To the editor:
Your editorial (“We’ve heard this all before”) actually supports the case of the SMP critics because not one of the SMP goals you cite says anything about protecting existing property owner rights, property values or enabling/enhancing the private usefulness of an owner’s property.
The SMP draft is like the Obamacare strategy - fill a lot of pages with a large variety of impacts and hope something sticks - after all the public rancor, implementation complexities and lawsuits. And it places all of the targeted properties in a second-class status to the rest of the island by virtue of losing their prior level of legal approval - understandably an unwelcome turn of events to owners.
Why do you avoid talking specifically about the city’s draft goals (instead of some of the state’s general goals), since the city’s draft goes far beyond the state’s mandate, which excess is not seen elsewhere in the state?