 I'm Bill Molnar. I'm the city's community development director. I started with the city in November of 1987. So I've been there, I guess due to the math, maybe 31 plus years. I'm Derek Sieberson. I'm a senior planner with the City of Ashford Planning Department. Started on March 19, 1996 in the city recorder's office for a one-week temp job that's extended for now 24 years. So Bill, I'm interested in when you started with the city. Were you still in college? No, this was really my first position. I took up, my wife and I had moved to Oregon in 1985 to Eugene. I attended graduate school for the prestigious college, I5, Oregon State University, and she was going to the University of Oregon. And so after obtaining my master's, I applied for an entry-level planning job for the city of Ashland and interviewed with the late John Friganese and Dick Wanderscheidt that still works for Bonneville up in Portland and started in November 1987, moved down with Lisa. And we've been here ever since. What was working with John Friganese at like? Well, John just was a dynamo. He just enjoyed being around him. I remember my first day coming to work and I think he was wearing flip-flops, a very casual atmosphere, and he just brought so much energy to the department, but it was a creativity that was the most enjoyable being around John. It wasn't a whole lot of formalities. It was really the art of planning, what were the key issues in the community, what we needed to get out and tackle. He was very good in terms of making people feel comfortable in a public environment. In times, I'd have to say they're just different back then. Everyone was really excited about tackling big issues of growth and change. And individuals that were on different sides of an issue or even different sides politically, I think, saw a common comradery about being in the same room together and dealing with key issues. And it was an important time that when I got to Ashland in the late 80s, what you could see is that property values were just starting to go up. And I believe Ashland's tremendous livability was catching on from people outside the area. And we started seeing interest, especially from individuals in the Bay Area that were coming up and since Ashland had so much to offer in terms of the arts, a university, wonderful Main Street character, but still a five and a half hour drive from San Francisco or similar from Portland, I think we were just poised to be discovered. And really that started driving a lot of the actions in the community because you started seeing change occur at a different level. Construction homes were starting to get bigger. Properties that you thought were probably very difficult to build on now were being developed because individuals that had, for lack of a better term, wealth or whatever, saw Ashland as a very livable, desirable community. And you started seeing, from the local community, anxiety started to be created because you did start seeing change. Modest-style buildings that were historic, more interest in terms of removing those and replacing those with larger buildings. And then, as you'd expect, housing costs started going up. Certain individuals on maybe that had lived in Ashland for a long time on fixed incomes saw their property values going up and in turn their property taxes. And I met a number of individuals over the years just because as a city planner, you go out to locations before a development proposal comes, you talk to people in the neighborhood and often they're very gracious. They talk that change is inevitable, but they would assume that at some point they will likely be priced out or need to move on to another community because of their property values going up and in turn their taxes. You know, it reminds me of a funny story because one individual that was a good friend of John Friganese's, Jeffrey Bernard, who was a local sculptor that I believe restored the Pirazzi fountain and did some other works in Ashland at the time produced a small, he was also a musician, so he produced a video called Equity Refugees and it takes place with him, I think, with an electric guitar on an I-5 where you see the sign, Welcome to Oregon. And it's a song that's essentially he's, I guess, making fun of or but documenting the concern of individuals coming from the Bay Area, buying property, raising the prices of homes, and then causing locals to move out, difficulty for more affordable housing, and so that's coined the term Equity Refugees, they could sell their properties for a tremendous amount of money in the Bay Area. And then the video closes with him yelling out, we're not for sale. And so it's, I still have a copy of that video, but you know, again, I think it points to just some of the anxiety at the time and you see a movement of foot of more, I'd be good not to use a planning term, growth management, that the community realizes there's something special about Ashland, there's a character, a livability, but these pressures of, I think what we called sort of the, another quote we coined was that Ashland was a victim of its own success, that the community that had put so much or together to create a character. Now, to some degree, was a little under attack because there was a realization outside the city of that character and people wanted a little bit of that and how do you acknowledge that individuals have a right to purchase property, develop property, but how do we manage that in such a way that it, the elements that created the tremendous character we don't lose along the way? And what are some of the ways over time that we've been able to manage that, some projects that you've been involved with or ordinances? Wow, there's so many, so many meetings, so many ordinances. Well, you know, I'd say some of the key projects that