Development & Housing – THE AMHERST CURRENT

Envisioning Amherst as a model of rural economic revival

By Kristin Leutz

With students back and campus life in full swing, it may be easy to forget how the pandemic rocked our town’s economy. We faced the stark possibility of a seismic shift in our economic bedrock, and while we’re emerging from the moment of crisis, we must prepare to thrive in the face of disruptions in our future.

Whether from climate change, economic upheaval, or future pandemics, we are likely to face serious challenges to the jobs and economic foundations we’ve known here in Amherst. Now is the best time to envision how Amherst could serve as a model for how college towns should develop resilient and sustainable local economies.

Amherst should be thinking now about who will live and work here in the years to come. Our population growth is flat, our housing is experiencing the real estate inflation that is happening in many places, and development of any type is the subject of perennial debate in town, often making new projects tricky to launch here. Our tax base places ever more pressure on the fragile model of funding critical public infrastructure via property tax revenue.

Meanwhile, the active citizens in town tend to favor debates about a new parking garage, rather than engaging in planning and dialogue about long-term steps we should take now to envision a thriving rural town in the coming generation.

Today, the largest employment industry sectors here are education, health care and social services. Will our workforce continue to grow and meet the needs of these legacy industries? Or will we fail at the challenge of attracting new, diverse people to town? Today, we are producers of highly educated, talented workers who spent their educational years here, only to finish and depart the Valley to find jobs elsewhere. Tomorrow, we could create pathways to prevent brain drain and encourage educated workers to stay after school or return to work and raise families here in greater numbers. To do this, we need to aim our sights toward a revival that could center college towns like Amherst in the dawn of a new form of economic development.

The picture tomorrow in Amherst could be entrepreneur-centered, a mecca for talented people who benefit from reskilling programs through our higher education institutions, apprenticeships at local companies and nonprofits, and incentives for students who create businesses and stay here to grow them. As other college towns have done, we could also offer incentives to remote workers who could choose our town and find friendly shared workspaces, and speedy, affordable internet.

We don’t have to search for ideas on how to make this happen. The Center for Regional Economic Advancement (CREA) at Cornell University convened representatives from college towns across the U.S. with national thought leaders in innovation and economic development to discuss the post-pandemic future of college towns. Among their recommendations was to focus on innovation by developing clusters of “complementary” businesses and workers in Amherst that can support the future of work in industry sectors that are already strong here today.

If we dream accordingly, we might envision how, with the amount of talent and investment in higher education in this town, Amherst could become a hub for EdTech development. Or with the amount of open land and farms, coupled with a Ph.D Food Science school and Ag Tech experts, perhaps we could lead in AgroTech innovation? Entrepreneurship and innovation-focused economic development are key to this forward-looking thinking.

Currently, the proposed town budget has allocated $750,000 towards investment in economic development. Thankfully, due to excellent collaboration between our local Business Improvement District and Chamber of Commerce, our net small business presence in town is steady, as new places tend to fill vacancies in town when old favorites close their door. They will work with the town to allocate those dollars. Yet, this amount of investment is barely a start to truly catalyze, support, and fund small business owners and future high-growth entrepreneurs.

The town has been without a professional dedicated to economic development. Even if this kind of resource is restored in this budget, such a professional would have to hit the ground running to meet deferred needs and coordinate with the regional economic ecosystem. The staffs of the BID and the Chamber are mighty and wonderful, but they are small and working on tight budgets to meet current needs. Who is giving them resources, time, and talent to effectively build for the future? Our regional Economic Development Council is working across a diverse and wide stretch of the Pioneer Valley and cannot focus on Amherst as a priority.

As involved town citizens, we are the ones who can step in to become more active and engaged. We should educate ourselves on the proposed budget and encourage the town to make this investment for us so we can find ways to plug into these efforts to lend our own expertise and lived experience to the process of building the future economy.

What should we ask as we dive into this process? Is Amherst a friendly place in which to start a new business? Does it attract and retain a talented workforce ready to spend and live in ways that build collective value? Do we take the fullest possible advantage of the fact that we host a large land grant public university with one of the highest nationally ranked business schools? Do we have the right kind of access to capital and technical support to help bridge the systemic inequities that place barriers to entrepreneurship for underrepresented populations? When we think about what it might take to begin making shifts to prepare for changing economic futures, we need to ask these questions and more.

Now is the time to get involved. Visit the Engage Amherst website. Sign up to attend the public budget hearing on May 16. Sign up for a Chamber of Commerce event and meet local business owners to find out how you can help their daily challenges. And if you have skills a business owner could use, consider volunteering to become a mentor. Everyone has a role to play in our future economy.

Live-music site opens this week

By Nick Grabbe

The Drake, the music and performance space making its debut this week, received 2,000 entries in a lottery for 200 tickets to one of its first shows.

Organizers of The Drake predict an enormous benefit to downtown businesses from customers coming to Amherst for the music (see the end of this post for changes in restaurants and other businesses).

And The Drake will host numerous free concerts, open mic nights, a variety of musical styles, and monthly fundraisers for local charitable organizations.

It’s the biggest splash on the downtown scene since the rebirth 16 years ago of the Amherst Cinema, a community effort led by Meg Gage and Barry Roberts. For The Drake, Roberts has teamed up with Gabrielle Gould, executive director of the Business Improvement District (BID), and architect John Kuhn.

Gabrielle Gould and Barry Roberts in front of the graffiti that inspired The Drake’s name.

Located at 44 North Pleasant St., the rebuilt site of High Horse, The Drake will have a “soft opening” this Tuesday with a free jazz concert at 7:30. Here’s a link to The Drake’s scheduled performances.

When the BID was forming 10 years ago, community outreach revealed that many people wanted a downtown music venue, Roberts told me in an email. They said they’d like to stay on this side of the river and enjoy entertainment if it were available.

“We understood that if they were to stay here that they would spend money on food and drinks as well,” Roberts said. “After the BID was formed, we always kept this in mind as something that was missing in our downtown. I think this is one of the many things going on in the downtown that will be a real game changer to make our downtown more vibrant.”

The Drake’s web site has posted videos of musicians performing there during the construction.

Big names. The first major concert at The Drake will be this Wednesday, when Dinosaur Jr. performs. The rock/punk group, formed in Amherst in 1985, has produced 13 albums and is “one of the formative influences on American alternative rock,” according to Wikipedia.

Dinosaur Jr., an influential rock band that started out in Amherst, will be at The Drake this Wednesday.

Founder J Mascis will perform in his home town. The appearance has merited a mention in the popular online magazine Brooklyn Vegan, and Gould anticipates a blurb in Rolling Stone. “This tiny venue is getting exciting national press,” she said. But don’t try to get in; this is the concert that necessitated a lottery for the privilege of buying $40 tickets.

Other big names coming to The Drake during the opening week will be jazz violinist Regina Carter this Thursday and singer/songwriter Loudon Wainwright III on Saturday.

Economic driver. Many people who come to shows at The Drake will also patronize restaurants, bookstores and other businesses, Gould said. The majority of people coming to the music series on the town common last summer got takeout from an Amherst restaurant.

“This town has a lot more to offer than just the Five Colleges,” Gould said. “These concerts are things that will bring people to Amherst. We want people to come here for the leaves and stay for the music.”

With The Drake opening, work on an enhanced North Common starting this summer, and ultimately a renovated and expanded Jones Library, pressure on downtown parking is likely to increase. Gould said she’d like the Town Council to issue a request for proposals for a new parking garage in the town-owned lot between CVS and North Prospect Street, now that it has made the zoning appropriate.

Free/charitable events. Tuesday’s free concert, featuring the Northampton Jazz Workshop with sax player Gary Smulyan, will include an open jam session afterwards. On May 9, the Amherst College Music Department will present chamber music from 5 to 7 p.m. and jazz from 8 to 10, also for free, and on May 18, ARHS students will perform jazz. On June 5, pianist Jee Won Park and cellist Eddie Aaron will give a free concert. On the second Tuesday of each month, there will be an open mike night.

On May 24, The Drake will hold the first of its monthly “FEED BACK LIVE” nights, raising money for the Amherst Survival Center. Tickets are $35 and include a dinner catered by a local restaurant (Mexcalito on May 24, music by the No-Nos).Future beneficiaries include the Mobile Food Market, Not Bread Alone and the Food Bank of Western Mass.

Architect John Kuhn said it has always confounded him that Amherst has never had a live-music venue, and has ceded that role to Northampton for many years.

“This is about to change with the opening of The Drake, and it’s about time,” Kuhn said. “The energy and excitement behind this venture is palpable, and is finally a project that has universal support and little, if any, controversy, so rare for this town. We hope to be a venue for all ages and all musical tastes. We are opening at the tail end of a pandemic, at a time when people are clamoring to attend live shows again.”

Gould outlined some other changes in restaurants and other downtown businesses:

The Humble Peach, a vegan bakery, will open at the former Henion’s space in about a month;
Coronation Cafe, a breakfast-and-lunch place, is due to open at the former Bart’s location;
The Amherst Oyster Bar will take over the spot formerly occupied by Judie’s;
Ricelicious has opened on Boltwood Walk, and a “speakeasy” called Archive is due to open at the former Pruddy’s/Twisters site near Sweetser Park;
Gould is seeking a meat and fish market and an Irish pub for the first floor under The Drake;
A major brewery located next to Miss Saigon will be announced this Saturday;
La Veracruzana has added Hawaiian food called “poke” (POH-kay) in back;
Amethyst Jewelry has opened next to Art of Intimates on Main Street;
Archipelago has bought the former Pub, with its future use uncertain, and the housing development on Spring Street is due to be ready by the fall;
With The Pub, Rafters and Charlie’s gone, The Spoke has doubled its space;
A restaurant called Protocol is due to open at 1 East Pleasant;
A Chinese restaurant is due to go in the Lone Wolf spot;
Here’s a link to a post from last September about downtown business changes.

