Dear Editor:

Alna residents are about to vote on a proposed change to their Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. If that change were to bring real improvements, everyone would vote for it. But the proposed amendment seems to have been prepared in haste, without proper justification.
 
The proposal recommends easing regulations on shoreland zone structures. But it doesn’t say why such changes are necessary. What problem is it addressing? Implementing a solution for a problem that isn’t well defined is not good management. It could fail to solve the problem — or worse — have unintended and costly results.
 
Proponents of the SZO amendment should offer a clear and detailed problem statement. Declaring that existing regulations are “too strict” is too vague. Too strict in what way? Is the problem inadequate water access? If so, for whom: waterfront owners, recreational users, Alna residents generally? Or is the problem something else altogether?
 
The existing SZO applies to a diverse set of water bodies, including the “Sheepscot River,” “coastal wetlands,” “freshwater wetlands,” “great ponds,” and “intermittent streams.” Are the problems—whatever they may be—equally relevant to all those bodies? If so, they may require distinct remedies, not a one-size-fits-all solution. Some might not even require changes to the SZO.
 
Before I could support the proposed change, I’d like to know exactly what it seeks to achieve. Absent a clear and shared understanding of the issues, the only recourse is to vote “no.”
 
But if real problems exist—and are clearly identified and explained — I am convinced that most Alna residents would want to address them through a well-organized and participatory process. Our collective goal, after all, is to enjoy the town’s unique shoreland resources while making sure that future generations can do the same.

Xavier Comas

Alna