came along, let's say, you know, first of one of the ones was the Tolman Creek Shopping Center where you have Albertsons and Rite Aid, you know, that was a pretty sleepy intersection as you came into town. I'm not sure if Tolman Creek as you go north down East Main was even paved back then, but you know, you had a proposal for a large shopping center and to many, that was sort of an example of the concern of more of a, I'm not sure what the term would be, where you're going from more of a local community with smaller grocery stores scattered through the community to now a shopping center. Shopping centers is what really people experienced from where they used to live and not in Ashland and now you have a shopping center with at least two buildings that were 40,000 square feet and at a scale that no one was used to, no one felt comfortable with, and you know, you're looking through the planning department to do something or how can we how can we allow this to happen. So I remember as we were trying to get a hold of the whole issue of bigger buildings where I think a big part of small town character and that's what's really has always been a theme throughout Ashland for years is this small town character. It often has to do with the great scenic qualities around the community, the ability to engage people pretty informally, but just a sort of scale of development in terms of buildings and so the shopping center was much larger than anyone that we had dealt with and I still remember myself and John Frignessi going to some of the smaller grocery stores like I think it was raised century and buy right and talking to some of the owners talking about you know what was going on in the grocery store business that we needed all this new space and I think it was that safe way that the manager was saying well it's not that there's a lot of new products it's just that when we used to have I think Coca Cola and RC Cola now we have Diet Coke Cherry Coke there's just a lot more variety which was creating a need for a tremendous more amount of shelf space and so the grocery store that was originally 8,000 and then you went to raise century that was like 18,000 now Albertsons and some of the bigger stores required 40,000. So what it led to is a movement of foot that what you'd hear of we need a big box ordinance we need to we were also at the time there was interest in the inciting a factory outlet store on the east side of town and so there was concern that we needed some additional codes or standards to keep those buildings at bay and you know we set up you know Albertson I mean the shopping center was ultimately approved a signal was put in which is another I think element of the town changing and becoming not a small town but a small city each time you put in a traffic signal because people aren't used to used to you know a stop sign or maybe a four you know four stop signs but when you put another signal you know that's a change in the landscape that people are just not used to but we put together a committee to address building sizes it was called just a large-scale building committee it had a lot of people in the community involved and ultimately after out of that committee Ashland I think was the first city in the state to create a maximum building size and it was we created a maximum building size of 45,000 square feet you know I'd like to say I could remember exactly how we stumbled upon 45,000 I think at the time we had just approved Albertsons and Rite Aid at like 42,000 and every one said you know that's that's well big enough so let's and that's and that's where it started so that was one of the you know first I guess major challenges or controversies that we dealt with and I could go on with a number of others. How about parking? Ashland in our downtown hasn't required parking for 20 or 30 years for new development now it's coming around nationally that the Institute for Transportation Engineers is recommending that cities abandon minimum parking requirements and leave it to the market we were a little ahead of that curve in the downtown I'm just curious how that came about and and how you've seen parking impact things over the years? Well you know oddly enough when I got here believe it or not that was already in place that the the city's downtown already had a standard that we would not require parking on private property and you know there's probably not a standard out there that has done more to really create the character you see in the downtown today I think there was acknowledgement that historic downtowns you have a level of character that's created by creating building after building after building without large interruptions in your streetscape for parking areas and that parking in well-designed downtowns is provided through on street or carefully locating those in public parking areas and and what I think it also recognized is that the downtown area because it's one of the city's four districts on the national register you know you realize that most of those parcels had been created a long time ago and if you required parking to be provided in conjunction with development it would be very difficult to do so and so it allowed redevelopment of the downtown not only redevelopment but redevelopment in a character that was did not mimic you know main street but really was a you know reflected you know new materials new design but was very careful to fit in well with the existing historic pattern along along main street and you know I think it worked it worked so well that as the town downtown redeveloped you also had an interest more pressure on the railroad district because you had this charming near neighborhood immediately adjacent to the downtown where initially when I got here that there was interest in property owners