“Proposed $6 million for the Vermont Housing Improvement Program (VHIP) to bring more housing units online quickly and affordably in his FY2025 budget.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Both cited sources were fetched and verified. The VTDigger reprint of Gov. Scott's FY2025 budget address (delivered 2024-01-23) contains the exact quote verbatim: "So will the $6 million I'm proposing for VHIP to get more units online quickly and affordably, as well as $4 million for Healthy Homes, and $2 million for the Mobile Home Improvement and Repair program to help keep people housed." This directly documents the promised outcome — Scott proposed $6M for VHIP in his executive budget recommendation. Drafting and submitting the executive budget is an action fully within the Governor's control, and he included the promised $6M VHIP line item, so the promised act was completed. FULL is correct and does not overstate the evidence: the promise is the act of proposing (not securing enactment), so crediting leadership-level CHAMPIONED would over-attribute; FULL is the conservative, accurate call. The second source (LJFO H.883 FY2025 Appropriations Act Highlights PDF, PRIMARY) could not be parsed by the fetch tool, so I extracted its text directly from the saved file and confirmed the cited quote appears verbatim: "Contingently appropriates: ... $2M GF to DHCD for the Vermont Housing Improvement Program (VHIP)." This is context only — showing the Legislature enacted just $2M as a contingent (revenue-dependent) appropriation, less than the $6M Scott proposed — and does not diminish that Scott made the promised proposal. Rating upheld as FULL.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.