 Please. Good morning and welcome to. We're looking at age. Five 51. Regarding racially and racially restricted covenants. And I see attorney Dan Richardson is here. Hi Dan, I know you have a time crunch and we were not familiar with the bill, but is it best for me to turn it over to you to. Give us a big picture and how we got to this. Okay, great. Thank you. I'll be happy to. Good morning everyone. My name is Dan Richardson. I'm the city attorney for the city of Burlington. And before that I was in private practice in Montpelier. I appreciate you very much taking up this bill and inviting me here today to speak about it. I think this is a particularly important bill. What it, what this bill seeks to do is to put a legal force behind a long standing court decision regarding racial and religious. And I think it's a good thing to have a public covenants in land records and I see that Jim nap is, is also here and I know that if there's anyone who knows anything about land records in Vermont Jim. I will always defer to Jim nap about it. And I think he's had the most experience but you know what, what I've understand is that, you know, what history shows us is that for a period of time, as endorsed by the federal government. And a lot of properties included these religious and racial covenants restrictive covenants, saying who you could sell your property to. And perhaps the most famous Vermont example is it is we found in Greensboro. The former chief justice of the US Supreme Court William Rehnquist owned a property that had a religious restrictive covenant audit that people of the Jewish faith, the property cannot be sold to the individuals of the Jewish faith. So, these covenants are legally not enforceable under a US Supreme Court decision known as Shelley versus Kramer. So, it's not as if anyone can go into court and enforce these covenants. What this bill aims to do, however, is to void these covenants as a matter of law which is something Shelley versus Kramer does not do. It's an additional step and I think it's a secure step that's necessary because right now there's a court decision that says we can't enforce these but it doesn't say these are per se illegal. It just simply says these violate fundamental standards of, you know, due process and equal protection so that a court can't be a body to that. And I think that the weakness of that is that in some day there may be a lot in on the court. And the fact is is that if these things exist and private parties seek to enforce it privately. They remain on on the books, and there is no law in Vermont that says these are illegal, and that they are void and null of effect. That's part of any deed. Now I think what also Jim Napa will tell you is that we don't see these cropping up in current deeds these are largely historical from a certain time period and and I think that's, that's good but I think you know this is the idea of putting this off and and to put these these covenants fully fully down as something that we as Vermonters cannot allow in our state and so the bill itself is is is relatively short but I think it's effective. And I think that with members of various title companies of the Vermont Bankers Association of the Vermont bar association about this and I think we've gotten the language to a point that it's it's acceptable to these parties. What it effectively says is that, you know, a deed mortgage plaid or other recorded device recorded honor after July 1 of this year. It does not contain a covenant easement or other restrictive or reversionary interest reporting to restrict ownership or use of real property on a basis of race or religion. So just outlaws any type of device going forward. And then part two says that any any such device covenant easement or restrictive or reversionary interest and a deed mortgage plaid or other record device reporting to restrict ownership is declared contrary to the public policy a state of Vermont and shall be void and unenforceable. So if there is one in the land records and we know that they are there. You know, and we know that in fact it was it was federal government policy to encourage such covenants. They are effectively rendered null and void as a matter of law. And I think what this does is then just simply closes the book on this. And it goes on to then offer what's known as a certificate of release that if somebody wants to take the affirmative step of releasing this covenant or interest in their land to take it affirmatively out of their land records they have the ability to do that under this certificate of release. It's intended to be an encouraged document not a required one. There's no fee if somebody fills out this certificate. And this language is based on what other states have done most most predominantly Virginia has enacted very similar type of legislation as a way but but a number of states have gone in this direction. And as a way of recognizing that this is just simply an evil device that we as a society, you know, do not wish to have in any way shape or form continue in our land records or legal process and so the certificate I think is really just an affirmative I think it just further allows a person to distance themselves from this particular type of of covenant that may rest in the back pages of their land records. And so that's it in a nutshell. There's really those three small parts but I think they're really powerful and effective parts and I, I certainly appreciate this committee considering this bill. The reason Burlington is involved is that out of probably all the cities in, in Vermont. We are the one that is most likely to have these in our land records in larger numbers simply because we have a larger population base but also because a lot more federal funding for housing in the early 20th century was spent in Burlington so you know I think this is important for us as we as we come to this reckoning with these issues so I'm happy to take any questions that the committee may have and again I certainly appreciate taking this up. Thank you so much Dan so I did see two hands but before I get to folks. Can you I know you mentioned BT bankers, BDA title lawyers can you tell us a little bit about the processes, how we got to this to this draft, please. So I worked with Ledge Council on drafting this. Then it was circulated to these various groups to comment on and there was one piece in here and I think it's, it's, it's worthy of mentioning you know I had worked with the city, the city's B department the racial equity inclusion and belonging department and you know talked with them about this they fully supported this bill. They had proposed language that they felt, you know was worthy of inclusion regarding some of the historic context they wanted to have language that said, you know that even if you remove this, this, this clause from a deed through the certificate that you include language to say hey this property once had this, this covenant on it and, you know and talking with title insurance companies and talking with the bankers association. I think their fear was that this would become a cloud on title, and I don't think that was the intent of the parties to put that in there so you know, I certainly agreed to move off of that language. I think because the greater good, I didn't want the perfect to be the cause of removing this this substantial good, because I think this is something that really should have come long before now. But I wouldn't want to be the reason for delaying it any further. But you know it is an important piece that I think is out there and we can address it another time. You know that we don't. This is not intended to remove the history of these covenants because I think it's an important part of recognizing to, you know, an understanding that that this these represent actual economic arms that were inflicted upon religious or racial minorities, because you know whether or not it was ever enforced. It essentially was a you're not welcome here sign that that stood in in the way and and was prom promoted again by the federal government and I recommend to anyone who hasn't. Richard Rothstein has a wonderful book of the color color of law that really details the the history of this and certainly that's part of the reason inspired me to work with the RAB department about promoting this and certainly is part of the city's awakening and recognizing this is something that needs to be remedied. Thank you again so the so the language that you're talking about was in the bill is introduced correct and it's not here. Correct, it's been removed and and with that my understanding is that these various groups are and I would certainly you know defer to Jim nap. If he wanted to clarify this further but my understanding is that the various title insurance entities, as well as the VBA and the bankers Association who you know obviously represent the banks that are giving out mortgages on on these properties that are being provided with the version that is before you today that this they have no objections or issues with it and that as a result of their their review and vetting I think this is a bill that should receive no no objections. Thank you. Tom, and then Barbara. Thank you Dan, I guess I'm curious or in confused I guess a little bit as to why existing this discrimination laws wouldn't stop that from happening. I think, you know, it's, it's a matter of in enforcement and I would agree fully with you that, you know, in part, this wouldn't be able to go forward, which is to say if somebody had one of these covenants. If you want to enforce it, I think there are a number of protections out there, and I by no means suggest that this is somehow an ongoing current issue where people are refusing to sell their property because they feel legally bound. This is more, as I said before the sort of nail in the coffin, which is, you know, we have these, we have these discriminatory laws and we, but it's, again, these are private citizens these are private covenants and they were originally adopted for private enforcement so the minute there is a ruling that these are essentially private parties, as was the rule of law prior to 1949. These go back potentially into effect. And I think that's that's the, it's a slight danger, but I think it's an unnecessary risk. Great thank you. You're welcome. Um, so, thank you for a great explanation. I'm, I'm wondering, a couple of things. This just deals with residential. Is that right. Did I see that. It doesn't, it does not. It is the mortgage plan or other reported device. So it's not restricted. So I'm wondering a few things. One is, and I'm just trying to think about Burlington in particular at the moment. For example, both YMCA, or I'm thinking about fraternities, not that. Believe me, not that we should allow places that want to discriminate based on race or religion. I'm wondering about ones that are sort of border, they're kind of borderline, and it may be because of funds that purchased it like the troubles house, which does it based on age, I'm thinking probably an originally based on occupations, which again it may be that it's an occupation that is not traditional, you know, has been not open to people of a religion or a race or are run by nonprofits that have a religious bend and only accept. Clients that are certain religion. Some of them may or may not have and I know probably bigger than Burlington some of them likely have properties in Burma. So will this apply to them as well. Well, it will but I don't think that it will have a negative impact. And I'll explain this way. You know this very much deals with restrictive covenants dealing with ownership, saying you may not transfer to someone of this religion or of this race. Don't understand either fraternities or any of these charitable nonprofits that have religious affiliations, you know that they may have. So for example, the Catholic Church is a good example. You know they may have canonical law that requires a certain interpretation as to how this would would transfer. And that's that won't that won't be affected by this. If anyone seeking to own a property as a charitable religious or, you know, otherwise restrictive organization. This won't affect them. It just is when they go to transfer the property when they sell it. There's nothing that they can point to in the deed itself that's recorded in the public land records that requires them to discriminate. And that's what these covenants are. If, for example, of a charity that is funded by a church has a covenant on there that it will only because I know usually like with nonprofits it's got to sometimes it's got to go to another nonprofit or whatever. But it won't. I would not be able to say this must go to another Christian. What when it's sold, it must be transferred to a Christian leaning for organization. Not, not by terms of the deed, but again if if they have an organization and I'd say like for example it's Catholic Church, you know there may be an ownership requirement that if any transfer occurs within the owner that they may have a requirement that would be sent to another Catholic organization. You know goes from the Franciscans to the Jesuits or something of that sort that that is outside of the land records, and that wouldn't be affected by this but if there is a deed so for example, you know you had a YMCA type building and a YMCA deed said, this may only be transferred to another Protestant organization. That would be rendered null and void. That would be rendered null and void within the deed. Now, they may have corporate bylaws they may have certain charitable organizations and I can say I've been involved with charities that have priorities for, you know if they're selling you know if you're involved with the Scouts and they're selling a camp they may sell it to something, some organization that has a conservation mission. And in the deed, it's just simply in the mission of the organization, and there's nothing in this bill that would affect that that type of purpose it just would be that you couldn't put it into a deed, sort of to reach beyond either the grave or, or outside of the bylaws of the organization to to require this on strictly racial and religious grounds. But why not why wasn't I'm just kind of curious why like sexual orientation or gender or not part of the language like why not sort of make sure protected classes are covered. Well, so the reason that I chose the language, you know, and worked with the Ledge Council on this is that these are the categories that traditionally have these type of restrictive covenants historically. And actually, I'm not aware of any sort of bands on on gender but you know if you wish to put that in there and wish to add that those protected categories. I think those, you know, I certainly wouldn't have any problems with it but I think the purpose of this, this act was really first and foremost to direct directly address the specific historic. When you talk about the future it made me think about like whoa, let's. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. I think you have a hard stop maybe do we do you have time for any other questions. I do have a, I do have time for a few more I apologize, but yeah, I've let the mayor know I'm going to be late for next meeting. Okay, thank you. Bob. Hi, Dan. In reference to each 551 obviously what we're talking about where specifically mentioned racially and religious restricted covenants. I don't know how many of those exist in the state of Vermont. I think that probably is that exists, however, are these going to be treated on an individual basis, who sort of speak is going to be the judge and jury at the point, what is racial and what is religious covenants and how you determine that individually. And what this will become is a statute on the books so that, you know, and my hope is, is this is that this statute goes on to the books and is not ever have has to be used because we don't have somebody who's attempting to restrict the transfer, based on any basis and and and I think practically speaking Shelly versus Kramer does a lot of that so this is really a belt and suspender approach, but if it did come to a point where it had to be enforced, I would expect a court would be able to do that and what would happen is, you know somebody would, would attempt, or would have refused to sell a property, based on these and this would become yet another tool in the toolbox. So if somebody for example claimed in in a private sale well I didn't sell it to you because there's this restrictive covenant. You, if you were the one who would not was not sold to you would have a cause of action, because they violated a state statute that says you can't do this that's null and void. To the extent you have any contractual rights or you have any declaratory rights, you would go to court and the court would sort through the determination of whether this was a racial or religious covenant. So it is going to be based on an individual effort obviously, but through state statute. Are you familiar person without naming any, any of these that exist within the city of Burlington. You know, I haven't done in a full search of land records as you can imagine, and we don't have them called out. I know our RAB department as was one of their goals for this coming year was to start to identify which properties in Burlington. My understanding and Jim nap may actually be able to answer this question that much more directly and succinctly. My understanding is that there are a, you know there are more than one. There are probably several dozen of these scattered throughout that, but that they all pre date. They're probably earlier than 1960. Because the practice seem to have ended in Burlington within most of our adult lifetimes. Thank you. Again, as you said, there wasn't in Greensboro. Right. And others. Yeah. Didn't we deal with something like this a year or two years ago with Montpelier or something. Was there something in there about the same type of thing. My badly mistaken. There's there's something because there's this six out to me. Well, when we hear from Eric, you can, you can tell us because he's the person I'm most of the property. Not so much a question, but just to really have comments to thank you for your work and to, to thank the RAB department. I know. Really, this is important to Burlington, but I really appreciate you kind of raising it to the level of a state issue and, and just to Ken's point. And to the, the chair's point, you know, it's clearly Burlington is not alone in having this kind of these kinds of deeds and causes and this is really, really grateful to you all for bringing it forward. I'm really proud of my city, but it's important work. Well, I'm happy to do it. Well, thank you very much. That's very kind. Thank you. Good to see you, Dan. Good. Thank you all. And if there's any other questions, I can certainly be reached by email and I really appreciate. Again, I'm grateful for this committee for taking this up and I appreciate you making time. So thank you. Thank you. Take care. Thanks. Okay, Eric. Hi, good morning, everybody. How are you? Good thanks. How are you? Good to see you. Thanks. You too. The, the, I was able to listen to Dan's background explanation of the bill. And by the way, it's Eric Fitzpatrick with the office of legislative council here to do a walkthrough age 551, which has the committee just heard is an act relating to the removal of restrictive covenants from deeds. Does it make sense to take a look at the language pull the screen up first or was there a preference for how you'd like to proceed having having heard some background already. Can I skip the screen sharing and have you, it looks like everybody has, has in front of them. And it is on our community page for those who are watching on YouTube it's draft 2.1 of age 551. Yep, exactly. It's draft 2.1 it's framed right now as a strike all amendments and there have been some changes as the bill is introduced. As Dan explained there was a, a group email chain with myself and Dan as well as general counsel for the first American title insurance company general counsel for the Catholic title insurance company. The VBA real property section co chairs and the Vermont bankers association. We're all involved in some lengthy email discussions to try and hammer out the language. And I believe all of those parties have agreed to the language that you see in front of you now. And specifically, you'll see that if you're able to look at the bill itself you see that initially there's an intense section. And that just sort of lays out what I think Dan explained this morning, which is that the, the year was a very famous United States Supreme Court decision Shelly be Kramer that held that these racially and politically restrictive covenants and deeds were unconstitutional, but that, you know, holding that they're unconstitutional is not the same thing as striking them from all existing deeds where they, where they exist it's just the matter of as Dan said, they can't be enforced, you can't bring you can take action on the basis of one of those covenants and say this person can't sell this house to this other person on the basis of race or religion or and probably same thing would apply to other protected categories these days but that was the essence of the decisions from 1948 so the decision has been around a long time. And the legislative intense section sets that out and provide some background some historical background as to as to the rationale and a need for enacting the legislation because this provides a means essentially does two things. And if you turn to section one of the bill subsection a one. That's the first sort of substantive piece of the bill. And this you have a one or two you have two different things that are that are going on here first of all, under a one this says that going forward. So in the future, any any