converting their residential properties to bed and breakfasts or do a small office and that was one of another many controversies where the idea was to recognize that those those buildings those residential buildings are in walking distance to the downtown some people are going to enjoy the experience of a bed and breakfast or someone doing a small office in the railroad district close to the downtown but at some point when does a residential street become now you're sort of tilting it's sort of like a seesaw you're trying to create a balance between its first and foremost a residential neighborhood when does it start tipping where at the end of the day more of the buildings are vacant because their businesses the lights go out and when do you start tilting from a residential neighborhood to a semi you know commercial business areas and so property owners in that area that have lived there a long time and really live there because of the quality of the neighborhood started saying hey you know time out when's enough enough we need to get some control because we're worried that at some point people living in homes along some of the streets are going to be in the minority you know that the larger percentage of the properties are going to be converted to bed and breakfasts or offices and so we started really taking a look at that and trying to structure codes that residential character and the elements that create a neighborhood in terms of long-term residences living there you know 24 hours a day is the priority and that the other uses are sort of the visitors and that's a it's a difficult you know issue to tackle because some property owners really don't want the they want to maintain maximum flexibility of their use and and others are really wanting to keep it as a as a neighborhood and you lived in the railroad district when you first moved here I think what other changes have you seen in the district in in the time you've been here uh yeah I did I did we moved here and I we moved into a house at 133 4th street that was our first house and it was just a small 800 square foot home with two two bedrooms and you know that's I remember walking to work my first day and just thought okay I think I this is heaven there can't be a better you know to get up in the morning and you have a five-minute walk down 4th street to to lithia way or c street at the time and then the main street to city hall uh you know obviously a big you know I don't know if it's just the railroad district but also just our historic districts in general when I moved to the railroad district you know 4th street was really a sleepy area you did not have that commercial area that now is just so viable with you know peerless and the the other coffee shops and and retail sales that are along there and then the redevelopment of a street was tremendous as well again I think you had pressure it was such a valuable area because of its proximity and walking distance to the downtown that there became more and more pressure to maximize development potential if if a property could have a home or multiple homes that covered 75% of the site but currently only covered 35 we generally we'd get proposals that covered 75% of the site we had um like I said interest in terms of removing structures and um the removal of structures that led to and I'm not sure if Ashland referred to it because sometimes I get it mixed up with my wife that grew up in Palo Alto that had something similar occur occurring the mansionization of neighborhoods where homes would be removed and something twice or three times the size would come in and that led to the planning department working with neighbors and others to create a maximum building size we created a formula and so as you redeveloped property the buildings could only be a certain size to to essentially maintain the character of the area I I think it's it's hard when you have a a town like Ashland it's hard to look at issues our neighborhoods and in isolation I think it's the compilation of those elements that create create the charm and so uh while we are focused let's say on a historic district or railroad district in tor in in terms of trying to deal with an issue I think it was also a recognition that um there's elements of a town that create the livability and our historic districts and the railroad districts were part of that and created sort of an attachment to the past and a biography of the past that really was um is when you talk about Ashland it's one of the things that come up you know I've been in a lot of public involvement um processes over the last 31 years and you would think that um that the issues are constantly changing are new but you tend to see a thread in in Ashland culture and it tends to be a tremendous respect for the scenic qualities the backdrop in in the community a close attachment to the environment in terms of um the natural environment and also being respectful in terms of managing you know whether it's our energy water air but also a recognition of um the history and that um what an asset it is to have our historic buildings and they they reflect a scale and character that really defines us as a as a community and and I you know going back to the discussion about um you know the whole big box ordinance and in Albertson's I think I think that was a concern is that um us when people talk about we love our our small community or it's there's a community charm some people look at it that well I like the idea I know my neighbors but others look at it it's just sort of a physical scale uh and that um almost like there is a a mindset that you have a good idea of just the general geography where the parameters and boundaries are the town you could really um you know it was wonderful I are at least in our son Dylan is 25 but I