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
Steve,
How is this LHD not a taxpayer-funded HOA?
Similarities: Both HOAs and LHDs impose aesthetic standards through a permitting process; noncompliance may result in fines.
Differences: Choice of aesthetic.
—————–
LHDs can lead to selective (and sometimes silly) enforcement. For example, the Black Lives Matter and Rainbow flags in front of the First Church are out of compliance with the historical district in which it sits, and I can find no evidence that they applied for a certificate of appropriateness. Does the Hist.Dist. dare to issue them a $300 fine, as required by law? No.
Another case in point, the Bruno’s Pizza building just applied to re-do its tattered siding. The Hist.Dist. denied the application, because they had proposed vinyl, not wood. So now the building remains tattered, 100% the fault of the Hist.Dist.
(source: https://gazettenet.com/2026/03/05/around-amherst-town-to-begin-cable-renewal-process/)
——————————
I also want to point out that Amherst’s LHD bylaw is unconstitutionally vague and would be unenforceable in court.
According to Anderson v. City of Issaquah (1993), “a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.” The case invalidated the application of a WA LHD bylaw worded similarly to the Amherst bylaw.
Amherst’s “Criteria for Determinations”:
The Commission shall consider, among other things, the historic and architectural value and significance of the site, BUILDING or STRUCTURE; the general design, proportions, detailing, mass, arrangement, texture, and material of the EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES involved, and the relation of such EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES to similar features of BUILDINGS and STRUCTURES in the surrounding area.
This is 100% vibes, which is the very thing Issaquah and its progeny prohibit.
LikeLike
I’ve served on the Commission for almost five years and we’ve yet to impose a fine on anyone. And I’m unaware of any fines which have been imposed by the Commission since its inception.
Regarding Bruno’s, how do you know that it’s going to remain as it is, which actually isn’t tattered at all?
Although I’m not an attorney like you, I’m confident that Amherst’s LHD by-laws are valid, as they’ve been reviewed by the Town’s counsel. Just as LHDs in Massachusetts as well as across the country are considered settled law, but you are certainly welcome to mount a legal challenge to them.
LikeLike
I suggest readers have a look at the survey materials that were sent out to households in the proposed LHD back in April 2025. There are clear guidelines as to what can and cannot be required of property owners regarding changes, renovations and new structures. The limitations are significantly less stringent than those of an HOA. The proposed district consists largely of student rental properties. There are precious few, if any, “wealthy” homeowners who would benefit from the establishment of an LHD. Behind the beer pong tables lie some of the oldest and most interesting houses in town. I doubt that visitors and tourists are heading to North Amherst to see the new apartments in North Square. Steve is right that history is our brand. Creating an LHD in this part of town makes good sense. It is the gateway to Amherst for thousands of visitors each year. It deserves to be protected from inappropriate development.
You can read the text of the survey and a list if FAQs here:
https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/78048/East-Amherst-LHD-Survey-Letter-Draft-3-19-25?bidId=
LikeLike
Sid,
I doubt that any visitors and tourists are flocking to East Amherst either. There are very few tourists flocking to Amherst at all. I’ve asked for numbers from several sources and have been told, “it is a very small amount”. Trying to preserve these buildings should be done on a building by building basis, not by creating a district that includes modern homes and businesses.
The notion that history is our brand is a little far fetched. There is history here but it is by no means our “brand”. UMASS and Amherst College are our brands. Emily Dickinson and Robert Frost are our brands. History is nice, but it is also cherry picked.
You also mentioned that “Behind the beer pong tables lie some of the oldest and most interesting houses in town.” By creating an LHD we are going to prevent any new and interesting houses from being built. Fetishizing the past is best kept for movies and museums, not zoning restrictions and artificially preventing progress. I love old buildings and beautiful homes but their existence shouldn’t dictate what future generations get to build.
LikeLike
I understand what you are saying, Jason. I am not, however, fetishizing the past and I don’t think the volunteers on the LHD Commission are either. I would welcome some new, good quality, energy efficient homes like the one being built at 815 Main Street. There seems to be a disregard for what happens in this area of town on the part of the people who live elsewhere in town. Nothing more than a congested high traffic hindrance to reaching their destinations. The general sentiment is that since it is already a mostly student neighborhood in a high traffic area, we couldn’t possibly do anything to make it any worse. Establishing an LHD would be a way of saying yes, we do care what happens here. And unless the Commission is duping us, there would be no impediment to new construction, infill, or ADUs. To say otherwise seems alarmist to me.
LikeLike
Evan and Jason :
History is everyone’s brand . It is what we build on in our families, and our communities.
Your comment of “ Feitishizing the past “ is way out of line and disrespectful to all .
LikeLike
David,
It is simply not the case that “history is everyone’s brand.” I don’t know anybody under 50 who has been to the Emily Dickinson Museum–myself included. Most Amherst residents will never take a historical tour or even stop to read the placards. This is true of the “historical tourism” argument as well: the Mullins Center hosts more tourists every week than our museums host annually.
We’re staring down the barrel of yet another override in the next few years. That’s indicative of a failure to adequately plan for the future. I stand by my point: Amherst needs more change, not less.
LikeLike
Evan,
Getting a bit off topic here but in the past ten years, there have been at least two feature movies, a hit series on Apple TV geared to a young audience and numerous books — all about Emily Dickinson. It’s the first place our guests, many of whom are well under 50, want to go when visiting Amherst. You should check out the museum, particularly the Evergreens, which is pretty much intact from when Austin Dickinson, resided in it, before you dismiss it.
LikeLike
David,
I stand by my comment. This is fetishizing the past. Tell me why anyone living in Amherst now, or in the next 15 years, should care about Shay’s rebellion, let alone a dilapidated building where a few very privileged men plotted this rebellion, probably while they were drunk, because they didn’t want to pay taxes. It means absolutely nothing to me, and if I’m trying to buy a home in Amherst or rent at a reasonable price, I’m not concerned with what happened here 239 years ago, but I am concerned with the fact that there is a contingency of people who are trying to prevent progress in the name of “history” and “character”.
I ask these questions in all sincerity:
Why would anyone care about the history of an area if there are people who are trying to use “history” to keep others out?
Why is this particular “history” more important than the history that came before it? There were people here before Shay’s rebellion, Amherst, Hadley, etc. Why aren’t you advocating for these buildings to be torn down to preserve the pre-colonial history? Who gets to dictate what history gets preserved, and what history is “our brand”?
My comments aren’t meant to be disrespectful however, they are meant to keep a conversation going. This particular part of Amherst is ripe for redevelopment. Ask yourself this, “if the people that built those homes had enough wealth and access to our modern day technologies and building materials, would they keep building the same types of structures, or would they tear them down and build anew?”
If you think they would continue to build with their “traditional” building techniques then this town would be filled with log cabins and small shacks.
I’ll repeat another one of my comments “I love old buildings and beautiful homes but their existence shouldn’t dictate what future generations get to build.” This effort is a fetishization of the past, and we don’t know what the future holds. However, I’m fairly certain it isn’t forcing people to have to build based on 200+ year old aesthetics. If they want to they can, but we shouldn’t be forcing anyone to build anything in any particular style.
LikeLike
Hello everyone! Thank you for this conversation. I’m jumping in because you are touching on subjects I’d love us to discuss more as a town. This seems like a nice place for us to get our thoughts down and hear each other.
I appreciate that our Town Manager and the LHD Commission are trying to find ways to improve our town. It sounds like the goal is to protect certain historical buildings in the proposed East Amherst Historic District so that they would not be able to be changed or removed without town approval. I agree that there are a handful of historically important buildings, and that if people feel strongly about those certain buildings, perhaps they can be identified as needing protection.
I am weighing in because this conversation feels indicative of a much larger question about how we use resources in our town. Every group of people living together has to balance different priorities. In Amherst, I think our scale tips much too far in favor of historical preservation, leaving housing and schools to fend for themselves. I grew up in a town with the motto, “a community is known by the schools it keeps.” I could never apply that noteworthy motto to Amherst–schools and young people are regularly placed on the back burner in favor of preservation.
I base this opinion primarily on what I saw happen in the Jones planning process. First, I watched the Jones Trustees shoot for the moon in planning a perfect new library that is perfectly green and perfectly historically-preserved, without seemingly any attention paid to the price tag. When called to task about this by the town, I watched the Jones Trustees make what I thought were overdue and very good decisions about eliminating the slate roof, eliminating the slate sidewalks, and getting rid of the goal of preserving mahogany wood paneling inside the library. We got closer to a more reasonable cost. Of course just getting rid of the library facade would have saved many millions more, but the various local and state historical commissions would never have allowed such a new building to be built. In the end, our local Commission could not part with the slate or the mahogany, and the pricetag is still high. I do think we need a new library, but I wish we could bulldoze and build a Pelham-like library without caring about any sort of facade or preservation. As the Jones works to raise the remaining millions of dollars needed to avoid using more town dollars, I cross my fingers that the historical-preservers among us are planning to donate much of the money still needed to pay for this historical library.
I know that rehashing the library seems inappropriate in a conversation about a historic district, but my point is that if we continue to tip the scales to preservation and away from housing and schools, our town will continue to be a relatively inhospitable place to young families.
My heart goes out to the owner of the Bruno’s Pizza building as she tries to create affordable housing but is stymied by our town’s historical preservation officers’ insistence that she spend money on wood siding instead of vinyl–something literally no one else in town would impose upon her.
From the Gazette: The Local Historic District Commission, which has jurisdiction over buildings in the Emily Dickinson Local Historic District, told building owner Roula Kofides she wouldn’t get a certificate of appropriateness for the vinyl siding. Kofides had proposed this as a way to reduce maintenance and promote durability. Commission member Steve Bloom said the guidelines are explicit that siding, windows and roofs should remain as they are, if feasible. “I do know it would set a really bad precedent, and other people would use it,” Bloom said.
All of this is to say, as much as our town wishes to be known as a wonderful place to move to or to visit, many of us know that the true priority is to be known for the history we preserve, not the schools we keep.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said Margaret!
LikeLike