When you buy a home, you don’t just buy the house. You buy a neighborhood and a community. When my wife and I moved to Fairport Village eleven years ago, we were delighted to become part of a vibrant, small town. Every homeowner reasonably expects their local government to do what’s necessary to maintain their community’s character. For some reason, our local government has something else in mind. An article published by the Beacon on August 22 described the village’s prospective rezoning in detail. Under a Comprehensive Plan approved by the village board in 2021, Fairport will update its zoning codes, which were last revised in 1992. So far, so good.I first learned about the proposed rezoning when, like many of my neighbors, I found an anonymous letter on my doorstep outlining the potential changes to the code. I confess that I was unaware of the proposal. And I am not alone. I have spoken to many of my neighbors who are as shocked and dismayed as I am.The plan features a much-needed upgrade to the Main Street corridor to make the village more walkable and safer. However, it will also significantly downgrade our community.Among its objectives is “to provide diverse housing choices.” The report includes a map dividing the village into zones and describing the type of housing that will be permitted. The plan will increase the allowable number of multi-family housing units—apartments or Auxiliary Dwelling Units (converted garages or outbuildings)—in every neighborhood.It’s certainly fair for public officials to point out that we—Fairport’s residents—have had ample opportunity to provide input to this process. They have conducted five face-to-face public input sessions. And, as the Beacon article points out, “The Village also posted flyers on the project around Fairport, [and] mailed postcards about it to residents.” Those communications promoted a redevelopment of the Main Street Corridor to make the village more “walkable.” There was scant information, if any, that outlined the increase in multi-family housing. No one was shouting from the rooftops, “Great news! More apartment buildings in your neighborhood!”In truth, only a small minority of citizens participate in public outreach meetings. Most of us are busy leading our lives and reasonably expect our local government to act in our best interests. An economist would call this “rational ignorance.” We don’t have time to participate in a way that will have an impact. So, we don’t.The Beacon quotes Fairport’s village mayor, Julie Domaratz, who complains that some residents “believe that we’re trying to do something nefarious…” and adds that some “members of the community put rumors out there that have no basis.” Yet a comparison of the anonymous letter to the PowerPoint presentation of the plan indicates that every claim made by the letter is accurate. To my knowledge, and indeed in the Beacon article, Mayor Domaratz has failed to point out how the “rumors” are inaccurate.In the absence of information, the public will fill in the blanks.Among the questions that remain unanswered is why? The objective of the Comprehensive Plan is presumptive. It clearly states that one objective is to achieve housing diversity without explaining why this is desirable.The mayor is backed up by Village Planner Jill Wiedrick, who is also quoted in the Beacon article as saying that the project’s theme, “Character-Based Code,” reflects the intention to maintain the village’s character without explaining how the village’s character will be maintained by destroying it. If the Mayor or Ms. Wiedrick were willing to answer basic questions about the intent of the changes, maybe the community would be less inclined to assume they have nefarious purposes. Perhaps because there have yet to be any substantial responses from key members of the village government, the Beacon article heavily relies upon the comments of one of its residents, Ginny Maier. In her public comments about the rezoning on the village website, she says, “I don’t believe any zoning district in the village should be exclusively single-family, and I think that we should be allowing multifamily developments that can infill on larger lots everywhere in the village.” She casts her comments in the context of global climate change. More families on a single lot means less construction and that reduces our carbon footprint.Undoubtedly, there are communities where her approach makes sense. Fairport isn’t one of them. In a 48-minute video presentation, the village’s consultant, Fisher Associates, outlines how a developer could replace existing structures with a three- or four-story apartment building. Replacing existing housing stock, some of which were built in the 19th Century, would involve producing and trucking tons of concrete into the village. How does that contribute to reducing our carbon footprint?More population means more cars and more traffic. Already, it’s challenging to find a parking spot in the public lot behind the village hall or across the street in the shopping center that houses Dollar General. In public comments, some have questioned why the plan would add more pollution in a community that becomes more “walkable.” Simple: people will still get in their cars to go to Wegmans, CVS, and Eastview. And those who pick up their dry cleaning on Main Street are unlikely to walk a half mile home with it thrown over their shoulder.Our national politics have become more and more divisive over the last eight years. From time to time, I take solace as I consider our community. Our calls to public works receive an almost immediate response. Residents walk to the village center to enjoy cafes and restaurants. And free-range children abound. In many ways, life in the Village of Fairport represents the achievement of the American Dream. It’s a place where those of us who have worked hard and played by the rules can enjoy the fruits of our labor.Now, that’s in jeopardy.John CaliaThe Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. Submissions to the Letters page should be sent to Letters@RochesterBeacon.com. The post Opposing Fairport rezoning appeared first on Rochester Beacon.