Opinion by Evan Naismith

Amherst is once again pondering a new local historic district, this time in East Amherst. Preserving our town’s history is a worthy goal. But residents should ask a simple question: Is this the best use of limited public resources? 

I submitted a request for information on how much has already been spent on this extravagance. Apparently, the town hired Skelly Preservation Services to “painstakingly inventory, research, photograph, and document…each of the approximately fifty properties” in the proposed district (page 5 of the report). Guess how much taxpayers paid for this service? $19,500! (source: Simone Christofori, Procurement Officer for the Town of Amherst). Apparently, I’m in the wrong industry. 

This profligate proposal would place approximately 55 properties under the authority of Amherst’s Local Historic District Commission. The result would be a new layer of regulatory review for homeowners and businesses who wish to modify buildings visible from the street. Who pays to establish and enforce historical districts? Taxpayers. And who benefits? Select wealthy homeowners and investors. 

The Town Council released its draft report on the project here. Curiously, it lists the benefits of historic districts, but none of the costs. It claims–without citations–that historic districts afford residents “the opportunity to protect their communities and neighborhoods from destruction.“ Woah! That type of strong language has no place in a supposedly objective report. Whoever wrote the document should not be so blatantly alarmist and one-sided in their coverage of a debatable topic. 

Upfront and Ongoing Cost of Frivolous Historic Districts 

A homeowner in the proposed district summed it up well, “I do not want any restrictions made or enforced on me or any of my neighbors. I’ve dealt with this before, and it’s a nightmare.” Well said. Here are some of the upfront costs, borne by the taxpayer: 

• Historical districts of this size cost tens of thousands to create. 
• Amherst would have to devote scarce administrative time to drafting the legal review and soliciting public comments. 
• We’ve already spent tens of thousands just to prepare the preliminary report (page 5). 

But the costs don’t end there. Once the district is established, homeowners must seek approval for many types of repairs, additions, or renovations (despite the fact that the 2024 Amherst Housing Production Plan just claimed Amherst needs more such alterations). And who pays for the review of these applications? You guessed it: taxpayers. 

This proposal is especially galling because the proposed district contains Fort River Elementary School, from which we will be slashing multiple positions (“especially special-ed staff,” according to recent Town Council meeting minutes) next year due to budgetary deficiencies.

Seriously?! We’re going to lay off teachers so that we can create a taxpayer-funded HOA? Give me a break. Does anyone actually believe that policing the trim color on 34 North East Street is a top-100 issue for the town council? If so, please speak up in the comment section. 

Only Eight Residents Approved of this Proposal. 

To gauge support for this historic district, the town sent surveys to each homeowner in the proposed area. This is not an exaggeration: of the 120 households surveyed, only eight approved of their own historic district, funded by the entirety of Amherst. I don’t need to remind the reader about how scarce our resources are currently: 

• Amherst is cutting ten educational positions next year. 
• DPW is rightly demanding that we pay them a livable wage and fix their dangerous working conditions. 
• We have the lowest per-capita road expenditures in Massachusetts. 
• Our senior services are bottom-tier. 

So, here’s the bottom line: Amherst is not a museum. We should plan for the future, not fetishize the past. We should make it easier to build, not impose new red tape on unwilling residents. Perhaps most importantly, the town council should use housing policy to raise revenue, not spend it. We’ve already spent enough taxpayer money on this boondoggle. Not a penny more.