Connections: Political Challenge
The East Hampton Town Comprehensive Plan is an amazing 114-page document including tables, charts, and maps. It was adopted in May 2005 after about a year and a half of study by professional planners and of public debate. For the most part, we hear of it these days only when an official or activist points to something in it that is relevant to a current project.
The plan was largely based on data dating to 2000. Is there any wonder that many of its recommendations seem out of date? The town’s recent hamlet studies, which had been recommended in the plan, concentrated on commercial centers, without particular attention to other issues effecting the quality of life or even broader aspects of the economy (I’m thinking of the boom in home-based businesses, the “trade parade” and traffic in general, and the regrettable impact of the luxury-business takeover of our main streets). The forums held surrounding the hamlet studies helped gauge public opinion, yes, but they hardly provided fresh ideas about the current effects of zoning and growth.
Most East Hamptoners surely agree with many of the goals in the comprehensive plan. For example, to “maintain, and restore where necessary, East Hampton’s rural and semi-rural character and the unique qualities of each of East Hampton’s historic communities” is one such laudable goal, and to “take forceful measures to protect and restore the environment, particularly ground water” is another. Another goal that remains pertinent is to “reduce reliance on the automobile [and] encourage investment in alternative transportation — including sidewalks, bikeways, rail, buses, shuttles, and ‘shared’ cars.”
Where opinion might begin to veer away from apparent consensus is on how to reduce the impacts of human habitation, how to “provide housing opportunities to help meet the needs of current year-round residents, their family members and senior citizens, seasonal employees, employees, emergency services volunteers, and other local workers,” and how to “encourage local businesses to serve the needs of the year-round population and reduce the environmental impacts of commercial and industrial uses.” That these goals pretty much refer only to the year-round population might be enough reason to think a revised comprehensive plan is overdue.
Because the political climate in East Hampton is, like the nation, more inherently divided than it was a dozen years ago, it undoubtedly would be a much tougher challenge to revise the plan than it was to create it. It might take almost twice as long to complete, which is likely to bring us to 2020 before a revised plan could be adopted. That would be a good 15 years after the existing plan was approved, and much too long a hiatus, given the pressures of continued population growth and the escalating needs of seasonal residents and summer revelers.
As we get closer to November, it would help voters — perhaps even be definitive — if those seeking election to the East Hampton Town Board showed the public they know what is in the comprehensive plan and told us where they think it is on target or falls short. Their ideas about what it would take, in time and money, to bring it up to date, would also be interesting.