The principles governing the management of affordable housing were the subject of a spirited debate in Chilmark last week.

On the table were deed riders for two affordable homesites in town and draft changes to guidelines submitted by the affordable housing committee.

At issue were two questions: Should Chilmark affordable housing lots stay in the family regardless of income, or stay affordable forever? And should developers who contribute affordable lots be allowed to decide who the lots go to?

There was an additional quandary over whether town leaders should make these decisions themselves or take them to town meeting for a vote.

Selectmen were divided on all questions.

As standard practice since soon after the introduction of youth lots in 1976, the Chilmark planning board has leaned on developers to make one in every five lots sold available as an affordable lot.

Guideline changes presented by affordable housing committee chairman Andrew Goldman last week would take away the right of the developer to designate an owner for affordable lots. The argument goes that if the planning board has effectively extracted an affordable lot from a developer, the fate of the asset should be decided by the public.

In the view of selectman and board chairman J.B. Riggs Parker, the amendment would make a bad practice even less fair.

“It’s been the practice of the planning board to discuss with developers whether they’ll give up youth lots on the understanding that it was part of the deal, you can put whatever name you want on it . . . now I don’t think it’s right that the housing committee comes along in their infinite wisdom and says we don’t want this person to designate the lot . . . I think that’s double jeopardy,” he said.

But selectman Warren Doty defended the practice, pointing out that many of the youth lots created in Chilmark were obtained in such deals. Mr. Parker said the lots were improperly obtained. Mr. Doty disagreed. “It wasn’t improper. I could name you five things we do in this town today that aren’t legal but they’re good for the town.”

Sheila Muldaur, who joined the affordable housing committee this year, spoke against the proposed amendment. If the goals are to get to a deal that involves creating affordable housing lots, the less red tape and restrictions the better, she argued.

“Flexibility is the name of the game when it comes to this and this isn’t flexible,” she said.

Mr. Goldman also revealed ambivalence over the change.

“We don’t want to take away something from the developer unnecessarily,” he said.

So it fell to Mr. Doty to voice the supporting argument for the draft.

“This is to prevent a developer who stands to make $2 million on a land deal from picking someone just because they mow their lawn,” he said.

But Mr. Parker balked at the prospect of a separate set of rules for the developer.

“I’d like to register my complete disagreement . . . Why should the seller be treated differently in some way? I’m not sure why the profit motive has become a cause for punitive action.”

In the end selectmen urged Mr. Goldman to return with something that had the unanimous support of the housing committee.

Consensus was also lacking over the question of whether an affordable lot stays in the family or goes back into the affordable housing pool.

The selectmen held a protracted debate on the subject last year in the case of the recipients of Chilmark’s first home site lottery at the High Meadows development.

The lot went to Dardanella and Sean Slavin, who were also on hand for last week’s discussion.

Both Mr. Fenner and Mr. Doty came down on the side of promoting families in Chilmark, and eventually they voted 2-1 — with Mr. Parker dissenting — to allow a deed rider which gives the Slavins hereditary rights regardless of income.

Last week the board discussed deed riders for two new affordable lots, both with similar provisions.

In the end Mr. Parker said the voters should have a voice in the matter.

“Let the town speak,” he said. “We need to do some work on the bylaws to make that possible.”