While I support the concept of strengthening Rockland’s housing stock policy to attract more young people, judging from the many questions raised at City Council meetings and in the local press the past few months, there remain several unresolved issues surrounding the proposal currently before the Council – the impact of changes in lot and housing size on water management infrastructure, relationship of housing policies to social justice concerns, sparse evidence of demand for the proposed housing expansion beyond the City Council, the apparent adequacy of existing housing alternatives to meet current and near future demand, the need to focus more on affordable housing for the elderly, and lack of alignment to Rockland’s comprehensive plan.

Given the negative emotions that were aroused when the so-called “tiny house” concept emerged a few years ago and all of the work that has gone into reframing the issue since then, I sense the current Council wants to consider the issues noted above as collaboratively as possible.  

As we all know, collaboration in the context of a pandemic, with protocols like masks and social distancing in place, presents unique challenges. Engaging a large swath of the community in a workshop in a Zoom format is daunting.  Many people who might want to participate may be held back by technology barriers. 

Under those circumstances, why not postpone a final decision until interested parties can gather together in person for community discussion, in a series of meetings utilizing a Q & A format, for example? With the number of vaccinations beginning to accelerate and the promise of spring in the air, the community may be ready for group gatherings in two or three months, at least in outdoor venues.  Following that process, put the matter to a vote in the form of a referendum.  

This is an important community issue whose resolution deserves strong community support and endorsement.

John Bird lives in Rockland