Student housing and behavior: assessing problems and solutions

By Nick Grabbe and George Ryan

The presence of the University of Massachusetts is a net plus for Amherst.

Yes, we receive inadequate state support for the financial cost of being UMass’s host community, and yes, long-term residents and students sometimes come into conflict. We live here because of the cultural opportunities, economic stability, international flavor, and progressive politics that come with a university town.

But we have some housing problems. Neither UMass nor the Town of Amherst has built enough housing to satisfy the demand, and Town Hall’s ability to monitor student houses and identify problems with them has been insufficient.

Some graduate students arriving in mid-August found that lots of other students were seeking to rent the same off-campus room or apartment. And the tight real estate market has pushed the average sale price of a single-family house in Amherst past $500,000 over the past year, making home ownership unaffordable for young families and those with moderate incomes. (See “Recent House Sales” on this blog.)

Some investors have bought houses and rent them to groups of students, because you can get as much as twice the rent from them as opposed to families. Many of these student tenants are experiencing their first taste of freedom and haven’t yet learned how to be good neighbors. Many students maintain different hours and have different habits than long-term residents.

And with warmer weather, mid-April to mid-May in Amherst has been the peak season for complaints about student behavior.

Many of the houses on South Whitney Street are now occupied by students. Photo credit: Sarah Marshall

But newspaper stories about student misbehavior have exaggerated the problem, and in recent years complaints to the police have actually declined. Three bars have closed down. Most students are well behaved, and many landlords are careful who they rent to and take good care of their rental properties. Both groups are tarred by the stereotypes of the out-of-control student and the greedy landlord.

The Town Council is trying to address some of the problems with student housing by updating a 2014 bylaw that requires off-campus landlords to register their properties. The current system has flaws: some landlords disregard the bylaw, rentals are inspected only after complaints, and it doesn’t distinguish between different types of housing.

This post seeks to define the problems that some residents see with student housing and to outline solutions that have been proposed.

Some people say that UMass should house more undergraduates on campus. In fact, it houses about 60 percent of them on campus, a higher rate than other state universities. And most students living in owner-occupied or professionally managed off-campus housing do not cause problems for neighbors. The bulk of the complaints involve students living in houses owned by absentee landlords.

This screen shot from the Town’s website shows a street where many of the houses are rentals.

As we outline the problems and potential solutions, feel free to describe others in the Comments section. How can we meet the need for student housing without compromising the character of long-term residential neighborhoods?

What’s the problem?

Noise. The Amherst Police Department and UMass officials have worked together for many years to address this annoyance, and deserve a lot of credit. The imposition of $300 fines for problem houses has deterred misbehavior. Bars have closed and pot shops have opened. But that doesn’t help residents who are awakened by a party at a student house, and the options for dealing with loud, late-night pedestrians are limited. Student riots and mass gatherings downtown, once a major problem in Amherst, are less common now.

High rents. Demand for rental housing is far outpacing the supply, allowing landlords to increase rents. Higher rents incentivize the conversion of single-family homes to student rentals. Monthly rentals for one-bedroom apartments at 1 East Pleasant and North Square are $1,950 to $2,000.

Visuals. Some permanent Amherst residents are bothered by seeing multiple cars parked on lawns, beer cans and pizza boxes strewn about, trash overflowing the bins and young people playing beer pong. The outward appearance of student houses doesn’t seem to be as big a problem as it used to be.

Lack of housing diversity. Many Amherst residents think more housing should be built for lower-income and elderly people. But to achieve this, a developer has to see a market for such housing and own land with the appropriate zoning, or the Town has to spend a lot of money to build and manage it. The new transitional housing being built on Northampton Road is an exception and a step forward.

Health codes and fire safety. Without regular inspections, it’s hard for Town government to identify houses with substandard conditions or smoke detectors that have been disconnected.

Diminished property values. With the sale prices of houses exploding, this may be more a perception than a problem. But a family who wants to sell and is surrounded by student houses won’t get nearly as much from another family as they would from an investor who plans to be a landlord.

Traffic and parking. More students means more cars on the road and more competition for parking spaces, at least for nine months a year.

What’s the solution?

Here are some proposals that have been made for dealing with these problems, here and in other college towns.

Higher landlord registration fees. They are a flat $100 a year, no matter whether you supervise one rental or 100. Higher fees may seem an obvious solution, but they could cause more landlords to ignore the bylaw. A Town Council subcommittee’s proposal would increase the annual fee to $250 for non-owner-occupied rental housing (and a $150 inspection fee), and it is scheduled to go before the Finance Committee this Tuesday.

