01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, April 21, 2004

No sooner does Hopkinton repel one set of invaders than it must turn its attention to another. The threat to Hopkinton from Connecticut has given way to a threat to its rural character -- a threat as much from within as from without.

A commission on the Connecticut/Rhode Island border is set to agree to leave the town line alone. It will not back North Stonington's effort to tax a few households in Hopkinton.

Hopkinton was surely united against this plot to swipe a slice of Rhode Island. It is harder to assess its unity regarding another potential invader: big-box retail. Do the hundreds who have signed petitions and attended meetings against such commercialization best reflect the sentiment in Hopkinton? Or does a "silent majority" yearn for big stores, eager to let the mega-shopping begin?

The call for a referendum by the citizens group Hopkinton First makes sense. It would reveal whether the town's rural character or its coffers are more important to its citizens.

After passing a moratorium last year on development near Route 95's Exit 1, the Town Council sought the advice of a planning consultant. Its report, which urged a more delicate style of development, was rejected as "too green" by some councilors. In February, the town's zoning-board chairman, Jeffrey Gilman, resigned. His family (along with the Tutak family) owns land near Exit 1 long zoned for big-box retail. He had opposed a "compromise" zoning proposal, urged by the Planning Board, which would cut the acres of big-box retail allowed in town, and shift the zone for such development to land owned by Joseph Rando.

Lately, as the moratorium wound down and citizen concern grew, the council gave first approval to the compromise. At the last moment, the Planning Board abandoned the compromise, resuming opposition to all big-box retail -- only to see its advice ignored by the council. It, too, abandoned the compromise -- but embraced the big boxes, retreating to a pre-moratorium status quo that could benefit the land owners along Exit 1.

For now, the Planning Board can try to pressure any developer to keep the ugly aesthetics to a minimum, but a council hungry for tax receipts probably won't help.

So let the people speak by referendum. After that, if a council majority remains deaf to their wishes, Election Day beckons.