'Hello, Tony," the voice on the telephone said. "This is John Fox. I'd like to invite you to a drink or a duel. I'd prefer the drink, but if you want to duel, you can pick the weapon. Give me a call back."

My column last month in this space was a little bit rough. I argued that opponents of Article 17 at the fall Town Meeting were rejoicing a bit too much over blocking the zoning change, which didn't win the two-thirds majority it needed. I'm a glass-full type of guy normally, and it's been said by some that I write about rainbows and cotton candy. Someone who talked to me about the piece said "you took the gloves off." I suppose I did. I was a little angry that some local pundits seemed to miss the point that a strong majority was in support of the measure, which would have allowed denser development in core areas and specified how such developments should look.

The unintended, though pleasant, consequence of that piece was that one of the objects of my scorn, John Fox, was asking to break bread.

I like John Fox. He's pretty smart and mostly reasonable. Generally, I think we agree on most things when we talk privately, but there is a sense from the stances that we have taken publicly that we're way different.

Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to clear the air. Politics can be a gentleman's game. I mean this in an entirely non-gender specific way.

So we met at my favorite clear-the-air-spot, Moti. I had the Famous NY Chicken and Lamb. I recommend it. I don't remember what John had. I do recall he was pleased with his meal.

So where we agree: We like sports. John and I talked a lot about basketball, especially Harvard basketball, which at the time was ranked 23rd. We agreed that Tommy Amaker is doing a great job with that program, and there's no doubt his time at Duke helped him in building a program at an academically competitive school. We also talked UMass football's upgrade. If I recall, we're cautiously optimistic about that one.

When we got to the matter at hand, John wanted to make one thing clear: He never called anyone nefarious.

He's right. I said: "But Fox suggests, again, that we nefarious master plan and form-based zoning advocates have another trick up our sleeves to fool the unwitting and build whatever we want." He didn't use that word. I apologized for the implication.

Importantly, we agree that more development and a vibrant and robust downtown and Village centers are vital to Amherst's future. John doesn't like the idea of student housing in these locations. I told him I think we'll have to face up to it at some point and look at density in the town centers as an alternative to the current student neighborhood sprawl pattern (another column). I am bullish about the future of Amherst's downtown and village centers. John looks to Hadley and its parking lots and hopes I'm right.

What did I take out of this conversation?

John said the town planners need too earn his trust. That puts the onus more squarely on the shoulders of those who advocated for Article 17 to be clear about what it is and its implications. I can live with that challenge.

I think we've done a pretty good job explaining why Article 17 is important for Amherst. We did get 117 votes, with 79 opposed. But we can always do better. In the end, I'm not sure John and other opponents will be satisfied with our arguments, but having the chance to talk this out is much better than a duel, which is so Weehawken 1804.

A good way to overcome the lack of trust in Amherst politics is to eat and talk together. It's good for business, too.

Tony Maroulis is executive director of the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce.