2 comments

  1. Why are people routinely barred from serving on the Planning Board for expressing views against overdevelopment; and yet allow people who think that questioning “build baby build” is a “moral outrage”and think the proper default answer is “Hell, yes”?

    Why do people who say “We cannot force UMass to do anything” feel like full time residents of the town can be forced to accept projects on wetlands, overcrowding, and an economic sector where 43% of houses rented to students had “at least one serious violation”?

    Like

  2. Ira,

    I don’t think that any Amherst public commenters have advocated for a “build, baby, build” approach in our community. Nor has any Amherst resident used the phrase “moral outrage” to describe those who don’t blindly accept the recommendations of developers and landlords.

    But you know who has recently used those phrases? Evidence-based NY liberal progressives.

    As part of her statewide program to make housing more equitable and affordable, NY Gov. Katie Hochul recently introduced the “Let Them Build Act.” This is part of her “supply-side liberalism” agenda, which responsibly cuts through red tape to ensure that housing is not a luxury–it’s a human right.

    That other phrase, “moral outrage” seemed familiar, too. Throughout the campaign trail, NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani has described NYC’s underdevelopment (yes, I said it.) as a “moral emergency,” leading to displacement, homelessness, overcrowding, and the inability of ordinary people to remain in the communities where they work and grew up.

    He has sent his housing czar to Albany to urge reforms in SEQRA (the state’s environmental law) to make housing easier and less expensive to build. Additionally, NY voters passed a referendum to strip local officials of their veto power over most local projects.

    We didn’t use those phrases, Ira. But the coolest libs on the planet did.

    ———————————-

    Also, it’s simply a fact that Amherst residents can’t force UMass to do anything. Case in point: UMass Lowell maintains a literal nuclear reactor on campus (albeit, a small one intended for research purposes only) and local residents are powerless to stop it.

    I think these commenters are trying to inspire the Town Council to use its extraordinary power over housing decisions to affirmatively craft a positive vision for Amherst’s future. Peer municipalities like State College, PA (Penn State) and Newark, DE (Univ. of Delaware) have each built 3,000+ bedrooms of purpose-built student housing (PBSH) in the last decade.

    I interviewed the housing directors for both towns, who informed me that these PBSH bedrooms have:
    – generated huge tax revenues for year-round residents;
    – stymied family-home-to-student-rental conversions;
    – been more environmentally-friendly than detached family homes;
    – drawn students out of residential neighborhoods; and
    – reduced rental pressure, leading to greater affordability for year-round residents.

    Our failure to incorporate PBSH at scale into Amherst’s housing mix has led to all of the consequences that you rail against. Considering how beneficial PBSH has been to peer municipalities, don’t you think it’s even a remote possibility that building PBSH at scale in Amherst would confer similar benefits here?

    Like

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *