Election season brings plenty of promises, talking points, and plans for Vermont’s future. But for those of us in construction, there’s always another question:

Where’s the shovel?

After watching all three gubernatorial debates, we heard two very different visions for Vermont. The differences were clear on affordability, housing, healthcare, taxes, regulation, and the role of government.

Rather than just keeping score, we wanted to dig a little deeper. What do these debates mean for the contractors, employers, and working Vermonters who have to turn policy into actual projects, paychecks, and places to live?

So grab your shovel. Here are this week's three questions from our followers that we felt are worth digging into.

JOHN:
When both candidates talk about affordability, what does that mean for Vermont employers and their workers?

ANSWER:
The debates presented two very different approaches.

Phil Scott emphasized controlling taxes and costs, regulatory reform, and growing the number of taxpayers rather than increasing the burden on those already here.

Amanda Janoo emphasized larger structural changes, including healthcare reform and community investment, arguing that changing the system could produce longer-term savings and benefits.

THE SHOVEL: For contractors, affordability isn’t an abstract political talking point. It shows up in wages, benefits, housing, operating costs, and whether employees can afford to stay in Vermont. Whatever approach Montpelier takes, the construction industry should keep asking one question: What will this cost employers and working Vermonters, and what measurable result will they get in return?

NANCY:
What did the debates tell us about solving Vermont’s housing shortage?

ANSWER:
Again, the candidates offered distinctly different tools.

Scott's emphasis was on regulatory reform and making it easier to get projects built.

Janoo's approach placed greater emphasis on public investment and using government resources to address housing needs.

THE SHOVEL: Vermont can debate who pays and what programs work, but eventually somebody has to build the housing. Permitting timelines, infrastructure, workforce availability, construction costs, financing, and local development requirements all determine whether a housing proposal becomes an actual home.

For AGC/VT members, the real test of any housing policy should be whether it results in more buildable projects and more housing actually reaching completion.

MADELINE:
Which vision gives Vermont's construction employers the most certainty to plan, hire, invest, and grow?

ANSWER:
That may have been the clearest contrast across all three debates.

Scott presented stability, predictability, affordability, and incremental reform.

Janoo presented a more transformational approach built around systemic change, healthcare reform, equity, and community investment.
Those are legitimately different governing philosophies.

THE SHOVEL: Contractors make decisions years before the ribbon gets cut. They buy equipment, train apprentices, bid projects, hire employees, and take financial risks. That makes predictability almost as important as policy itself.

Whichever policies Vermont adopts, employers need to know the rules, understand the costs, and have confidence that projects can move from proposal → permit → bid → shovel → completion.

ONE LAST SCOOP
Debates end. Campaign signs come down. But the decisions made after Election Day have real consequences for Vermont employers and the people they employ.

For AGC/VT members, the measure of good policy shouldn’t simply be how good it sounds behind a podium. Can we afford it? Can we implement it? Does it help employers find and keep workers? Does it make it easier to build the housing and infrastructure Vermont needs?

Those are questions worth asking no matter which party or candidate is proposing the solution, because when the speeches are over and the dust settles, Vermont still needs people willing to design it, finance it, permit it, and build it.

We’ll keep digging. We’ll keep asking questions. And we’ll keep Searching for the Shovel.