In recent years, the frantic pace of land speculation and development in rural areas of the Northeast has threatened to alter irreversibly the traditional character of New England. As urban environments deteriorate, residents of New York, Boston, and other cities have begun in increasing numbers to buy second homes in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Occasionally, a locality has tried on an ad hoc basis to stem the tide of developers and their customers: In Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. Town of Sanborton,¹ the First Circuit upheld a zoning ordinance by which a village of 300 homes hoped to reduce the size of a 500-dwelling complex under construction on its outskirts.

Last fall, Thomas Salmon won the Vermont gubernatorial election largely on the strength of his promise to preserve the state against the encroaching developers. "Vermont," the governor declares, "is not for sale." His sentiments are echoed by many Vermonters concerned that the new part-time residents may put severe burdens on the state's ability to deal with such problems as air and water pollution and solid waste disposal. This Comment will examine two steps the state has taken in the last few months to impose economic costs on various aspects of the development process, steps that demonstrate the potential for using tax and fee structures on the state level to control or limit demand in the public sector.