remember growing up or him growing up in town and he went to Lincoln school and um you know before he drove a car you could him and his buddies could walk from one side of the town to the other and and that would have a wonderful thing that is in terms of to really traverse your entire town probably on a summer day and you know go back out to the east part of town and then wind up in the downtown by the end of the day and it's not that big of a track so you know people um really you know define Ashland in terms of uh uh uh uh what planners define as a human a human scale that they can relate with and and as the changes became at a at a magnitude that it made people uncomfortable often there was pressure on the community development department the council and the planning commission to look at how can we manage growth and direct it in a way that um still allowed for change but without eroding the essential elements that define the community I think you were a big part in regional problem solving making that commitment after a 12-year regional process to try to accommodate a doubling of Ashland's population in our existing boundaries so we've committed over the next 60 years not to expand our urban growth boundary any further we're the only city in the valley that's done that I'm just curious what you think that might lead to in terms of things I know we've done the transit triangle um pedestrian places ordinance trying to get some more development along arterials where the transit routes are but I'm just curious if you've um envisioned anything else coming with with the growth that we're expecting well you know Ashland um I think one of the key challenges is that you you you have a group of citizens citizenry that's so passionate about the community and it's always been as I said I think maybe my comments the size of the community is always sort of a reoccurring theme because when people talk about small town I think they immediately are concerned about growth and continuing to grow out and often people like myself transplants from California grew up in communities just just kept moving out out and so Ashland has had a long time policy of maintaining more of a you know we would refer to it as a compact city form and so starting in the 90s there was a it started with a concern over annexing more property annexations proposals to bring more property into the city limits were always very controversial and um because I think a lot of people saw it that's the first step to sort of losing the the qualities that we held dearest is that when you start moving away from this not only the city center but these other centers that we had and so as part of the regional problem solving and the and the regional planning process it was very understandable that Ashland or it should have been no surprise that the the city of Ashland would not hop on the same bandwagon as a lot of other communities and look at the process and opportunity to show where we want to grow in the future but how can we accommodate future population growth dealing with the local economy and housing within our current boundaries and and so we took a position as a community that you know we're going to hold firm on our boundaries and we're going to try to figure out a way to accommodate necessary housing and spur local economic development within the current city limits and our current urban growth boundary was seen as a responsible move in the way that you know you're you're using existing city infrastructure you know your streets sewer water electric which are very expensive to maintain so it's I think people don't realize when you take a position to try to infill and redevelopment and it's it's a very responsible uh direction environmentally as well because these are expensive systems to maintain and each time you start extending them out it becomes more of a burden on the community so uh all in all after that regional problem solving we we took a position to keep our boundaries uh tight but what we needed to do is look at ways to accommodate housing and the only way you can is looking at different styles that are generally more dense they tend to go vertical rather than outward and again those type of examples that we started putting forth to the community as a way of accommodating growth uh again led to anxiety because you're you're you're asking neighborhoods or the community to consider types of development styles that uh we're just not we're just uncharacteristic of ashland but you're sort of in a quandary you don't you don't want to grow out but you can't accommodate the requirements that the state of Oregon puts on communities to accommodate new housing with just allowing um uh the types of housing and development that had occurred over the last hundred years it just wasn't at a density or coverage that would meet our needs and so uh what I think you try to do again is is is and John Frigginessi was was great at as well as John McLaughlin that I served under is that you really focus on what people people like so if you're going to build higher density development you focus on things in terms of well what are the key aspects of the site that we want to make sure we preserve if there's if there's a mature stately trees let's make sure we incorporate those can we create design features that make pedestrians and people in the area comfortable find areas that they can you know sit down gather look at changes in design that even though the buildings could be taller that there's a lot going on in the design of the building to make to make them make that those styles fit into the into the neighborhoods but I think you know while we talk at a neighborhood scale often uh you know one of the the the larger controversies in town is that um I think I spoke to that when I got here