deed or other document that reports to be involved in the transfer of land that's recorded for purposes of the transfer of line. Going forward those deeds cannot contain racially or restrictive covenants now covenant as you probably know is essentially an agreement. That's what the synonymous with the word agreement. Plans to mortgages plaids anything else that would contain the requirements is to the transfer of a property. And, and there are historically, many examples of the inclusion of these restrictive covenants on the sale of the property. So what this says is that going forward, those are prohibited. They cannot be included in deeds and other documents going forward. A to applies to existing beads existing plan documents transfer documents that already have these restrictive covenants. So, you know, the first subdivision is the universe of going forward. This applies to well what if your deed already has it. And subdivision a to says okay well if the deed currently has one of these racially or religiously restrictive covenants, regardless of when it was put in the timing is irrelevant or whenever it was put there but has one right now. Then the restrictive covenant is void and unenforceable so it's against the public policy of the state of Vermont, and it's void and unenforceable. So, keep in mind that that it's only the covenant that's unenforceable, you know the racially or religiously restrictive coven, not that the entire deed is unenforceable, just that piece the piece that restricts the landowners or homeowners ability to to sell that person on the basis of race or religion that part is void, unenforceable. You've got those two pieces of the bill, going forward you can have them. If they exist already then they're void and unenforceable, and then you have subsection be which is a process for removing them. So in other words, if you have a, a deed right now that contains one of racially or restrictive covenants, then subsection be creates a process and it should point out here that it's intended to be as you'll see a very simple and inexpensive process for anyone to remove an existing restrictive covenant. You don't, you know, he sort of a person could do it, even without the statute if you hired a lawyer, and, you know, paid whatever money was necessary to file legal documents to have one of these covenants However, it's time consuming, it's pricey. It's certainly not something that a citizen would necessarily know how to do without some guidance. So this subsection provides that guidance, and it actually is intended to set up. It's a very straightforward and not costly process for anyone to do this. So, how is that done well you look at subsection be lying sort of 12 to 14. The release the this restrictive coven is released. This is Alliance 13 to 14 by recording a certificate of release of certain prohibited covenants. So that's the title of what you have to record in the land record. And again, it's set out exactly how to do that. And if you continue down from starting and say line 15 or so. The certificate can be recorded at any time, the language says specifically says on line 17, you don't need an attorney to do it. Any person can do it. And if you look at line 18, it says a certificate shall conform substantially to the following. So in other words, a form for how to do it is set out right here in the statute. Again, the idea is to make this simple cost free. You just copy the form that you have right here in the statute fill it out. You do have to get it notarized which we'll see on the next page. But other than that it's a process that any citizen could do without either hiring attorney or incurring any expense at least that's the goal. The certificate itself, if you look at it, it's a form that's set out laid out in the statute it just describes the property describes where it exists in the current land records, it sets out who the name of the owner is. And then on page three line six through 10, it specifically says that the covenant is released. So in other words, it shall not be of any legal force, it's released and from the land records. And then there's a notary and acknowledgement before a notary provision that starts online 15 of page three. That's just language that was that's been used commonly in the statutes when a notary is required we have notary forms in other places in the statutes and that that language is is is pasted from another notary form that's in the Vermont statutes. That's what the notary has to sign up. There's two different forms because there can be a property that's owned in an individual capacity or it could be property that's owned in a representative capacity, for example, by an institution so in either case, then the notary has a slightly different form, but they're both reprinted there. So again you have the forms laid out in the language so that if a person chooses to take advantage of the process they can just use the form that's provided right there and they go record it in the land records and and it has a legal effect of releasing the covenant. Another strategy that the that the bill proposes to make sure that there's no cost involved is in section three that starts on page four. This has to do with waiving the fee for recording the document typically a fee is required when when you record a document in the town land records. But in this case, you'll see that the fee is waived when you're recording the release that we just talked about the release the title document the release of prohibited covenants when those are recorded to remove these racially and restrictive covenants. The bill proposes to make that cost free so that it's affordable for you know layperson or anyone else who wants to do it without paying an attorney. So if you look at page five, that's what the language does. So it sets out that the no fee film show is required when you record a certificate of release of prohibited covenants, or if you correct the deed to remove the, the racially or really just very restrictive provision as well. So, and as I said, I think Dan mentioned this as well. In the drafting, you know, there's several states that have done this and we looked at Virginia and New Jersey and I think Delaware as well but there's several states that were looked at Virginia I think with the primary source but looked at several others that have enacted similar legislation for purposes of getting some thoughts for how to craft it. But that's essentially it as to what's, what's in the language of the bill so the walkthrough is, is, as I said now but I'd be happy to take any questions if there were any, any about the walkthrough. Thank you. Thank you, or I just may not be a question for you but given that we are waiting to see that this bill have to go to ways and means. And ways means would likely ask well, you know how many crackers what are we talking about if every, you know, and again I'm probably not going to ask you that but I, that's a question that we'll be out there now. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that maybe, maybe, Jim, or someone from the VBA would have an estimate is that how many properties. This could conceivably cover but yeah I don't have any, any information on that I'm afraid. Any other questions for Eric about the language in front of us. I tell coaches trying to unmute himself or coaches good. Well I was just raise it. I was trying to raise my hand but thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. Attorney Fitzpatrick and Jim and Terry course zones and Dan for this great piece of work. I think to get back to the question of ways and means. As indicated by Dan. An exhaustive search, you know would probably take some pretty deep diving. Just because when you think of the number of potential records that would have to be evaluated. And what the finding is, it's the amount of work it would take to get to that point. So, from a process perspective, you know, for ways and means to look at a physical number. I think that's going to be kind of difficult, at least at this point in time. Because that was my only comment, other than thank you very much for all of your work. All of those that have been involved in this process. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know if you want to answer that. Now or, or if not, I was going to invite Terry course zones to testify process. But Jim, do you have a direct answer to how many properties might be involved or help for the ways and means committee. Well, for the record, Jim nap. I'm the co chair of the Vermont bar association real estate section, and otherwise retired. The answer is probably not very many. I've done title searches around the Northwestern part of the state, starting in 1981. And I can actually only recall one specific development, which happens to be in South Burlington which happens to be across the street from where I live that had these covenants on it. I think Dan Richardson mentioned that the practice of imposing these kinds of covenants in any broad form, probably stopped in the early 1960s. So, I would suspect that that if there are even an identifiable number of properties with these covenants on them. I think that it often happened only when there was a development project. So, 1020 30 lots created at the same time, with a declaration of covenants imposed when just before the first sale. I would be surprised if outside of the frankly outside of Chittenden County, and not casting aspersions on anybody but probably Bennington Brattleboro Rutland, possibly Montpelier. There probably weren't that many organized developments before 1960 where you're going to find these covenants. So, my answer would be, I don't think they're going to be a lot. And for ways and means, I'm guessing that on the average, towns collect somewhere between somewhere around 1011 million dollars a year in recording fees. And I doubt that the total number of these releases that are going to be recorded in the next five years would be a rounding error in that number, much less a significant impact on anybody, any towns cash flow. I suppose if some very small town with that only recorded a couple of documents, a week, had one of these projects and somebody showed up recorded 10 of these at a time that would rise to the level where someone would say, Hmm. But in South Burlington, no one's going to notice in Burlington no one's going to notice. It'll be a very small economic impact. With that, I'm happy to let Terry cake over and talk about the process, although I will say from the real estate sections point of view. We believe that this bill does exactly what it's intended to do, and have nothing other than approval for the current version. