To the editor:

Labels can be very misleading. In the 1970s, a Lawrence city commissioner, perhaps jokingly, apportioned Lawrence into two opposing garrisons: the “environmentalists,” who were defined as “anti-growth,” and everyone else (including developers) who were defined as “pro-growth.” Unfortunately, the labels persisted. Ordinary citizens who wanted a livable, efficient and economically viable community were not included in either of these camps unless they raised a voice for good urban planning, and then they were labeled “anti-growth and anti-business.”

It has been my experience that most people who think about it at all, including developers, do not object to urban planning and reasonable land use regulation, recognizing that a livable, well-ordered city actually attracts business and residential growth. Wide-spread support for urban planning was borne out by the recent Journal-World series, “Lawrence is Growing.”

Can it be that the disagreements leading to the current accusations of “anti-business” and “anti-growth” are the result of development proposals that don’t conform to existing community plans and regulations? Proposals that may support the right ideas but in the wrong place, for example? Or required streets and utilities not meeting a developer’s timetable or budget? Wouldn’t it be more helpful to be specific about the problems rather than blaming the public in general?

Please be aware that not all citizens, not even individuals among advocacy groups, may agree on any one issue. Labeling those who support good urban planning in Lawrence as anti-growth or anti-business is grossly misleading and creates contention where it does not exist.

Betty Lichtwardt,

Lawrence