there was a lot of locations in the hillsides around town that um I as property values started to increase you know people would say well those aren't ever going to we could always those aren't while those are owned privately they're never going to develop because it's just too costly to build and with time obviously with engineering they weren't as costly as you thought we started seeing more development or more interest in terms of building roadways and driveways into the hillsides and and you started seeing the backdrop above the downtown starting to be sort of sprinkled with homes and I don't I know everyone um has their own probably opinion on home design but there's there's homes that can be designed well in a hillside there's homes that can be designed poorly and that tend to stick out more and more and there there were a few that were quite prominent and and I think there's always key issues in town that sort of then lead to sort of a precipitous um uh dialogue among community members you know did you see that you know what's being done about that and and and that was the case of some of the the hillside um homes that we saw is that uh the community and the council started hearing more what kind of controls do we have place are we going to let this happen and so that sent us on a very uh long process of Ashland again being the first community in the state of Oregon to design um to write hillside development standards and we used a lot of the examples in California because San Rafael and those areas and the Marin had been dealing with it and so we were able to look at some of their standards go through a process and um place um you know uh limitations on on construction in the hillside primarily in terms of how much of the hillside you can cut away how can you make the home be more part of the hillside rather than stand out you know the idea was we need to allow for the homes because it's private property but there are ways that they can be uh integrated into the natural backdrop uh and be part of the the landscape rather than being um uh you know something that that stands out it was very controversial the um I know the state the home builders and the state real estate association appealed the ordinance to the state land use board of appeals we ultimately were able to prevail I don't think there was I think there was a broader concern among some of those state organizations that Ashland was the first to do this our other city's gonna follow suit you know and we're concerned that other cities would start having stronger regulations for hillsides and things like that but uh again I was I think the community uh never shied away from being the first to do something I think that was probably our our biggest challenge as a community development department is that you have so many individuals that have great ideas are very progressive uh are very very bright and are always um giving the planning department as long of a rope as they want to go out and experiment with issues but in the same part we're just trying to also keep other things at bay and just manage the day-to-day activities but you know it's it's tremendous to be a city planner in a town like Ashland because generally um uh I know city planners throughout the state often their their citizens are often saying well why do we ever want to look at that you know if it ain't broke we don't need to fix it you know why you guys you know just sort of just let's just process your permits where this community is always like looking at well why do we need to do the minimum in terms of how we protect streams or wetlands why can't we do more and so it's tremendous to have a you almost feel like you're never living up to the community expectations to some degree as a public servant it's like because the public interest is continuing to expand and uh but you know it's definitely never a dull moment and we've been involved recently in a number of master plans chromin um the normal neighborhood and sometimes you'll hear from from citizens and decision makers that that plan's been adopted and nothing's happened and that that's somehow a failure I'm just curious with a little longer-term perspective what you think about those master plans and how they are implemented more over time yeah um you know master plans um we've had a lot of involvement with those and I believe they've been really successful and well and the intentions were well the difficulty with master planning is that I think in general a lot of people have a hard time to understand what what planning is and what planners are doing I think with master planning is that we're trying to create we see an area that has a lot of potentially development potential and a lot of opportunity for change and the idea is you sort of want to be out in front of it rather than having to react to it because generally when you are reacting to it the adjacent neighborhood or is it frustrated is that why didn't you do this earlier what we're now we're having to deal with development why can't we be ahead of the curve and since we know what's important to us as a community put those in place and so when change occurs there's sort of a roadmap to direct it and so that was the idea with our master plans is that again one thing that was great about ashen we have a lot of great neighborhoods already that were developed over the last couple hundred years and we were able to take a lot of those elements whether it was you know traditional gridded street patterns or even alley systems or walkways or you know key open spaces that were integrated into existing neighborhoods and go into areas and say and work with the neighbors and say let's sort of put some of these on a plan and so as we have interest in developing the area the city can say well this is this