Town of Washington edits and agrees on vision statement

WASHINGTON — Even the Declaration of Independence was revised by Congress. In the same spirit, in front of the 1776 American flag at the Millbrook firehouse, the residents of the town of Washington gathered on Saturday morning, March 5, to discuss and then agree on their own version of the town’s future. The meeting for the residents of the town of Washington to discuss their vision for the town for the next 20 years adjourned one hour early, a few minutes before the siren on the firehouse sounded noon. After almost three hours of open, civil discussion and exchange of ideas, full-time residents and weekenders reached agreement on the precise wording of the draft vision statement that will be used as a touchstone in the creation of a new Comprehensive Plan for the town.After months of disagreement, accusations and resignations, a group of about 100 Washington citizens gathered to start over again. The challenging acoustics of the firehouse were overcome by a professional sound crew. Multiple mikes distributed around the audience permitted everyone to be heard. Joshua Mackey of the plan’s Administrative Committee masterfully guided the lurching discussion toward consensus.After a brief history of progress to date by Margaret Irwin of River Street, the plan’s outside consultant, Howard Schuman, read the original draft vision statement. The draft included references to “diversity of housing” and “managed development.” Schuman said he was out-voted on the wording of the vision and pointed out that most people who completed the community survey had not ranked these issues as being very important. Next up was Stan Morse, who read his own shortened, 96-word version based on the original 205-word draft read by Schuman. Morse made it clear that he was presenting this version as a private citizen with no background in planning because the original was far too long. “A vision is who we are and what we wish to be,” explained Morse. His version omitted the housing issue entirely and substituted “managed growth” for “carefully managed development.” There was a big round of applause when he sat down. A third, completely different, more descriptive approach was suggested by village resident Tony Sloan, who has been an urban planner since 1964. His imaginative vision included things the town did not want, like “sprawl and its costs.”After fielding comments about affordable housing, the length of the vision statement, the distinction between the town and the village, Mackey managed to get the group to give an indication of their support for the three approaches. The original vision statement didn’t even win five votes. The group then moved forward to look at the details of Morse’s concise statement, with more discussion around the housing issue. Schuman explained that the phrase “diversity of housing” was really a euphemism for “affordable housing,” and that the committee had found substantial affordable housing already existed. Committee member Karen Mosca provided additional background on the issue, explaining diversity of housing as workforce housing, which did not necessarily mean new housing. Fernando Nottebohm asserted that housing did not belong in the vision and that “politicians are not to be trusted.” He received a large round of applause. In response to Margaret Doyle’s request for clarification on whether there was a legal requirement to include housing, Mackey said, “Addressing it is not making a provision.” He asked if the public felt it should be included. Judy Bondis, a former village trustee, pointed out that only 12 teachers in the Millbrook school district could afford to live in the town. Paul Schwartz, a member of the town planning board who owns rental property, commented that there is a lot of housing available for rent. He did a quick calculation of the cost of building a modest 1,200-square-foot house. In order to carry the mortgage and taxes, he estimated that an annual income of $75,000 to $90,000 would be necessary.Fernando Nottebohm suggested striking “managed growth” from the Morse version.“We don’t want large gates for people to drive cement trucks through,” he said. Through the morning people stood up and spoke, acknowledging each other — “I agree with the guy in the brown sweater” — and asking to focus on the important issues where everyone agreed, like rural character and safe drinking water. One commenter said, “I didn’t expect such a sensible discussion.” A vote by show of hands eliminated reference to any kind of growth, managed or otherwise, and to housing. Having eliminated those issues, the focus turned to fiscal responsibility and taxes. Candy Anderson brought up the issue of fairness in property assessments.After a suggestion that financial sustainability be added, David Strayer, another committee member, said that the statement should just say, “We want lower taxes, if that’s what you mean.” Kate Farrell, another committee member, was busy at the front of the room adding suggestions like “fair” and “equitable” and then crossing them out on white flip charts.At the end, about 30 people agreed to leave that part almost the way Morse wrote it: “We believe in managing our fiscal house responsibly.”Nottebohm, an ecologist, suggested removing the phrase “plants and animals” and simply use natural habitat. Everyone seemed to like that, but then decided to keep the plants and animals as well. “In the village” was added to diverse local business community, and the historic preservation section was modified. The entire, edited vision statement was read, and the group agreed it was what they, the people, wanted. Everyone was surprised and pleased by the results and the process which brought the community together.