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. So I would like to. Terry and welcome. Good to see Terry. I think we've seen you this year. And we miss your baking. Hi chair and I apologize I'm pushing my start video button but nothing seems to be happening but hopefully you can hear me okay. Nice to see you all I, and I, I have been over at the state house but I guess not in your area and it's nice to know because I have seen some people kind of in the background so hopefully I'll get to cross pass in person but it's really wonderful to see you on screen anyway. And I apologize chair grad I had a previous commitment. Actually, but the Vermont Supreme Court's I wasn't didn't have the ability to change that. So I'm sorry to have missed the beginning and I hate to repeat anything that might have been said before but certainly from what I have heard. As Jim said as co chair of the real property section is in very full support and Eric's kindly involved us with kind of the fine tuning of the drafting and the present version met with everyone's unanimous approval. In light of our in keeping with what Jim said, I searched titles for about 25 years starting in 1982 in Rutland County and I myself personally never encountered a deed with the type of covenant that's the subject of this bill. It's my understanding that they are rare and when they did occur was of an era that now is most likely beyond the 40 years search. So ideally there wouldn't be an impact. But we are very gratified that there's this very straightforward streamlined and inexpensive and efficient way to address a covenant if one is found, but certainly the the bar in the real property section supports the bell and applause the sponsors for for bringing it forth. Okay, thank you very much Terry and so in terms of the process my understanding is is Eric sent you the bill is introduced and then the VBA began to discuss how you have the listserv and sort of. Oh, yes. Right as well as the title insurance companies and the bankers. But it normally be involved with land records, and they all weighed in and the final results. Everybody expressed for it. Thank you. Can I just ask one question about one word on line 12, where you have, well, at line 11 is such religious and then it uses a word minority. I think is the word minority in there why wouldn't it cover all backgrounds. Are you asking me sorry representative. Sure, I think. Okay, yeah to be honest with you I that was not something that was pointed out I don't know Eric might have the best answer for that. It wasn't part of the discussion that I was involved in in terms of the mechanics. Thank you. So, Eric, thank you. I think that's a good question. And I think it's because the, the finding the sentence in that is just talking about what historically was the case. So, I think historically, covenants were used to restrict property ownership by those of religious minorities. And that doesn't mean it necessarily would always be the case going forward that it would necessarily be restricted on on the basis of a minority could be as you said, any religious faith. But historically, they were used most often against religious minorities I think that's just a statement of what the history was. So that's why it only says minority in that in that sentence. You also have the BIPOP and I mean, you've covered everything I just, I don't think that word should be in there personally, because we want to cover everybody I would think. Well, can I find the sponsors. Yeah, so this again is looking at a history of land use. So, you know, in the analysis position in this country where he specifically said, this land shall not be transferred to those of the Jewish faith, or, or African Americans or blacks or, and those, those deeds are, you know, in Burlington and Greensboro and justice and the request of the United States to report had that in his property. So that's the minority, the word minority. You know as well specifically religious minorities. I mean I'm not. I mean I just want to make sure everybody's covered that's all it doesn't. I mean I'm not stuck on it it's just, it's just that caught my eye. Well, I think everyone is covered in that when you look at the, you know, section two, which is the effects of the bell and it says it says to restrict the ownership or use of real property on the basis of race or religion period but the section that you're talking about without language is about the legislative intent of the bell. Historical reality of how it is. So we're keeping that language there. But, but to, I think, can you should feel assured that the bill itself, I mean, the effects of the bell are saying no restrictions in a whole city. Okay. Yeah. All right, thank you. And I'm actually going to table that thought because, you know, answered some points quickly. Great. Thanks. Any other questions for Terry. Great. Well, thank you. Thank you so much for helping with this. And hopefully see you soon. Thank you to thank you and thank you all for allowing us to be involved. Thank you. Okay, now go back to Jim. Welcome again. Thank you. Hey, working on the mute and the video so I don't have anything to add I'm happy to answer any questions if anybody has any questions related to how these covenants appear in the land records or something like that, but beyond the fact that as I think three people so far said, we had input from title insurance companies from the bankers from the real estate section we did post this on our discussion board. And there were, there were no comments other than approval. So, beyond that I don't really have anything to add. Any other questions or just Jim, just a quick, I'm sorry, and this is more for presentation of the bill on the floor. What is your membership now. The real estate