Regular inspections. This also seems an obvious solution, but it would require spending more public money on inspectors. Could that money come from higher registration fees? In Bethlehem, Pa., Lehigh University shares the cost of salaries for code enforcers. Could UMass be persuaded to do the same?

Stiff penalties for non-compliance. Landlords might be more likely to register their properties if they knew that they could face hefty fines if police respond to a noise complaint and find the house to be unregistered. It could be like getting caught driving an unregistered car.

Licenses. We could require landlords to apply for licenses that could be suspended or revoked after a certain amount of code violations or student misbehavior. Some towns in Minnesota have limited the total number of rental licenses in certain neighborhoods in order to encourage home ownership and to restrict investor-owned rentals.

Tighter occupancy limits. Amherst has a limit of four unrelated people living in a house, but this bylaw is widely ignored and rarely enforced. A proposal to lower the limit to three could run afoul of laws banning discrimination based on family status, and could bring a legal challenge. A former town attorney declared our unrelated-housemates bylaw legally questionable.

Minimum distances between houses. Student houses in Reading, Pa. cannot be located within 500 feet of each other, and State College, Pa. has limits of 675 and 720 feet, depending on the zone. The goal would be to avoid “tipping points” in neighborhoods where most houses are student-occupied.

Neighborhood overlay zoning. This would define the physical characteristics of a district surrounding UMass, covering such things as height and density. San Diego has an overlay district that requires family housing to be compatible with surrounding lower-density, single-family development. This might encourage development of larger apartment buildings on major roads, such as the Archipelago buildings on the northern end of downtown.

Construction has started on a new apartment building next to 1 East Pleasant. Photo credit: Sarah Marshall

Town Hall as real estate broker. When a house that could become a student rental comes on the market, the Town of Amherst could outbid speculators and then resell it to new families or moderate-income residents. But this would require a lot of public spending and supervision.

Build more housing. If we are serious about responding to the intense demand pressures, we could increase the supply of housing overall, particularly in that sector of the market that is the main driver – housing aimed at students. We have made substantial progress in the past few years. Continued new construction in the downtown and in village centers, in accordance with the master plan, will be a key element in any serious attempt to address the housing shortage, and rental conversions.

Get the University to do more. UMass already does a lot and it is probably not going to increase its debt load and build more on-campus housing. But it might be open to a public/private partnership along the lines of what is being built at the corner of Massachusetts and Lincoln Avenues. Such a proposal would require the help of our state representatives. It would help the Town by decreasing the demand pressure by providing badly needed student housing located not in or next to a residential neighborhood, and it would help the University house more students closer to campus without increasing its debt load. The challenge for the Town would be to get such a deal structured so that it includes tax revenue for the Town. The current project on Massachusetts and Lincoln does not do that.

Some of the information in the “Solutions” part of this post is based on research done by Karen Black, CEO of May 8 Consulting, a social impact consulting firm in Philadelphia.

What is a good downtown plan?

By Jonathan Tucker

In “A civil conversation, Part 3,” Meg Gage listed some crucial requirements of a good plan for downtown Amherst. They were:

“Setting goals based on a vision”
Whose vision? While I believe that there could be consensus (or, at least, consent) over basic characteristics for the form and function of a downtown, there is unlikely to ever be (and, in Amherst, there never has been) agreement or consensus about most of what that should include. For instance, limiting the height of downtown buildings to the 2-3 stories typical of the 19th and early 20th century would inhibit the ability of Amherst’s extremely confined and small downtown to provide meaningful amounts of downtown housing, diverse retail, or any of the rest of the uses the community has said it wants.

For another instance, despite people’s general impression, Amherst’s downtown boasts a highly diverse range of architecture that reflects the community’s historical evolution and change. Every new architectural form–including the 1889 Town Hall–was in its time greeted with dismay and disapproval. Form-based zoning for downtown Amherst should not dictate the replication or even overweening evocation of historical styles, but should instead emphasize compatibility. Time passes, needs change. Communities need to change with them.

“Clarity about values”
Again, whose? There are always multiple individual voices – usually raised in alarm or dismay – whenever a private or public entity tries to actually put those values on the ground. These Civil Conversations would not be either needed nor happening if that were not true. The Amherst Master Plan is the closest thing the community has to a genuine expression of collective community values. But many will always fight against efforts to bring the Master Plan’s objectives to fruition, usually on the grounds that some imagined perfection has not been achieved. If the community wants what its Plan offers, it needs to proceed to accomplish those objectives anyway.

“Establishing the exact need”
Not only impossible, but, in the process, misleading. Human needs and the setting within which they arise change constantly. The community can (and has) take frequent snapshots of need (housing, employment, transportation, parking, food and retail goods availability, etc.). But trying to measure exactly how much affordable housing (for instance) downtown Amherst needs or will need is by its nature an exercise in speculative generality, not least because it could be very different in a matter of months, depending on wider changes in the economy, etc. Assuming that “exactness” can be achieved creates an unreal expectation.

