When I was on the Amherst Planning Board, I was always surprised to be approached by people who had seen me on Amherst Media. It wasn’t their civic engagement that was surprising, but the fact that they had been able to sit through what felt like enormous amounts of time discussing arcane and complex details of zoning.

But I was glad to know that we had an interested, though undoubtedly small, audience. However, I am sure that for the majority of Amherst residents, such discussions must have been truly mind-numbing. “These people are ranting about footnotes! Footnotes to some Table? Do we care?”

The simple answer is: You should care. Here’s why.

Our zoning bylaw tells us what can be built in town and where, and what types of activities can happen there. The “Dimensional Regulations Table” shows the required dimensions of lots, and the size and height of buildings and how they must be sited, for each zoning district. The footnotes to this table add further requirements and restrictions.

One of these footnotes is “Footnote m,” which has generated increasingly heated debate in the 25 years that it has been a part of the zoning bylaw. Here is a bit of its history, and why the push to remove it should concern anyone living in the R-G (General Residence) neighborhoods in Amherst.

In the early 1990s, a 16-unit apartment complex was proposed for a 1.13-acre property on High Street, which already contained a farmhouse divided into rental units. Neighbors were concerned that such density was a radical change in Crow Hill, a quiet, residential neighborhood of newer single-family homes and older Victorian houses, many of which had been subdivided into modest apartments.

It was not so much the development itself that worried residents, but rather the precedent that it would set. One intense development brings increased physical mass, as well as the inevitable activity, traffic and noise generated by its residents, but such change can eventually be absorbed and tolerated. However, more developments of this sort, which could well be encouraged by this precedent, will soon urbanize a quiet residential neighborhood to the breaking point.

To prevent such overdevelopment, Footnote m was adopted by Town Meeting in 1993. It did not prevent increased density in the R-G district, but it moderated it, requiring that for each new dwelling unit proposed, there would be 6,000 square feet of lot (reduced to 4,000 square feet in a 2005 amendment). Footnote m balanced protection of the character of R-G neighborhoods with the inevitability of change.

Now, however, we are being told that there is a housing crisis in Amherst, and that Footnote m is standing in the way of resolving said crisis. We are told that we must eliminate this footnote so that R-G neighborhoods can be opened up to the greater density needed for apartment complexes and multi-family homes. This is how we will solve our housing crisis.

This makes little sense. The type of apartment development we have seen in the last few years consists of large and architecturally undistinguished buildings focused almost exclusively on students. It is high-end, touting luxury beyond what your parents could imagine. The rate charged per bedroom is beyond what many moderate-income individuals could pay for even a modest apartment.

The abolition of Footnote m may very well solve a purported housing crisis in Amherst — a lack of apartments for students — but it will not solve the real crisis: A lack of modest, single-family homes that young families can afford, and unsubsidized rental units for moderate-income individuals.

No one is telling students not to live in Amherst. The caution that is being issued is that if we want Amherst to be a truly diverse community, with an equally diverse housing stock that does not rely on government subsidies, that this is not the route to take.

Denise Barberet lives in Amherst.