Upzone? Good Idea

The complaints heard at Town Hall on April 10 on the proposed upzoning of 140 parcels involving some 1,400 acres were twofold.

Those who argued against the elimination of commercial-industrial acreage, particularly in Wainscott, pointed to what could become a problem in the future - a shortage of places where those in the service trades can set up shop and can receive and store the tools of their trades without offending the neighbors.

Because much of the commercial-industrial land in Wainscott is inappropriately sketched over a deep water recharge area, however, the town has something of a dilemma on its hands. As the Town Board reconsiders this aspect of the proposal, some thought might be given to swapping C-I land important for groundwater protection with property near the town dump and other commercial-industrial uses near Springs-Fireplace Road. The time also seems to have come for a new master plan for the entire property at and surrounding the airport.

However, those complaints that came from property owners who have been able to hold on to undeveloped residential land were less convincing. The arguments raised against upzoning, for example from half-acre or one-acre minimum house lots to two, three, and even five acres, were pretty hollow.

The experience in real estate here belies the notion that subdivisions carved into large rather than small lots reap smaller profits for developers. In fact, two landowners sent their lawyer to the April 10 hearing to endorse upzoning their properties: They believe it would increase its value.

Land values are escalating here, beyond even wild imagination. What we are talking about, therefore, is not a fair return on an investment in land but how big profits might be. Such a concern cannot be the driving force of municipal policy.

Municipalities have more compelling obligations. The protection of groundwater and the preservation of agricultural and scenic spaces, for example. The open space plan was a reasoned approach to that future, adopted with the bipartisan support of the Town Board. It is not perfect, of course. Some individuals will find flaws in its recommendations, while others, especially those with large land holdings, may prefer to act privately to preserve it rather than to see it upzoned.

The overriding fact is that East Hampton voters hope to guard against ubiquitous suburbanization and to assure the town's place as a resort, at least for the foreseeable future. They have said time and again that they are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep this a place our children, and children's children, will be happy to call home. Affected landowners should be gratified that they can do their part - and still come out ahead financially.

On the question of affordable workspace for the service trades, a recent campaign issue, could it be that the members of the East Hampton Town Board actually are going to work together? Last week's board meetings indicated a willingness to do so.

With the caveat that more study is needed on the future of the town's commercial-industrial districts, The Star urges the Town Board to move ahead with its proposal. East Hampton will remain East Hampton only to the extent that all its people make it so.