“Evaluating options for meeting the need including size, location, who is served, etc.”
This is already done, in two ways, through the market analyses conducted by private developers and the studies undertaken by the public sector. In the end, there can be no perfect option, only options that are more flawed or less flawed in terms of everyone’s expectations. Amherst as a community is diverse and rarely agrees with itself about what its needs are or even should consist of. And there are, properly, limits on what the public can dictate to private property owners.

“Creating a business plan – reviewing research and other information about viability, cost of building, operating budget, etc.”
Again, the best the public sector can do in evaluating something like a redevelopment plan for an area is to spend a lot of money and more time than anyone wants developing potential scenarios based on current-day expectations and market conditions, which are themselves destined to be outdated within a few years, if not sooner. There is a persistent myth that studying something and conducting due diligence on economic, physical, and social feasibility (which the public sector absolutely is obliged to do) will then produce a given, mutually-agreed-upon outcome that will come into being by the time anything is built, completed, and operating. That is never true. A downtown plan is a great idea, but all such planning and projective speculation can do is provide a ‘ballpark’ sense of goals and objectives, and a greater familiarity with the moving parts, so that the community can adjust as time passes. Which it will.

“Getting input from everyone who will be affected while there are still options from which to choose.”
Including the option of stopping things, which has for so many years in Amherst seemed to be the principal motivation for insisting on options and choices? For all forms of development there are existing, legally mandated avenues for public involvement and input. None of those can possibly obtain “input from everyone who will be affected.” In some cases, extending public permit processes too widely and over too long a period of time can violate both the rights of those doing the development (public or private) and corresponding land use law.

The best that public process can do (and most often does) is to provide a reasonable opportunity for the immensely diverse cohort of humanity that constitutes “everyone who will be affected” to involve themselves. The purpose of public process is to serve the interests of all those involved. All those involved includes the development rights of property owners and the broad public interests that thoughtful development can serve, as well as those who feel aggrieved by change they do not like.

In the end, the perfect remains the enemy of the good. No development, however thoughtfully and carefully planned, responsibly permitted, and competently executed, will perfectly meet the expectations of all of those who believe their interests are involved. That is why community planning exercises and permit processes have a structured beginning and a reasonable end. People have a right to do useful things with their property and communities have a right to reasonably direct how those changes can occur. But unless that process is in fact reasonable, it is not legitimate.

Jonathan Tucker, an Amherst native who now lives in Northampton, worked in the Amherst Planning Department for 32 years and was planning director for 10 years. He staffed the Planning Board, Design Review Board, Historical Commission and Redevelopment Authority. He served on task forces focused on housing, parking, transportation and conservation.

A civil conversation, Part 3

By Andy Churchill and Meg Gage

Andy: In our last column, we talked about how downtown has evolved over the years and that further development should be done in a way that supports vibrancy and increases tax revenues. And we talked about the idea of using design standards, technically known as “form-based code,” to guide the look and feel of future development.

This time, let’s get more specific. Let’s take our readers on a virtual walk downtown and think about future design standards. What aspects do we like, and want to see more of? What elements would we prefer never to see again?

Meg: Okay, I’ll play. Do you want to go first?

Andy: I would say my favorite block downtown is the stretch with Fresh Side, Hastings, and Collective Copies, west of the Common. Those buildings have retail on the ground floor and offices and apartments upstairs. And some of them are four stories tall, but they have design features that make them attractive and not overwhelming. I could go for more of that style downtown.

Meg: I agree. As you might expect, one of my favorite downtown spots is the Amherst Cinema building that combines an independent film house with a number of successful, small businesses as well as a small art gallery. Imagine a successful business that sells frozen yogurt year-round with milk from local cows! Small businesses can succeed if they have the appropriate infrastructure support – like plumbing, electricity, and walls – rather than cavernous undeveloped space. Thanks to Barry Roberts for partnering with the Amherst Cinema to make that happen. And thanks to the Amherst Cinema for investing in a rigorous business plan before any renovations happened. Again, planning!!

In terms of the appearance of downtown blocks, I like the block between Subway and Formosa, where the Lincoln Building is. This stretch combines old and new buildings but with a somewhat unified style and (my favorite) a very wide sidewalk. Hooray for wide sidewalks!

Andy: As for negative aspects, I am puzzled by the way the North Pleasant “skyline” suddenly drops off around Antonio’s, and we go from multi-story, mixed-use buildings to a series of old family homes pressed into service as businesses. Those seem like prime targets for redevelopment, along with the single-story CVS and Zanna buildings – just continue the multi-story line down the street, so more people can live and work downtown. But do it with some style – not like the bland, soulless brick building next to the fire station, where The Works is.

Meg: Don’t forget the most hideous building in town or perhaps in the Valley: The Bank of America building that is 45 degrees out of whack with every other building in town, has those horrific square columns with no structural or artistic purpose, the outrageous useless space that has to be heated and cooled – and the bizarre gerbil run on the second floor! That is one building everyone agrees is a downtown catastrophe!

Andy: Ugh. Yes.

Meg: I think a redesigned building there would make a fabulous Thorne’s Market-style venue with 2–3 floors of small boutiques and some carefully planned, financially sustainable arts space on the top floor. Maybe film-making courses sponsored by Amherst Cinema, and/or rehearsal space for the black box theater we can create in the old fire station! I am convinced, as I said earlier, that we could attract more small businesses if more infrastructure – plumbing heating, electricity – were provided. Maybe it could be “Roberts’ Market”! The Bank of America could sell it and consolidate their business at the Triangle Street mini bank. I know what you’re thinking: “Dream on, Meg!”

Andy: Well, while we’re dreaming, how about an easily accessible parking garage with plenty of space for all the people using “Roberts’ Market” and all the other current and future attractions downtown?

Meg: Sure, a parking garage based on a plan so it’s the right size, in the best location and structured so it’s public parking and not parking primarily for student renters. A private parking lot makes me nervous! A topic for the future we probably won’t agree on! I fear the editors of the Amherst Current were hoping we might have more fireworks than we did this time around, so that sounds like a great topic for next time. Ka-boom!

Andy: Haha! You crack me up. So much to argue about; so little time!

Meg: You know, Andy, I think we could agree on the importance of planning and perhaps also on the components of a good plan.

Andy: Yes, planning is good. Good planning is even better! Where would you start?

Meg: Well, I would start with goals or what some call a “vision.” What do we want? I am a big fan of quite specific goals and sometimes find the concept of “vision” to result in vagueness, but having a vision of what we want is also important. And that vision can be translated into goals. I think our Master Plan lays out a lot of that.

Andy: Having been part of the Master Planning process, it always warms my heart when it gets referenced. It really was a substantial public outreach project – more than 1,000 residents provided input back in 2006-10, and in 2020 it was reviewed and adopted by our Town Council. I think you’re right that it provides a broad vision – and that we need a more specific plan for our downtown.

Meg: When I think about the components of a good plan, whether it’s about our downtown or about building a house or about creating a strong organization, there are some crucial requirements. I would roughly summarize them as:

Setting goals based on a vision
Clarity about values
Establishing the exact need
Evaluating options for meeting the need including size, location, who is served, etc.
Creating a business plan – reviewing research and other information about viability, cost of building, operating budget, etc.
Getting input from everyone who will be affected while there are still options from which to choose.

Andy: Those sound like good components of a planning process. To get even more specific about the future look and feel of the downtown, I think we should revisit Amherst’s previous attempt to establish form-based code. To quote from the Form-Based Code Institute’s website:

Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes are presented in both words and clearly drawn diagrams and other visuals… This approach contrasts with conventional zoning’s focus on the micromanagement and segregation of land uses, and the control of development intensity through abstract and uncoordinated parameters…

Amherst already has a form-based code proposal drafted; it was presented to Town Meeting a few years ago. Maybe the Town Council could ask the Planning Board to hold some hearings on that draft and see if we can get an updated version approved that will reflect the will of the community and put some rules in place to guide development going forward.

Meg: That would be a good first step – well-advertised public hearings about relevant topics is almost always a good idea! I confess needing to relearn about form-based design before I jump in as gung-ho advocate. I will do that before we reconvene!

A civil conversation, Part 2

Editors’ note: This is the second in a series of respectful conversations about Amherst issues from two different points of view. Click here to read Part 1.

By Meg Gage and Andy Churchill

Andy: Well, some people never learn! Here we are again, taking another whack at our different opinions about Amherst’s downtown. I understand you actually lived downtown as a child, up through your high school graduation. What was that like?

Meg: Yes, but I’m not into glorifying my Amherst childhood. Sometimes it seems there’s some merit in having been around a long time, some kind of extra credit. That’s not my thing.

Andy: Aw, c’mon – how about doing it in a nice, Amherst-y, non-competitive way?

Meg: Well, OK. Here’s a quick memory of growing up on North Pleasant Street. We lived across from the Dairy Queen that was next to the Mobil station, where Zanna is now. On summer evenings I’d look across the street from my bedroom window at the college students sitting on the hoods of their cars, eating ice cream cones together. I thought that was the most wonderful thing a college student could do. But it turned out as a Brandeis student I wasn’t the sort to sit on a car hood eating ice cream!

Andy: Wow – a Dairy Queen downtown – I could go for that. I might even sit on a car hood!

Meg: Another memory is of the White sisters, two elderly women who lived across the street, just about where 1 East Pleasant is now. They were the first Amherst girls to have bicycles and were quick to share with pride a framed newspaper article with a picture of them in bloomers with their bikes. Really dating myself here!

Andy: Great memories. And, of course, you’ve seen a lot of change since then. I wonder, does that make you in some way resistant to development downtown? I get the sense that some folks on “your side” are nostalgic for simpler times, when UMass was smaller, there was a grocery store downtown, etc. So, they are reflexively against more change, regardless of potential benefits of downtown vibrancy and revenues to support town services.

Meg: Indeed, I’ve seen a lot of change. But I am not particularly nostalgic for those days, and there were some not-so-great things, particularly related to gender and race. I’m not at all against change, and frankly, I can’t think of anyone I know who opposes all change. Nothing stays the same, and change is an opportunity to make things better, in my opinion. (BTW, there were TWO grocery stores downtown; Louis was where the CVS is now, and across the street, next to the Unitarian Church, was the A&P. There were two shoe stores, Bowles and Mathews, and a hardware store. Also, a drugstore with a soda fountain where Subway is now!)

Meg’s childhood home; Photo credit Sarah Marshall

Andy: Well, Amherst certainly has changed since then!

Meg: The big catalyst for the very rapid change that came to Amherst in the 1960s was the rapid expansion of the UMass student body, from 7,600 in 1963 to over 23,000 undergrads and 4,500 graduate students in 1970. Before then, there was no Echo Hill, no Amherst Woods, no residential areas to the east and west of East Pleasant Street.

Andy: So, whole new family neighborhoods sprang up, presumably to accommodate faculty and staff supporting all those new students. And the malls and supermarkets weren’t in place on Route 9 yet. Once those arrived, the old stores downtown couldn’t compete, I guess. And then, more recently, the big box stores sealed the deal.

Meg: One of the big mistakes Amherst made back then, IMHO, was to zone the big box stores out of Amherst rather than creating terms for them to be built in Amherst, with design standards for signage, scale, set-backs, etc. Perhaps they could have been built along what is now University Drive – or any number of other places away from the center of town. Amherst has always been the customer base for the malls in Hadley, so near the Amherst line. What a shame we don’t reap the tax benefits! An example of Amherst not adapting to changing circumstances.

Andy: So downtown Amherst evolved. It came to feature more restaurants, bars, and small, boutique-style retail, with a smattering of offices and apartments in those buildings that had upstairs space. The recent Archipelago buildings by Kendrick Park have added some housing to the mix. So, the question now is: What’s next?

Meg: Yes, exactly! Let’s do “what’s next,” with a plan! I am very enthusiastic about the Business Improvement District’s interest in developing the arts in downtown Amherst. The benefits of what has become known as the Creative Economy are well established – creative arts as a magnifier of economic success. It is an evolving concept focused on the relationship between creativity, business, technology, ideas and the arts. North Adams is one of the best examples around. In 1991, before MASS MoCA was established, North Adams had an unemployment rate of almost 13 percent. In November 2019 (just before Covid), it was 3 percent. Granted, many of the new jobs were in the service sector, but they were jobs that weren’t there before.

Andy: I would add, there’s also room for more people living and working downtown, to provide ready customers for downtown establishments and tax revenues for our town’s infrastructure. But that will require more development, more densification of the downtown with housing and office space, as our master plan suggests.

Meg: Sounds good, Andy, but I don’t see many people moving into the new apartment buildings who work downtown. They are mostly students.

Andy: Do you actually know that? I don’t, and I’m not sure it matters that much. It’s not like the new buildings are fraternities! More people living downtown is a good thing for the vibrancy of downtown and for tax revenue. We live in a college town; we need to get used to having college students in it, maybe even (gasp) see that as a benefit! More taxable rental units for students would generate more revenues for the town. They don’t all have to be downtown, though – maybe more development on Olympia Drive, or a “student village” approach to University Drive. A topic for another column!

Meg: I enjoy living around college students – although I can do without the Blarney Blowout! And housing is a fine idea, but what kind of housing and for whom and where? I’m sounding like a stuck record, but all this needs to be based on a plan! Ideally, Amherst’s new housing would help people in Amherst acquire wealth – one of my big disappointments of building so much rental housing. Rental housing is extractive and profits only the owners and builders – no one else is gaining wealth.

Andy: So, would you prefer condos downtown? Not sure those would be accessible to people without wealth in the first place. And what’s to prevent rich parents from buying them for their college kids? I hear you, but not everyone wants to buy property and be chained to it that way. There is a place for rental units, and for more office space. I agree with your point about needing a plan, though.

Meg: BTW, it may surprise you that I am a big fan of the master plan. I wish the Town were using it as more of a guide than it seems to me is the case. My other gripe about our recent development (and some not so recent) downtown is the architecture of the new buildings. We desperately need design standards that encourage attractive buildings that support a lively downtown.

Andy: I agree – we need design standards to guide development, technically known as “form-based code.” Interestingly, Northampton has just started a process of public discussion about it. And a few years ago, Amherst actually had a form-based code proposal on the table. It would have set design guardrails for the town – and likely prevented the most complained-about aspects of the new buildings. Unfortunately, as you know, Town Meeting voted it down.

