On May 12, Hanover residents narrowly voted against adding a neon NO VACANCY qualifier underneath our welcome sign. That might not be a factually accurate description of Article 7, but it certainly is a functionally accurate one.
Despite my conviction voting down Article 7 was the correct choice for the future of our community, I see no victory in the highly contested result. Only a warning about a long-forming fracture in the bedrock of our town. I hope by drawing attention to that fissure now, we might repair it together before our community collapses under the weight of the housing crisis .
What exactly was Article 7? I suspect the vast majority of voters would, understandably, stumble to explain the opaque but highly restrictive zoning changes the petition proposed for housing development. I’m sure an even larger percentage of non-voters were unaware that an existential question about the future of our town was asked in indecipherable language at the bottom of an otherwise unremarkable ballot.
It was an election in which every official ran unopposed. That lack of competition meant the candidates were never asked to take a position on the controversial article.
I’m grateful selectboard members Jennie Chamberlain and Jarett Burke made strong public arguments for voting no, but I wish we knew where the rest of our leaders stood.
I wish there had been a healthy public debate about the central question of whether our town serves the convenience of the privileged or the needs of the many.
These daydreams are an admission of my own guilt. I committed the cardinal sin of every comfortable liberal and didn’t speak up. You all deserved to hear from me the moment I understood how thoroughly Article 7 violated every principle of every lawn sign proudly displayed along our streets.
I should have asked everyone on that ballot and everyone on the selectboard to make a statement, and I apologize for not doing so.
Instead, I watched with quiet and growing dread as the campaign in support of Article 7 gained momentum. There were emails and meetings and uncritical news articles. Nowhere along the way were supporters forced to answer for the fact that their campaign was built on the impossible premise that we could both freeze development in town and still address the catastrophic consequences of the housing crisis, all without sacrificing our comfort.
I do not blame exhausted parents who couldn’t attend the tedious late-night meetings where the article was presented. I do not blame those scraping and clawing to find a home in our community for not showing up to a presentation about how we should shut the door in their faces. I blame myself for knowing better but not doing better.
But as I drove into town one morning, escorted by yard signs exclusively in favor of Article 7, I couldn’t ignore the deep shame I felt seeing one of them planted next to another familiar message – DRIVE LIKE YOUR KIDS LIVE HERE.
Hanover, where we demand you think about our children while we vote to make sure we never have to think about yours.
I’m grateful to the hypocrisy of those signs for reminding me of my own. In an 11th hour frenzy I wrote an op-ed in The Dartmouth outlining my position, shared additional arguments on public facebook pages, and implored my friends to vote no.
When Article 7 failed to pass by just 24 votes, I felt no elation. Only momentary relief. Yes, it was gratifying to know students and parents, young and old, friends and strangers, all banded together to overcome a much more organized campaign. But we cannot afford to retreat to quiet complacency. Crisis demands action, not reaction.
So what comes next?
First, above all else, we need to act on our civic values instead of our aesthetic preferences. Because of my failures, Article 7 was presented to the public as a decision about keeping certain buildings out of our town. In fact, it was always a decision about keeping certain people out of our community. Specifically, anyone who isn’t already a homeowner or already wealthy.
Of course, no Article 7 supporter would say that. Not out loud, at least. And I suspect most never thought about it that way. We allowed the discussion to be about maps and diagrams instead of people and principles. I spent too much time debating Article 7 supporters by appealing to the objective housing, tax, and development data which refuted their specious arguments.
Instead, I should have confronted the comforting lies of Article 7 with the deeply uncomfortable truth that it would have made class-segregation an official town policy. But I didn’t.
I will not make that mistake again.
Not only did I fail all those struggling to call Hanover home, but I failed Article 7 supporters as well. I don’t see adversaries on the other side of this issue, I see neighbors. People who I know are compassionate, generous, and well-intentioned. People who, like me, want the best for our future.
If asked directly, I believe almost every Article 7 supporter would agree our community should have homes for all those who serve our town, our schools, and our businesses. we are fortunate to have municipal employees and volunteer neighbors working diligently to make that possible. But when we are decades behind, there is no easy or comfortable way forward.
Difficult decisions, compromises, and sacrifices are inevitable. The essential question is if we are willing to make them ourselves, or if we will continue to force them exclusively on the less fortunate. Will we display our values on our lawns or in our actions?
Down one path I see a quagmire of annual zoning fights. Fruitless trench warfare which guarantees civic calamity. The high taxes we pay today will seem quaint a decade from now if we continue down this road of demographic stagnation. And these zoning disagreements will be remembered as a picnic in comparison to the inter-generational dog fight that breaks out as school budgets double, enrollment falls, and residents without young children demand cuts.
Add those expenses to our much needed infrastructure improvements, and as Hanover Finance Committee leader John Dolan warns, “We think it’s imperative that Hanover residents become aware and understand the magnitude of capital expenditures coming our way.”
If we don’t grow now, we will all pay dearly later.
But the other path is costly as well. It requires us to let go of convenience, comfort, and certainty today in order to reach for a better but uncertain tomorrow. It means we accept the risks associated with any challenge. And it means we do not let fears of what change will bring deter us from the conviction change is necessary to ensure a sustainable and equitable future.
I can’t promise I know where that second path leads, but if we’re honest with ourselves, we all see the cliff the first path points us towards. A future where we are rich in houses and poor in homes. A decaying community at odds over taxes, schools and services.
We can do better. But only if we work together. I hope everyone who voted in favor of Article 7 will join that effort to make the next generation of Hanover more prosperous, for all. We won’t succeed without your help. We need your criticisms and concerns about development, but we need to use them to help push us forward, not pull us back.
Because while our town can afford a lot of things, we cannot afford to wait a moment longer to address the housing crisis with the urgency it demands.
Building a Hanover worthy of the signs on our lawns won’t be easy or comfortable, but the worthwhile things never are.