To the editor:
I have recently been interested in The Daily News' stories about land development, including articles on 1) a new CVS; 2) the Federal-era carriage house tear down on 1 Little's Lane; and 3) the LHD — a committee researching the potential for a historic district in Newburyport. Essentially, the committee is working to preserve our rich social, financial and architectural history as visible in the many attractive homes and buildings of the city.
As long as I've lived here, there has been an ongoing debate about preservation vs. citizens' rights. Most recently, the two sides have gotten together — to preserve the public rights of way to the river, for example, and to develop the successful rail trail. Both of these actions preserved city land for public good with the support of the majority of citizens.
Reading about the antique Newbury home on Little's Lane being sold to a man who wants to tear it down has prompted me to take a stand on one side of the debate, the preservation side.
As I understand it, preserving the old is a way to develop the "new" in Newburyport. A preservation movement in the 1960s led to an increased population, a fortified tax structure, better schools and a stronger local economy at a time when Newburyport was to otherwise go the way of strip malls. The city has since become a destination. I believe we have another chance to take hold of our future, to create our own viability as a close and mindful community by preserving what is already good within it.
I have signed the petition to support the work of the LHD committee. Please consider doing the same. It is not a radical move or a major commitment. It is a petition that will go before the City Council months from now when our councilors get ready to vote on the subject.
Google Newburyport Blog or Save Newburyport and the petition, or a link directly to it, will pop right up.
Thanks for thinking about it. I am interested in anyone's comments, or you can comment on the blog.
Elizabeth Petty
Newburyport