section is 445 members, plus or minus 10, and the bar association itself is about 2700 members. Cool. Our discussion board post only went to the real estate group. So the 445. Plus or minus. Yeah. Cool. Because I think that's, that's important for, for people to realize that, you know, it was all encompassing of those of your field that represent that area. So, thank you. Yeah, question Jim Martin alone. So, in South Burlington I know there's some neighborhoods that have had these like May Fair Park. I mean, how, how often have you seen these outside of Burlington for instance I mean, and, and is it at all possible that you would have one that you could quickly email. So we see what one of these restrictive covenants look like. Well, quickly know I could run over the city clerk's office and pull the covenants for May Fair Park. Well, can you describe what they say without. Unfortunately, no, I remember running across this in the early 1980s when I did a title search on a piece of property in May Fair Park. And to be honest with you, I was quite surprised to see it I didn't realize that that these covenants had even existed. I'm particularly surprised to find out that they exist in Greensboro which wouldn't be a place I would have thought of either but I can't remember the exact text, but I'd be happy I mean I literally live around the corner from the city clerk's office. It would take 2530 minutes and I can find the covenants and send you a copy of that page. If you like, I have the May Fair covenant in my hand. And there we go. Yeah. And as it as it happens in this small world nature of Vermont, Jim may not recall that. But it was Jim's firm where I used to work that did our closing when we bought this house so that was actually in 2004 so that may not be the transaction Jim is recollecting but that's I love that in Vermont it's like one degree of separation but as it happens the May Fair Park covenant we were, it was disclosed to us when when we were purchasing at the closing and right around that time when we moved in. There was a lengthy process that some people were here residents here that I got involved in when I moved in to have them removed in the land records. And they, or at least there was a recording in the land records that they were unenforceable and boy, so it's still there, I think. But we recorded something in the records to indicate that obviously they were unenforceable. But I can read the covenant to you if you want to hear it. Yeah. And I thought there was a religious one to I, but I can't find it the the ratio one I see is no persons of any race other than the white race shall use or occupy any building or any law, except that this covenant shall not prevent the occupancy by domestic servants of a different race domiciled with an owner or tenant. And this dates from, you know, May Fair Park was exactly as Jim was describing in terms of timing I think it was a a with the was a subdivision created post just after World War two in the mid 1940s. And so these date from, from, obviously, oh yeah 1940 September 21, September 25 1940. So actually pre pre World War two. Thank you. I do know Madam chair. Yeah, would it be too much to ask to have that entered on our page in reference to thank you I think that'd be very appropriate. I also know that one of our thank you. Yeah sure purchase purchase land in Greensboro. And I think he purchased it with a current colleague of ours that so I will, I will ask about that colleague. They still have it that deed from Greensboro. I can see. I'm going to copy. To my house before it was changed because it had a public. In regards to persons of Jewish heritage. Yeah, thank you. But yeah that one of when I bought my house two years ago, something that we had corrected on the beat. And that was a process. And I think that really helpful I appreciate that. Crazy. Well, that's what language and section one refer to. That's exactly what that's your job naive I am. So, but I still say we, we have dealt with this. We have dealt with this for a long time here with something with more failure I know we did there's because I know there's no way I would think of this obviously you can tell my lack of knowledge on the rest of this. I know it was discriminatory language that does sound vaguely familiar. It could have been but it was, it was with it was with the same type of stuff is what we're dealing with here. Well, I guess title change would be with the housing. Yes, I think it. Believe me, I can't think of the stuff up and just my head alone. I don't know if I can track it down right now, but I think representative Gosling is correct that there may have been a bill introduced in the Senate a few years ago. Because something came up in Montpelier. And I can't. My memory is similar to yours representative Gosling I'm remembering the outlines of it I can't, I can't recall the details but there may have been something introduced I'll see if I can put track it down. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, so we do have this separate communication possible vote. I don't have any more questions on this but let's, let's take that. 10 minute, no more than a 10 minute break as we do have a miscellaneous. Sure, a bill that we also still need to go through in this timeframe. And let's think about if you're prepared to vote on on this bill. It's a bill five later so it's just welcome to the third day before crossover. Should be real short floor today. There's only two third readings.