2000-06-12 Managing Growth Development and Open Space Working Group.pdf

Browse Search

makes the town less affordable to those of more modest means. Also, many residents favor the option of life-long residency in Lexington. This need will become more pressing in the face of the demographic trend toward an aging population living in smaller households on fixed incomes. Our group would like the town to establish policies to protect and maintain existing levels of moderately-priced housing stock. Because of these concerns, our group would like the town to promote the development of a broader range of housing options for its citizens, including more affordable housing, more housing for small households, and more housing suitable for those who do not drive. Goal 6: Ensure that the ongoing process of managing growth is conducive to long term success. Lexington has a tradition of civic participation in decisions which shape the town's physical environment. Vision 2020 is part of that tradition and represents a major investment of town and citizen resources toward the shaping of the town's future. Our group supports the continuation of an appropriate and democratic planning and decision- making process to cope with preservation, growth and development issues. We advocate the extension of the Vision 2020 process and the incorporation of long term strategic planning in connecting policy decisions to the town's core values and goals. Our group also stresses the importance of the town assuming an activist role among neighboring towns in the region and in the metropolitan area to work toward broader solutions to traffic, pollution, housing and other issues affecting quality of life for town residents. Issues Examined, Conflicts and Unanswered Questions Our group was in agreement about many fundamental issues. All agreed that development in town should be limited and should be consistent with town character and that unconstrained growth, both within and outside town borders poses a threat to our quality of life. All agreed on the importance of historic preservation and protection of open space. And all agreed that measures are needed to cope with problems such as traffic congestion and air- and water- pollution, and to limit tear-downs and mansionization. When there was conflict, it was about the concept of managing growth itself. Is the town legally and politically capable of effectively managing growth, limiting unwanted development and promoting desired projects? A zero-growth thesis argues that growth and development cannot be sufficiently controlled to prevent the erosion of the town's historic and small town character. This point of view asserts that the best way to prevent increases in traffic congestion and pollution and to protect existing open space is to prevent any new development. It is a call for an indefinite development moratorium. The vast majority of the group rejected the idea of a zero growth policy as neither a real choice nor a desirable option for the town. We maintain that appropriate development can exert a positive influence on the town and allow the town to pursue a variety of important goals and meet needs that are under-served. We propose that tighter regulation of development is possible within the framework of individual property rights, and that town government can and should mediate between competing community needs, and between private and public interests. We Managing Growth-6