is the community's idea of how it should take shape and and and more often than not people that are developing property actually want that I mean when I have a discussion with someone who wants to develop property they often say well you know what does the community want and I know that sounds strange because I think we like to think that these are just all greedy developers but they have an interest in certainty and they are generally concerned with being in contentious land use battles and they would like nothing more to be able to come into an area and do something that is consistent with community goals and that obviously they still have an interest in turning a profit because that's what they do they build houses or they build commercial buildings and so the master planning was a way to essentially define what's important to the community put it down display it graphically and it's I look at it as a roadmap to as development occurs and just this is what we're looking at and but it provides flexibility too I think where the confusion comes is that the planning department the city by and large are just providing guidance we don't determine when someone chooses to build or not to build that's uh you know that's at the you know that's what a private property owner decides to do so you had mentioned the chrome and mill plan we put that in place because after the mill was abandoned in 1996 we knew that was our one really large area of commercial or employment property and we just wanted to be prepared so as we got interest in the area that we could make it clear in terms of what were the city's objectives in terms of street design protection of the wetlands in the area connections to other neighborhoods and have that on on paper but when it when it develops is really up to the private property owner and I think a lot of people have pointed you know fingers at the department saying well we adopted a plan and we've seen nothing and that's true I mean it and we've seen it incremental over time it ultimately would occur but I think that the the city and the community having a plan is in in place really sets the objectives creates protections up front and provides the city with a great negotiating ability that as development occurs and changes to the plan that might have been fine 10 years ago that are not well suited today we have an opportunity to be able to the neighbors the planning department and the developers negotiate reasonable solutions and you've seen that I think with the north mountain neighborhood plan too where that plan was adopted in the late 90s and really kind of came into its own just fairly recently after the last recession where developers were able to buy up some of those properties more cheaply and the market was way right to develop according to that plan and you're now starting to see the neighborhood commercial core build out along Fair Oaks you know I I I think the north mountain neighborhood plan in my mind and if you look at what Ashland was trying to achieve is a success and I go back to when we talked about Ashland's part participation in the regional plan we took a position we're not going to grow out so we need to efficiently develop land within the city limits and the north mountain plan was a recognition of that I'm not going to say that there's probably many people out there maybe thousands of individuals that would have loved just to see it an empty field today but that really that wasn't that wasn't a possibility the idea is that we recognize it was going to develop it was going to develop at a relatively high density of housing but we also recognized the qualities of the area in terms of the Bear Creek floodplain an opportunity to create some neighborhood commercial when enough housing got built to create conveniences for those in the neighborhood so I think it's a success I mean that that sort of marks an interesting period of time and Ashland is that you know as I said when I got here in the late 80s and then it just seemed I envisioned it so I got here in the 80s and you we all like stepped on to this escalator that was moving at like 100 miles an hour and that it just like you know every day it was something and it was very it was very exciting and there was always something new whether it was hillside or buildings getting demolished or someone building a shopping center or or public hearings that used to run until 2 30 a.m. in the morning until Mayor Gordon Madaris said time out no one can is productive after 10 p.m. and so that led to the city council passing an ordinance that you know the planning commission can't go past 10 p.m. because the hearing went till after 2 a.m. and then you went out after yeah and then yeah and then we're pretty useless the next day but but I'm not sure where I was with this I started going to see too many meetings and but no what I think where I was going is that you get on this I get this the Spass moving escalator that all of a sudden the recession hits and it's like no one I think I don't think everyone ever imagines something because you know property values you know are just going up by double digits every year and you're in that pressure that it puts on the community is spawning a lot of our work in terms of how to protect this wonderful character while having pressure that everyone from the outside is going god have you been to Ashland you got to go to Ashland you got to get a house in ash it's lovely play I mean it's and so but then there's a housing crash and it's the first time you're laying off employees the construction industries in in turmoil and it's just a way it's sort of like a wake-up call to everyone that wow you know big things can happen and one of the and I don't want to say when I feel sort of bad saying one of the benefits of the crash