“More” does not equal “taller” or “bigger.”

We make this rather obvious distinction to note that Saturday’s reportage on proposed density bonuses in Winslow contained inaccuracies, and the record should be set straight here.

At issue is a proposed amendment to the city zoning code that would allow a density bonus of up to 50 percent – i.e., three homes in the usual space of two – in certain multi-family projects, if the developer sets aside up to 25 percent of the total lot area as parkland or other public ground. The open space must be exterior to the project, next to a corner or a roadway – think Winlsow Green – so that it’s perceptibly meant for use by the public, not just project residents.

The net effect is more homes, but not bigger or taller ones as the Review previously reported; height limits would not be affected by the code change, and we regret the error on this key point.

Those in the political sphere for whom As Few Homes As Possible trumps all other considerations may nonetheless find this an unacceptable trade-off. But the Planning Commission has endorsed the change, and the City Council should give it a fair hearing.

Among the proponents is Kelly Samson, who plans to develop about three acres of land at the southeast corner of Wyatt Way and Grow Avenue. The project envisions mews-like homes bunched on small lots, with little ground wasted on yards, driveways and parking areas; vehicle parking would be under the homes, with the extra residential units paying for a park at the corner facing the intersection. For what it’s

worth, Samson estimates the value of that park to be about

$2 million.

Inevitably, some will ask why “open space” isn’t simply required as a matter of course in this sort of development. The answer has to do with the now-famous Camas decision, on which this newspaper reported extensively back in 2002 and 2003. The state Supreme Court found blanket open space requirements on new subdivisions to be an illegal tax, causing this city and others to revise their codes. Since then, it’s been rather more difficult to extract land set aside as mitigation for new construction.

The city could of course purchase outright new “pocket parks” around town, but that is an expensive proposition. Too, the code change in question is not specific to Samson’s project; his plans are merely a useful illustration of what might result. But make no mistake: something very home-intensive will be built at the southeast corner of Wyatt Way and Grow Avenue and on other underutilized lots around downtown, even under current zoning. That is the vision of Winslow Tomorrow, and indeed, our vaunted Comprehensive Plan itself, as we focus growth in our downtown core. The only question is what those projects will look like, and whether public amenities will be included in the plans.

Of the proposed code change, one councilman last week lamented, “The public gets something, but the developer gets more.” Well, consider the outcome of a project built without such incentives: The developer gets everything, and the public gets nothing.

Is that really better?