I had a call from a polling organization last night; my phone number had been randomly selected, and I was the adult in the family whose birthday occurred next. One of the questions, for classification purposes, was whether I lived in a city, a suburb or a rural area. I puzzled over it a little. Stamford is certainly a city, at 120,000 population. But much of its character comes from its situation as a suburb of NYC. And where I live, the neighborhood association seeks to maintain the "rural character" of the area.
I find myself puzzled by that last part, since we live, what, 35 miles from midtown Manhattan? And surely parts of Stamford that were rural 50 years ago no longer are, and parts of Stamford that were agricultural 50 years ago are now subdivisions -- and neighborhoods which once had single family homes now have condos, townhouses or Victorians known as "taxpayers" (that is, collecting more rent that a vacant lot would, but mostly waiting for a generous offer for the land for redevelopment).
With people commuting far more than our 35 miles to the city, and far more than 35 miles (and many more minutes) from their homes upstate to blue- and white- collar jobs in Stamford, policies which seek to preclude the ongoing redevelopment of our "rural" neighborhoods seems the height of "I'm here captain! Pull up the ladder!"
We may hate change, but how many of us live in homes that weren't here 50 years ago? Do we consider the present so perfect that we will tie the hands of the future to keep it the way it is now?
Comments