Opinion By Evan Naismith

Most municipalities fight for development dollars. This makes sense, since:

• New businesses create jobs and property taxes.
• New housing almost always lowers housing costs for existing residents.
• New residents expand the customer base for existing businesses.
• Municipalities extract community concessions —such as affordable housing “set-asides” or infrastructure upgrades — from developers.

Peer-reviewed empirical studies consistently confirm that new construction increases affordability for everyone, even in college towns. Yet, local supply skeptics claim that Amherst’s unique situation (the smallest town in the nation to host a flagship university) exempts us from traditional supply-and-demand forces. They have a point, to some extent, since you can cram a dozen Minutemen into one Victorian, but that’s not a sustainable housing policy. These critics resort to name-calling but fail to cite any research to support their conclusory statements. 

For example, in this article, the author derides town council members favoring “neoliberal” housing policies. This is short-sighted. Neoliberalism (the use of market forces for public purposes) is the sharpest tool in the progressive toolbox. Thank neoliberalism for the Earned Income Tax Exemption, the COVID vaccine, EV/solar subsidies, and Obamacare. If Amherst abandoned market-rate housing and instead devoted our entire municipal budget to building affordable housing next year, we would yield only 210 units, not nearly enough to catch up to demand.

Zoning Restrictions are Categorically Conservative

That same author–again, using zero citations or supporting arguments–falsely claimed that zoning restrictions are progressive. This is categorically incorrect; zoning restrictions are conservative: they are rooted in racism, favor the status quo, and reduce future municipal service funding. By reducing supply, they artificially inflate homeowners’ property values (the rich get richer), while simultaneously burdening renters — twice as likely to be BIPOC — with higher rents (the poor get poorer).

Rather than supporting her hypothesis with economics or case studies, the author resorts to cheap populism: “the Republicanish council majority supports a neo-liberal position of development at all costs to the year-round residents.” It’s easier, apparently, to sell a conspiracy theory than to outline a data-driven vision of municipal governance. Absurdly, the author claimed that the development of “student housing [causes a] resulting loss of low- and middle-income residents and of enrollment in our schools.” Huh? No, ma’am, addition is not subtraction.

This anti-student rhetoric — what might be called “the resident replacement theory” — is a relic of outdated economic thought and deserves no quarter in town hall. Its champions practice the most transparent form of self-interest: they demand moratoria on student housing, while insisting that the town instead subsidize “housing needed by year-round residents[,] such as senior housing.” The “balance” they seek is crystal clear — subsidized housing for me, housing moratoria for thee. The irony is hard to miss: the Baby Boom generation is already the most heavily subsidized in American history, receiving, on average, $100,000 to $200,000 more in lifetime public transfers than they paid in. And who foots the bill for those transfers? The very Millennial and Gen Z students now struggling to find stable housing in Amherst.

Don’t get me wrong: I am in favor of developing more senior housing, but I reject the false hierarchy favoring non-students over students.

Real Progressives Support Development

Unlike the “progressives” cited above, modern Democrats understand the supply-and-demand dynamics of housing. AOC warned in 2024 that “our country is facing a housing crisis, with annual supply falling dramatically behind demand.” President Obama similarly cautioned that “the accumulation of barriers – zoning, land-use regulations, and lengthy approval processes – has reduced the ability of many housing markets to respond to demand.” The National Low Income Housing Coalition favors market-based solutions, and so does Strong Towns. 

To highlight the modern scientific consensus on housing policy, I want to focus on the work of one scholar, Vicky L. Been. She clerked for liberal Supreme Court Justice Blackmun, co-authored the leading textbook Land Use Controls, and is a shortlist candidate for Mamdani’s Mayor for Housing (having served as Deputy Housing Mayor from 2019-2021). Her liberal and academic bona fides are unimpeachable. She recently completed a wide-reaching survey of the modern housing economics:

“We ultimately conclude, from both theory and empirical evidence, that adding new homes moderates price increases and therefore makes housing more affordable to low- and moderate-income families.” Prof. Been’s conclusion is the exact opposite of that reached by the Amherst critic quoted above. Been prescribed a tried-and-true plan for increasing local housing affordability:

1. “New market-rate housing is necessary but not sufficient”; 
2. Academics and policymakers must engage local supply skeptics, who question the premise that more supply increases affordability; and
3. “Government intervention is critical to ensure that supply is added at prices affordable to a range of incomes.”

Amherst is already tackling step three. The Town Council has advanced several affordable-housing projects and is considering adopting the Housing Production Plan that recommends building 700–900 new units by 2030 — a more ambitious target, proportionally, than even AOC or Mamdani’s plans. That’s why our next priority must be steps one and two: encourage more taxable, market-rate construction and engage the skeptics.

How Did Amherst Housing Get So Expensive?

Some Amherst residents make an understandable logical misstep: they saw housing prices rise alongside new construction and concluded that the latter caused the former. But that’s like blaming masks for COVID or Biden for inflation. In reality, rising prices and new construction stemmed from the same cause — surging demand, primarily caused by increased UMass enrollment. Let’s not overcomplicate this: housing prices are sky-high because we have 40,000 people living in a town built for 25,000. 

