Editor,

As a Standish resident with an interest in historic preservation I found your coverage of the Higgins house controversy timely reading. For the most part the news article was informative, clearly presented and to the point. However, your editorial was not.

The author questioned the legitimacy of a six-homestead district, called the ordinance “silly” and complained that people did not have complete control over their property.

Before questioning the logic of the ordinance the author would have been better informed had he consulted with expert authorities on the benefits of historic preservation.

The central location of these six homesteads is the core argument of the ordinance.

The Historic District is quickly becoming all that remains of “Standish Corner,” the

heart of our town. It is our village center and until recently was substantially unchanged for almost 200 years. However, in the last 20 years it has been vanishing, house by house.

For years, citizens of Standish have urged town officials to protect the heritage of the town, particularly Standish Village. Townspeople have repeatedly indicated on surveys that historic preservation is a top priority. Many historic homes along Route 25 have already been lost. In every instance the planned demolition or removal was met with strong opposition. Concerned citizens have pleaded with officials to implement responsible development guidelines to slow the arrival of gas stations, formula food establishments and out-of-scale developments along this route. We have listened to these officials talk about how they would fix this problem, yet little if anything has been done.

It took a major grass roots, door-to-door effort by common citizens to get the Historic Preservation initiative on the ballot. After activists worked to inform voters of its importance, the ordinance measure passed, against the wishes of those same elected officials. (And Councilor Simpson, the citizens you claim didn’t know what they were voting for are the same citizens who elected you. I am fed up with elected and appointed town officials telling me that I am a stupid voter.)

It is widely accepted that while saving individual historic homes and sites is a worthy goal, it does little to enhance the overall historic appeal of a place. How valuable is a historic site if it is sandwiched between two cement-block retail behemoths? Will our future citizens be proud to show off a shopping center, fast food restaurant, or a “pretty” new gas station to their out-of-town guests? I don’t think so. I suspect they will lament the passage of a unique New England village and wonder why something was not done to save it.

Furthermore, the editor jumped to unfair conclusions concerning Mrs. Dudek’s motive for filing a lawsuit. One could just as easily conclude that tearing down the historic properties in her neighborhood could result in a financial windfall for her due to the increased commercial value of her own property. Isn’t it possible that Mrs. Dudek is not looking for personal gain but maybe the greater good of the town?

The editor derides the restrictions that the ordinance places on people’s property.

Have you been reading your own paper? That is what towns do, like it or not.

It’s called zoning, which is essentially the collective desire of the townspeople to decide what it best for all as it pertains to land use. How many stories have you written about the Windham gravel pit? Don’t you understand that people want a say in how their town is developed? Don’t abutters deserve a say about what happens next door? Or should we all just step aside and let the market forces take over?

I think not, and by a majority vote the citizens of Standish have agreed.

As reported, there is a movement now to eliminate several of the ‘unpleasant’ aspects of the Historic Ordinance. Some councilors wish to change the wording, add some paragraphs, fix some problems, etc., so then they can say they support historic preservation while in effect rendering the ordinance powerless. At the March 14, 2006 Town Council meeting, Councilor Dolores Lymburner wisely pointed out that citizen-initiated ordinances reflect the will of the people and that any changes or alterations should be carefully considered. Perhaps the council should spend their time working constructively to offer tax breaks to those affected or to streamline the application process for altering district properties.

So, after all the years of debate, there has been only one application for an

exception to the ordinance rules since its inception. And it was granted to Mr. and Mrs. Higgins. The real irony as I see it is that if the Historic Preservation Commission had followed its own rules, the Higgins family would likely have their permission to develop their property as originally desired, without the lawsuit!

I urge the Standish Town Council to do the right thing by enforcing the Historic Preservation Ordinance and to support the efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission.

David Robinson

Steep Falls