At least 50 people came to the hearing -- over 30 in opposition to the
Camerons' proposed development. Rarely, if ever, have I seen such
well-organized opposition, or any kind of opinion, to proposed development
here. Many people testified about the big concerns: the potential of
degraded water quality, increased erosion, traffic dangers on Hiway 95, and
difficult road maintenance in the subdivision during the winter. Another,
less common concern was the problem involved with farming near residential
areas.
Those who spoke in opposition were *almost* all residents of nearby
property. This is not a bad thing -- everyone has a right to and should
argue for their own interests. However, with every planning meeting I
attend these days, my empathy for the Commissions and Councils grows. How
are public bodies supposed to weigh the common good against individual
interests, whether they are developers' or nearby residents'? And how is it
that few citizens raise issues related to what might be best for the
community as a whole? Few if any of us can articulate creative ideas on
how Moscow might accomodate the demand for rural residences, few provide
ideas about how to achieve development close to "urbanized" areas, i.e.
within the area of impact but closer to town than what the Camerons'
propose. I strongly suspect people in the audience last night could have
offered such suggestions, but few spoke.
To give you a feel for what the meeting was like: I left at 10 pm, after
*two and a half* hours of testimony. Everyone was still energized, and the
Commission's debate hadn't even begun!
My computer is making unearthly death rattle kinds of noises, so I'll likely
be off-line for some time.
--Priscilla S.