Local data confirms that demand — not development — increased local housing prices. Between 2001 and 2011, UMass added 5,000 students, and Amherst home prices jumped 57%. This price jump occurred before the recent development boom. The pre-existing surge in rents prompted developers to greenlight projects such as Boltwood Place (2012, Amherst), 116 North Flats (2020, Sunderland), and Fieldstone (2023, UMass). This data directly contradicts the bald assertions of the Amherst Indy’s editors, who claim, “new rental housing is driving up rents across the board for students and non-students alike.” To be so demonstrably incorrect on Amherst’s most crucial issue is journalistic malpractice.

The supply-demand imbalance worsened post-2011: another 5,000 students enrolled, Western Massachusetts permit approvals fell to one-fifth the national rate, and COVID-related inflation delayed existing construction. Prices remain high not because we built too much, but because we built too little. 

UMass is unlikely to cap its enrollment, and it shouldn’t. Populist NIMBYism should not hobble the educational prospects of the next generation. I say, bring ‘em on. 

Given Amherst’s permanently increased demand, we have two options to reach supply equilibrium: (1) build a lot more taxable housing for students and non-students locally; or (2) encourage development elsewhere and forsake the property tax benefits.

The Way Forward: Embrace the Property Tax “Gold Rush”

Development doesn’t just relieve housing pressure; it pays the bills. At the current property tax rate in Amherst, a developer would pay approximately 56 years of annual taxes to equal the property’s value. In other words, when we turn down a $10 million project, we deprive the next 56 years of Amherst residents of $10 million in public services.

The Fieldstone deal provided its management with a $359 million exemption from local property taxation (over the next century) because it was sited on UMass land. It’s just ten feet from the off-campus border, so we keep the traffic, and they get the cash. Sunderland, too, is paying its bills via student housing: by green-lighting 116 North Flats, it boosted its annual budget by 5% overnight. 116 North, too, sits just 700 feet from the Amherst border — Sunderland pockets $643,000 in annual taxes, Amherst gets zero, and we still absorb the traffic. 

Amherst’s services should be underwritten by green developers. The only realistic alternative is another tax override. Imagine how much more acrimonious our budgeting would be if we didn’t already have increased revenue from new development. This article details a recent “rancorous” fight over $400,000 in local spending. But that money wouldn’t even exist without the recent construction like Olympia Place, which paid $341,433 in local taxes last year.

And remember, housing students is a fiscal positive. The average family like mine (two children in Amherst’s schools) costs the town about $30,000 annually in services beyond what we pay in taxes. Conversely, each Minuteman housed in a tax-paying apartment earns the town about $1,000 annually. In other words, developers subsidize my tax bill. Student housing is cheaper to build (~$100,000/unit at Olympia Place) and more environmentally efficient.

We are in real danger of having to cut future services. Amherst’s 2026 budget warns that “robust contributions from tax-exempt organizations are essential for the health of the Town” (p. 26). We cannot rely on charity from the colleges to repave our roads, care for our seniors, or educate our children. State and federal aid are shrinking. We should push for state-level changes, but PILOT revenues are unlikely. Property taxes remain Amherst’s only significant guaranteed revenue source.

Two Paths Forward

Local skeptics insist that we should cease downtown development and focus instead on building even more subsidized housing for families. Indeed, UMass hired about 3,000 new employees to staff their enrollment boom, so we do need more family housing. But, at $451,000 per unit, subsidized housing is more appropriate as a side dish, not an entrée. 

Permitting private development of new student and non-student housing is the way forward. Developers pay permit fees, community exactions, and property taxes. Green development scales easily and — like a taxable Pied Piper — draws students out of residential neighborhoods, thereby creating more room for families.

The Progressive Case for Development

Amherst residents do not deserve an austere, anemic budget, one that is precariously reliant on charity. Let’s be ambitious! We want cutting-edge public schools, robust senior services, and well-compensated public workers. If we want quality public goods, we need money. That’s nothing to be ashamed of; it’s an essential component of progressivism. Unlike most municipalities, we have an incredible source of non-resident tax revenue: student housing development.

Remember, if we sit out the “gold rush”, surrounding towns will happily take our taxes. If we plan smartly, students will be a blessing, not a curse. Here’s the plan for a muscular and progressive Amherst:

• Greenlight student housing to relieve pressure on family neighborhoods.
• Welcome market-rate construction that funds public services.
• Use new revenue to increase subsidies for seniors and low-income households.

Development in Amherst is not the enemy of progressivism — it’s the engine that makes it possible. So next time you hear a supply skeptic insist that Amherst can’t build its way to affordability, engage them. Our town’s future depends on it.

Evan Naismith is a five-year resident of Amherst and a graduate from the Commonwealth Honors College. He is the VP of the American Constitution Society at UConn Law School, where he specializes in public interest law.