The following is a response to Don Cell’s letter in the current issue of the Sun
Hi Don — Thanks for your letter in the current Sun encouraging more discussion and evaluation of growth issues. It was constructive, and I was glad to see it. It seemed, though, to dance around a certain “elephant in the room.” You provided a thorough letter encouraging more discussion and facts, mentioning that it’s good to see letters discussing the issues, pointing as moderator to the upcoming League of Women Voters debate on the Comprehensive Plan, referring to Stan Crocker’s recent letter on the topic, and itemizing three issues you feel need more attention — all, somehow, without mentioning that we have a local website devoted to discussion of just such issues, and encouraging constructive debate. 
In 2003 about 62% of U.S. households owned a computer. Iowa was at 64%. Today the U.S. percentage is more like 79%. Thus we can assume with some confidence that a majority of Mount Vernon and Lisbon residents uses the Web. The Small Town Project received nearly 2,600 visits last month [1], some from outside eastern Iowa, but many more from our local area. The site now contains nearly forty essays (many followed by discussion from folks here and elsewhere) on issues relevant to growth and residential development, and dozens of links to informative sources on the same topics. Don, the site’s been advertised and mentioned in the Sun and the Cornellian enough that you’ve surely visited by now. I wonder, therefore, why you would avoid mentioning it. 
This may not apply to you, but I’ve noticed a reluctance on the part of some to confront certain hard but vital questions concerning future “development.” Those questions include:
- When will we shift the emphasis from how development procedes to the more fundamental question of whether it should continue at all?
- How can we continue to grow without eventually losing our status as small towns and consequently our cherished small town character?
- Why have so many believed the growth industry assurances that development pays for itself when the vast majority of studies to have examined the question have found otherwise? And why has the growth industry spread those assurances?
- Even if residential development were an economic plus, it’s obvious we cannot grow forever. Indeed we’re sometimes told we’ll stop at the current city limits. Given that, any attempt to rely on growth for our economic health is guaranteed eventual failure. Why then do we remain fixated on the notion of physical growth as some sort of economic strategy? Isn’t a focus on sustainable development infinitly more sensible?
- In an age when the earth is stressed, in many ways to the breaking point, by human “development,” how can we go on encouraging needless subdivision construction with its unavoidable destruction of our open spaces?
- What is our local role in addressing the massive problems (e.g., every major environmental problem today) connected in large part with population growth?
- At a time when we’re at or near the end of cheap oil supplies, how can we think of building more suburbs, one of our society’s biggest oil wasters?
There are plenty of other questions to discuss, but those are some of the tough ones, the ones some don’t want to touch, though they’re arguably among the most important of all. Locally, only the Small Town Project has been grappling publicly with them.
I invite you and all others to discuss growth and development on the site. I would particularly like to see participation on the part of those in the growth industry. By now there is little question that pro-growth folks such as Dan Stoner, Rick Elliot, and others know they’re invited to discuss the issues here. Jerry Neiderhauser has clearly opted out of any real debate, but other pro-growth’ers can hop aboard and start talking any time. Doing so would bring their views to large numbers of citizens.
Clearly, today the online venue is far and away the best for any truly substantive debate. It allows participants to think through or even research their comments, but then, when they’ve formulated them, to post them instantly. It allows them, moreover, to comment in as much depth as a question deserves and to back up their assertions with references. If those in the growth industry fail to take advantage of that opportunity, it gives the appearance that (a) they don’t care enough about the community or what they leave to future generations, and/or (b) they don’t care to inform the citizens of their views, and/or (c) they don’t think their arguments can stand up to scrutiny. I wouldn’t think anyone promoting growth would want to leave any of those impressions.
[1] Moreover, it turns out that number would have been much higher had it not been for a software issue - now largely resolved - which was preventing certain search engines from reaching the site.
December 13th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Update: Don Cell and I had a cordial email chat yesterday concerning the topic of the post above. It’s still not completely clear to me why he didn’t mention the Small Town Project in his letter to the Sun or his prior guest editorial. I gathered from his comments that it may have had something to do with seeing this site as competing with the Sun. (For what it’s worth, I don’t see them as competitors.) I didn’t get the impression that was the whole reason. But perhaps it was.
In any event, I’m glad we chatted and that Don read and considered the post. He commented positively, if not quite glowingly :|, about the site. I hope he’ll keep reading and might comment here, perhaps when finished with his role as moderator of the League of Women Voters’ February debate on the Comprehensive Plan. His input would be welcome and valued!