I have attended many public meetings about the proposed historic district on Munjoy Hill, and I have heard no good arguments in favor of it.

The arguments I have heard fall into two types. First, there are aesthetic arguments. These typically involve nasty comments about how ugly someone else’s house is. However, someone else’s aesthetic preferences are not good reasons for increasing costs for homeowners.

At one meeting I attended, a Planning Board member argued that since we accept burdens on homeowners for safety, further increased costs are acceptable. But while it is acceptable to prevent someone siding their house with asbestos for safety, is not acceptable to more than double my siding cost just because you prefer the look of a different siding.

The second kind of argument involves justifications for additional burdens on homeowners: sustainability and the preservation and promotion of affordable housing. However, a historic district would not promote these values.

I have heard the argument that the most environmentally friendly house is the one that is currently standing; if we don’t demolish, we aren’t creating waste. However, the proposal doesn’t prevent gut renovations. Moreover, sometimes careful new development can be more sustainable than maintaining the current housing stock. There is also nothing in the proposal that promotes affordable housing; indeed, it makes it harder to have smart development that would address these needs.

To promote sustainability and affordable housing, we need policy that is directly and effectively targeted to those ends.

Lauren Ashwell

Portland

« Previous

Letter to the editor: Sen. Collins stepped up for Maine’s rural schools

Next »

Letter to the editor: Maine government should take stronger measures to slow virus’ spread