It’s hardly surprising that the Norwich Planning Commission has, in the face of stiff opposition, shelved a proposal to promote affordable housing by creating a high-density zoning district along Route 5 South and River Road. Even in — perhaps especially in — affluent liberal strongholds such as Norwich, affordable housing is always popular until there is an actual threat that some might get built.

In this case, advocates of the zoning change contended, among other things, that building affordable housing would promote economic diversity in Vermont’s wealthiest community, where median family income is $136,500 and the median value of owner-occupied homes is $423,500. Besides that, they pointed out that affordable housing might well help repopulate the Marion Cross School, where K-6 enrollment has declined over 20 years from 478 to 302. That in turn could drive down per-pupil spending and therefore the school tax rate. Opponents rounded up all the usual suspect arguments: that higher density development would ruin the rural character of the town and overburden town services, while driving up taxes; and that while affordable housing was desirable, the proposed zoning district was the wrong place for it.

For now, the Planning Commission is choosing to focus on updating the town plan, which lapsed last year and now needs immediate attention. What is in many communities an exercise in tedium promises to be much livelier in Norwich, especially given the backdrop of the affordable housing/zoning debate. Town plans are intended to articulate the community’s vision for land use and reaching consensus in this case would require reconciliation of some diametrically opposed views.

At a forum on the zoning amendment attended by about 70 residents back in February, Irv Thomae, a resident of Norwich since 1975, said, “If we are losing people in the middle-income range because they can no longer afford the taxes in this town, this is diminishing all of us. I don’t want to live in a museum where all I can see is beautiful houses.” While we agreed with Thomae’s sentiments, the bit about the museum seemed a little hyperbolic.

Until last week, that is, when staff writer Rob Wolfe reported the emailed comments of Ernie Ciccotelli, a critic of the zoning proposal who suggested that the new town plan should regard growth as “inherently incompatible with sustainability.” In fact, he wrote, “Growth should not be assumed to be inevitable, and should be dealt with much more carefully than it is at the present time by the Town of Norwich, not only the boards and commissions, but also by the town’s people.”

This is remarkable in a couple of respects. We suspect that the idea of freezing in place the status quo is one that has surprisingly broad public appeal beneath the surface (and not only in Norwich), but is rarely articulated for fear of being branded reactionary. The practical effect in this case would be to make the town into the equivalent of a wealthy gated community. Enshrining such a view in an official town plan strikes us as a sharp departure from the norm, if not unique.

The second, and perhaps more interesting, aspect is the idea that growth is not something that happens organically but is rather a choice a community can make or refuse. Many, if not most, people subscribe to the notion that change is in fact inevitable and that when something is not growing, it is withering away. This view was expressed late last year in an interview with Wolfe by Anne Duncan Cooley, executive director of the Upper Valley Housing Coalition: “Change is coming, whether or not we do anything to shape it. … The status quo, although it’s what we’re used to, isn’t necessarily the best for the future.”

As is often the case in Norwich, this working out of the community will in a very public setting has implications for the entire Upper Valley.

Correction

Irv Thomae has lived in Norwich since 1975. A Feb. 3, 2017, story in the Valley News and an earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated how long he has lived in town.