statute like sometimes you can't but you can make that again clear in the intent. So when you do the appointments. Think about that please. You know, and then you'll see that that happens within the way the appointments are assigned. So I appreciate that I think that's completely. Thank you representative Murphy. Thank you chair Stevens and first of all I just couldn't resist the chance to say hi to Kyah. We came in together. And I wanted to share that I really appreciate this discussion of the bills in comparison to each other and looking at kind of the differences and, and that a lot of it seems to stem from the perspective of the drafting and the intent so it is really valuable. And a very small which we all know in legislative world is an absolute hazard to say you know you've just like thrown everything out the door, but my first reaction I already shared it with the committee way back when on both these bills is language and I'm going to read and I'm going to read from the age to 73 on page 22 to 23 to 24, where we speak to property ownership for Vermonters who have historically suffered. I find that very limiting because first of all you better define define Vermonter, which is dang tricky. And I just would suggest that wherever we go with with the intent of this and whatever bill number lands on it. We really think about it being something structured like Vermonters from a population who have that that we don't want to, or we define what a Vermonter is, which good luck. I know now I appreciate that and that is hard because we get into a nativism around that that's already sort of exclusionary as to how long do you finally get to the call yourself. My child's Vermonter because he was born here but I could be here for 20 years you're like flat lander. You know, anyone can be a Vermonter they just don't all get to get born in Vermont. That's true. That's true. And that's really excellent feedback that I think they would be hopefully looking for. I would wonder if the half historically suffered discrimination came across that with the act one drafting as well. That that gave a mechanism for those from different religious backgrounds to be able to feel visible within it without again getting into the murky space that might be constitutionally challenged. I was wondering if that was borrowed from there I was not in the drafting room. Yeah, but that was something I know we specifically added to act one because we couldn't say well you must talk about anti semitism and like well but what about. Right all the other right so you know we had to say who is who has been historically left out of this work that we want to lift into it and so I'm guessing that might be part of that. Yeah, it's a living history right so. It does it does go on to speak to, you know race ethnicity sex geography I mean I didn't mean to eliminate all that I was just suggesting. Addie a very small bit in to expand Vermonters rather than limiting it to okay well correct you know are you a Vermonter how long you're going to stay here how long have you been here. You know, but it's wonderful to see you. It's great to see you too. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me I'm really grateful for the chance to weigh in and to see you all again and thank you for your, your attention. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, any further questions for Ky at this time. All right, I so appreciate you coming in Ky. You know this is a big bill. And, you know, we're just going to keep digging at it and digging at it and figuring it out. Thank you. Have a wonderful day. Stay warm. Committee we're going to take time we have step we know coming in to testify on 232 she was scheduled to come in originally. Not as a tag team but as a more modern historian on the. From what we heard from Elise guy yesterday. So we'll hear from her at three o'clock.