Next week Mount Vernon will hold a special election to fill a vacant seat on the city council. The two candidates are Neil Rud and Karla Steffens-Moran. This week’s Mount Vernon-Lisbon Sun features the candidates’ answers to several questions about local issues. Let’s look only at the gist of their answers to the question: “What is your stance on community growth? Explain.”

Neil Rud:

Overall, I do support the type and scale of growth as outlined in the [Comprehensive] Plan, but I do not necessarily agree with the timeline/pace of growing to a city of 5,000 by 2015.

I would like to see city council champion a periodic review against the Comprehensive Plan to assess such things as: city projects completed, new priorities and investments required, impacts of legislative changes, etc…

What can we make of this answer? Well, I think Neil’s idea of a periodic review of how the city’s doing in following the Comprehensive Plan is a good one. In recent times it seems the Plan has been too often ignored or assumed to be legally meaningless. Complementing the idea of such reviews would be to reassess the Plan periodically with regard to the ecological sustainability of its prescriptions. We’re heading into a time when such assessments should be conducted by towns and cities everywhere.

I like what appears to be Neil’s objection to the pace of growth suggested by the Plan. I see no reason, however, to support even a lower level of residential growth here. And I hope those involved in city politics will begin to consider that while the Comprehensive Plan is an innovative and well thought out document, it was created at a time when awareness of the ecological problems which are mounting today was nascent. Likewise, concerns over population growth (primary among the root causes of those ecological problems) were at a low point, having been squelched by a complex set of political factors during the 1980s and 1990s. Today Mount Vernon could safely eliminate the prescription for population growth and add some strict no-growth guidelines without doing damage to an excellent document.

Karla Steffens-Moran:

I believe wholeheartedly that growth in Mount Vernon is not only inevitable but is as well a sign of its economic health.

I was a bit surprised by this statement. Past conversations with Karla would have had me believe she supported the ideas I’ve discussed here. So while this is not easy for me to write, I have to say her statement is 100% in line with growth industry rhetoric. First, the notion that growth is innevitable suggests we’re all helpless victims of an unstoppable growth industry. By now, I hope I’ve provided enough examples here of communities which have stopped growth, or taken decisive steps to limit it, to dispell this perception (example). I’ve provided, as well, links to resources providing clear help in stopping growth (example).

The idea that growth is a sign of Mount Vernon’s economic health is flatly contradicted by studies I’ve discussed here (example). Rather than economic health, growth in Mount Vernon will in all likelihood lead to increased property taxes and/or reduced public services as it erodes small town character and charm while degrading our natural environment.

The complete statement that growth here is both inevitable and a sign of the town’s economic health reveals a logically questionable notion: that since growth is inevitable, and is a sign of economic health, Mount Vernon’s economic health is inevitable. Yes, strictly speaking, I know it’s not quite saying that. It’s saying that this sign of Mount Vernon’s economic health is inevitable. That too is a strange notion. But it seems clear to me that Karla was essentially equating growth with economic health. And if the former is inevitable, well then… Still, I can’t be positive Karla meant the comment to say what it appears to say. She is of course welcome to post a clarification here.

Karla called, as well, for “sustainable growth.” Yet, as Al Bartlett and other experts tell us, “sustainable growth” is an oxymoron. As I’ve mentioned here previously, it’s a term which has come into common use as those promoting growth have co-opted the term “sustainable” to fit their needs. It’s easy enough to see that the physical growth of a community is simply not sustainable. I’ve posted links here before which explain this. Another of Al Bartlett’s articles spells it out even more clearly.

The growth imperative which has characterized so much activity around the world during recent history has created a culture which is strongly infused with ideas about the supposed benefits of endless growth. I can only guess that Karla’s comment owes much to that infusion. It is our duty, though, to future generations, to move beyond the growth imperative to one of ecological sustainability. I predict it will happen too, and the next few decades will bring a sea change in how people on this finite little planet think about growth.

I should mention I was pleased to see the Sun lead off the candidate interviews with a question about growth. I’d like to think the Small Town Project has played a role in bringing growth issues to the fore here. And I hope it won’t be long before comments touting perceived benefits of growth will be a rarity in this town.