because I know there was a lot of hardship for a lot of people but it allowed I think often I think someone once told me in periods hard periods often it allows you to become better than you were before and it was an opportunity I know I want to say for the city as a whole as an organization but I know for the community development department to really take a look at ourselves because we needed there was still the pressure from the community now to focus on bigger broader long-range projects but we did not have the staff that we did because of cutbacks and it provided us an opportunity to reevaluate how we did things and I think in the end just came out much better because you can I think sometimes you can rest on your laurels that you just get in a way of doing things the same way and it's not that it was a bad way but when in time in hard times you really look at ways to be just as effective or more effective but with not the resources that you had so I think I learned a lot you know again I mean I should say I mean the biggest asset that the department is you know the people that work there I mean it's a tremendous group of individuals that um really are interested in terms of listening and trying to make the community I think better all the time in a sense planners are facilitators of public dialogue I mean while we while planners you know we're trained and we go to conferences and we learn the latest and greatest someone once told me you know that really planning is a reflection of the culture of the community it's really how Ashland approaches change and growth and development is going to be much different than another community and we we as essentially public employees and planners have to be very respectful of that we can't get ahead of that because often you can push too hard and if we don't have the support of the citizens we really can't do anything I mean the accomplishments and I'm not saying they're my accomplishments the accomplishments of the department over the 30 years really um are reflect the community I mean I talked to planners all over the state and they are envious of the items that we've been able to do and pursue in Ashland and they always say well you how do you how do you do that doesn't don't you get pushed back from your council or your commission or citizen I said no they're the ones that are are driving and I'd like to push back I'd like to sort of stop you know slow them down but so you know again again it's sort of a balance because we want their support and often I guess you could go to some meetings and going well seeing some of the contentious dialogue and go well they don't really look like they're supporting you this evening but I think that's just part of the process when people get frustrated and they're upset it's really just a demonstrate a demonstration of their of their passion for the community and I think the the basic community element are the neighborhoods and individuals in those neighborhoods whether it's a commercial area like the downtown or the railroad district or Oak Knoll I have never not witnessed that those individuals feel an attachment to those areas and their neighbors and generally just want what's best and you know so it's so exciting to work with a group like that so what do you see coming down the pipe in the future the next couple years of you know I would say that I because we've been dealing with it a lot I I almost want to say you know you know housing housing housing and diversity and that's where I see the biggest challenge to Ashland and I probably already used the term you know certain certain like unintended consequences of our success or victims of our own success is when you again when you create the livability that we've created in Ashland and I see as a community that we've created I think I think everyone wants a piece of it and then compounded with the fact that we want to stay an intimate community is that there's only so much of us we're finite and so the value I just see the value is going to keep increasing and as I think value keeps increasing there's a move towards I think homogeneity in terms of the makeup of households because it's harder for families to be be here it's harder to afford to live here and I think that's just a really a foundation of Ashland I've seen is the diversity of the households and the diversity of the people and I think you know my background as a geographer as a planner you know I'm my graduate degrees in physical geography so I some degree I have an environmental background and when I study the environment we always talked about systems that diversity brings strength in any types of biological system and is when you start becoming sort of sort of mono culture to some degree there's problems and we're not there I think we have a tremendous amount of diversity in the community but we can't I think we can't lose sight of them we always have to keep that front and center I don't think issues such as diversity of housing equity that when we when we look at new challenges our new planning efforts we need to be careful in terms of is there a displacement factor are we creating it is this project making it easier for people to live here be easier for us to main maintain our ability to be a diverse if and it's not then I think we need to really question it because I think we're we're it's something that we're we're it's just going to be a part of our way of life that we're going to have to be careful if we want to really maintain what I think most of us really enjoy about the community is to be provide opportunities for a wide range of individuals to have businesses and and to live any final thoughts I don't know I don't probably don't have any final thoughts at this point I mean I'm sure it could come up with one at at some point