I’ve only lived in Newburyport for 2 years and I admire the great old buildings which were saved from “urban renewal” by those dedicated preservationists in the past. But…I’ve got this conflict of ideas that I could use some help sorting out.

In addition to saving the old, I believe in progress, growth, prosperity and private property rights. I’d like to see a future based on a vision of Newburyport that integrates and saves the old and builds the new.

After all, the great old buildings exist because someone was once entrepreneurial and prospered. I’d like to see BOTH great old buildings and great new buildings harmoniously integrated into the living fabric of the city. I don’t want us to be just a museum.

Here’s one idea, maybe its a bit too optimistic (probably more likely naïve) but…why can’t the entrepreneurs and RE owners decide to pledge to some sort of “code of reverence” for the old and unique built heritage of Newburyport.

They shouldn’t do this out of altruism only. That’s not the way of practical leaders of business. They should consider it in exchange for the active support of those who are historically and preservation minded. The preservationist community should actively support those who take such a pledge.

And we need to differentiate between ‘a great old building’ and ‘just an old building’. After all the Merrimack Valley is full of 3-deckers that are almost 100 years old, and most of us would say with few exceptions they can be replaced with something better.

I’m thinking of some sort of “Grand Bargain” where it becomes easier to develop property in exchange for good solid, genuine respect for our built environment, scenic vistas, etc. Maybe planning boards, zoning boards, and historical commissions can set out some ideas of what it means to exhibit “good stewardship” and if developers agree to that code of behavior, they could get a easier and less costly process to approval.

Time is money. Give these developers a clear path and a less time consuming process and in exchange, demand authentic care for the built environment.

Of course if some are opposed to all growth, any growth period, then they won’t be part of this bargain. I’m afraid I think some people who want no change or growth at all will participate in the planning process just as a delaying tactic and not really out of an open minded desire to just ‘get it right’.

Personally I think we can have both growth and preservation, both history and progress. Its not and question of either/or.

Can someone help me sort this out?

Ron Martino, Newburyport