Gardiner Forward

Policy proposals tracker

Proposals in front of Gardiner’s boards, rated on how strong their evidence is and how much they affect property owners.

Photo: Daniel Case · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons

Evidence Basis: 1 Precautionary to 5 Proven

Many proposals are offered as precautions. This scale asks one question: what evidence shows a real local problem, and that the remedy works?

1 · Precautionary
Hypothetical risk, no local data.
2 · Anecdotal
Complaints or isolated cases.
3 · Plausible
Outside studies, not local.
4 · Supported
Local data or peer-town results.
5 · Proven
Measured local problem plus evidence the remedy works.

Provisional means the evidence behind a score is unclear or incomplete in the records we found; the score may change as records are posted.

Property-Rights Impact: Low, Moderate, High

A separate rating of how much a proposal would burden owners, judged on three things: restrictions on use (what owners can build, rent or do on their land), added cost or permitting burden (fees, studies, inspections, review steps), and takings or regulatory-burden concerns (whether a rule removes much of a property’s value or use). It is not a judgment on whether a proposal is good; a High-impact rule can still be justified by strong evidence.

Proposals

Methodology

  1. Proposals are drawn only from public records: agendas, minutes, recordings, the 2022 Comprehensive Plan, and published reporting. Each card links its source.
  2. We score the evidence the proposal’s own record cites. If supporting data exists elsewhere, send it and we will re-score.
  3. Evidence and property-rights impact are scored separately and are not combined into a grade.
  4. We grade proposals, never people, and use neutral language.
  5. See also How We Grade for meeting report cards.