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.
Discover more from THE AMHERST CURRENT
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
THE AMHERST CURRENT 
Hi Evan, I’m Steve Bloom, Vice Chair of the Amherst Local Historic District Commission. This is not a case of NIMBYism. None of the Commission’s members live within or have any interest in the proposed LHD. The study was initiated at the suggestion of the Town Manager. And, if you knew about these things, you’d know $20,000 is a bargain for the research, documentation and digitization of all of the historic structures within the proposed district. I know this because the Commission sent out “seeking written quotes” inquiries to five historic consultancy firms, as required by statute, and, for the money we had to spend, not a single one responded. In fact, we were informed that the going rate for the work entailed was closer to $50,000. The only reason we were able to prevail upon Mr. Skelly to accept the job is because the Commission had worked with him in the past. Even if the proposed LHD is not approved, Mr. Skelly and the Commission have performed an invaluable service to the Town as most of the inventory forms were over fifty years, very sketchy and handwritten.
Curious, Evan, but have you actually read the Study Report? It’s hundreds of pages long. And yes, if you looked, you’d see that each property was indeed “painstakingly researched and documented” providing an easily accessible trove of information for generations to come.
In the scheme of things, $20,000 of CPA funds is a pittance, certainly compared to the $1.5 million and counting given to the Jones Library, and was one of the smallest grants approved that year.
The LHD Commission endeavored to keep the boundaries of the proposed LHD to the already existing National Register District, which is a significant but mostly honorific designation. In fact, it was Town Staff who advocated for us to include a few more properties along the perimeter.
As I hope you know, the creation of an LHD doesn’t prevent or inhibit infill or development and it has no effect, except on what can be seen from a public way, on the new “by right” statute for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). To serve your own purposes, a photograph of one of the admittedly less architecturally distinguished buildings (although one with a long, colorful past) was selected to accompany your op-ed, neglecting to show truly historic and architecturally noteworthy structures dating from the 1700’s, such as the Dickinson-Baggs Tavern, where it is said Shay’s Rebellion was debated and planned, and the Second Congregational Church, which was established during the ferment of the American Revolution and which currently houses the Jewish Community of Amherst. Without the protections that an LHD provides, these treasures, unique to our town, could be unilaterally demolished without recourse. That, no doubt, may please you but not so for many others who call Amherst home.
You are correct that there wasn’t much response to our repeated attempts at outreach but that is because many of the property owners within the proposed LHD are absentee landlords without a stake in the community, at least not enough of one to bother to respond. This is not a wide swath of properties, but a small pocket, basically a block situated between two intersections. It’s THE oldest part of Amherst.
There’s a lot of talk in the Current about “Destination Amherst.” I contend that a town’s historic character matters, especially the character of a town’s core. Because of its association with Emily Dickinson and Amherst College, Amherst is lucky enough to have a nationally and internationally known brand. History is our brand. Character and uniqueness – the “cool” factor – attracts prospective residents and visitors alike. An LHD dedicated to preserving and protecting our historic legacy at such an important location – the gateway to our brand new elementary school – is very much in the economic interests of Amherst.
LikeLike
Steve,
I think you make many strong points, and I agree that Amherst’s history offers both aesthetic and economic benefits. I don’t want to be ticky-tacky, but I think you misrepresented what I said in a few places:
– You stated, “If you knew about these things, you’d know $20,000 is a bargain for the research.” However, I never said we overpaid; I simply questioned whether this is the “best use of limited public resources.”
– I also did not say that historic districts are NIMBYism. I just noted that they make development more difficult, which is unquestionably true.
For those who understandably oppose this project, please either:
(1) Fill out the form @ https://www.amherstma.gov/FormCenter/Local-Historic-District-Commission-43/East-Amherst-Local-Historic-District-Que-218 (indicate that you do not live in the proposed district in the comments section) or
(2) email Walker Powell, staff liaison to the Study Committee, at powellw@amherstma.gov.
LikeLike
Steve,
You mention the inclusion of the picture by Evan “To serve your own purposes” of a structure that is one of the “admittedly less architecturally distinguished buildings.” This to me is one of the problems with this effort. There are many structures that should not be included in an LHD. Buildings built in the 60’s and 80’s. Townhomes in Salem Place and on East Amherst Village Drive are not historic at all.
I am all for the preservation of historic structures for the benefit of future generations, not at their expense. Many of these structures are run down rentals that barely resemble the original architecture. One is far more apt to find a beer pong table in the front yard rather than anything of historic significance.
What is the cost of this preservation? What is the real purpose? Why are these structures worth preserving? What about what was here before these structures were built, before this town was colonized?
This is a clear attempt to hinder development in this area under the guise of “historic preservation”. We should be encouraging density in this area as there are plenty of bus stops, bike shares, and it is within a reasonable walking distance to the downtown, UMASS, Amherst College, and the East Amherst Village Center. There is plenty of opportunity to split parcels, eliminate parking, build ADUs, and enhance the area, instead of putting more impediments in place.
LikeLike
I wasn’t going to comment again but unfortunately I feel the need to.
First off, saying an LHD is a “tax-payer funded homeowner’s association” is just another way of saying it’s NIMBYism, despite Evan’s denial.
Second, I am at a complete loss about the claims that administering an LHD is an additional expense for the Town. The LHD Commission has one staff liaison, just like most other committees and commissions in Town. There are no other expenses. The Commission members are volunteers.
We would have preferred to exclude the newer developments within the proposed LHD and, technically, as “intrusions,” they aren’t subject to review. The reason why they are included is because Town Staff advised us that because of their central location, it would be impractical not to include them. Every LHD has examples of newer non-conforming structures.
Again this is a small area, the oldest in Town. A LHD does not prevent infill and development or ADUs. It is meant to protect and preserve historic buildings and to promote an over all look and feel to a historic neighborhood. Mostly, our concern is to prevent the unfettered demolishment of noteworthy buildings which have endured hundreds of years. Yes, it’s true that some structures are in disrepair but it our hope that through the years, under the protections of an LHD, owners will endeavor to restore their properties, although that is not mandated. Studies indicate that property values within a LHD retain and appreciate their value than in non-LHD neighborhoods.
Life will go on if the proposed LHD, small and old as it is, is not approved. But the character and fabric of our town will be diminished. Our living history is what makes this place this place and not like every other place.
LikeLike