Meg: I actually voted for the form-based code proposal in Town Meeting and agree we should look at it again. But back then, it had both technical and emotional aspects and a perceived lack of transparency on the part of the Town that made it difficult to get a two-thirds majority in Town Meeting. Form-based design is perhaps a topic for another column, but at this point I’d rather look forward than backward. It’s way past time to stop bashing Town Meeting!!

Andy: In its later years, Town Meeting richly earned any bashing it gets, most egregiously by voting down the elementary school project (a project I know we both supported).

Meg: Andy, the school vote was more complicated. A majority of Town Meeting supported the school proposal, but state law required two-thirds support. Can we agree it is time to stop bashing – and praising – Town Meeting?

Andy: I will say that Town Meeting is now irrelevant, and I’m glad that it is. But I do think we need to continue to take some lessons from that experience, in which a minority of townspeople decided they knew best, overstepped their role (which was simply to approve the borrowing based on whether the Town could afford the project), and used a variety of insider techniques to frustrate the will of the majority. I worry that we haven’t seen the last of that I-know-best approach, which makes it hard for people to trust each other enough to come together on a generally accepted vision for moving forward.

Screen shot of website designed by Anser Advisory Management, LLC

Meg: Well, I hope we can build more trust through better communication, and develop a plan for the future that does have broad support. Thinking about the elementary school situation, I am impressed with how hard the new Elementary School Building Committee and School Committee are working to build trust and transparency and to listen to people’s concerns and wishes for the new school, early in the process and continuously as the process advances. I think people feeling they’ve been heard and their ideas considered goes a long way toward people accepting change, even if their ideas are not followed.

Andy: How about for the next part of this discussion we get more specific about future design standards? Let’s take our readers on a virtual walk downtown. What aspects do we like, and want to see more of? What elements would we prefer to never see again?

Meg: Great idea! See you on the sidewalk!

In Part 3 of “A civil conversation,” Meg and Andy will walk around downtown Amherst and exchange views on the buildings.

Let’s declare a moratorium on moratoriums

Editors’ note: On Monday night, the Town Council did not support a moratorium on large-scale solar arrays. The vote was eight in favor, five opposed, failing to meet the required two-thirds.

By Bob Rakoff

Another year, another moratorium.

The Town Council will vote this evening on a proposed moratorium on large-scale solar arrays. While other folks have written about the pros and cons of this particular proposal, I am interested in the increasing advocacy of moratoriums in local political debates. Why now? Why so popular? Do they promote good decision-making in pursuit of the public good?

Moratoriums have a long history in Amherst politics, but their recent popularity stems from the 2018 election for Town Council. In that election, candidate Darcy DuMont featured a moratorium on downtown development at the center of her campaign. There weren’t a lot of details attached to her proposal for a six-month moratorium to allow for writing up new zoning regulations. In my view, the proposal was largely a campaign slogan masquerading as a serious policy, intended to appeal to people who disliked the scale and appearance of new downtown buildings. The proposal was eventually voted down by the Town Council.

When is a moratorium an appropriate response to a perceived problem? The key is whether there is an emergency that demands slamming on the brakes of business as usual. A recent example is the national moratorium on rental evictions during the first years of the Covid pandemic. Putting millions of unemployed, low-income people out into the streets during a public health crisis is just about a textbook case of an emergency that calls for immediate action.

It can be difficult to justify a local moratorium as a response to an emergency. Back in the 1970s, the State of Massachusetts imposed a moratorium on new hook-ups to the local sewer system until a new solid waste facility was completed. There was grumbling about this, but little dispute about the seriousness of the problem. Once the new treatment plant was completed, life returned to normal.

Sewage treatment plant. Photo by Derek Davis/Staff Photographer, Portland (Maine) Press Herald

On the other hand, when the Amherst Board of Selectmen pushed for a moratorium on new building permits in 1985, there was significant pushback in local political discussion and in the courts. The Selectmen (as they were still known back then), noting that there were more than 2,000 possible new housing units in the permitting pipeline — a 25 percent increase in our housing stock — feared that such an increase would overwhelm schools as well as physical infrastructure. The Planning Board and Town Meeting went along, and a moratorium was declared. While the ban on building permits was being litigated in the courts, the Planning Board and its staff used the hiatus to craft a phased growth zoning bylaw to regulate the approval of subdivision plans and the issuance of building permits. (I was the Planning Board chair in 1987, when Town Meeting passed the bylaw.)

Was that moratorium appropriate? While the fears of crowded schools and overtaxed sewers were genuine, the courts found that these concerns did not amount to a real emergency. A better permitting system did emerge from the moratorium period, including the first pieces of an affordable housing policy for Amherst. So, not a real emergency, but not a total mistake either. And, by the way, those looming 2,000 new housing units did not materialize for a very long time.

One problem with the recent zoning-related moratorium proposals is that they have the potential to escalate the problems they are seeking to fix. This is because state zoning laws, which control what local communities can and cannot do, allow developers to freeze local zoning as soon as they submit preliminary plans for subdivisions, commercial buildings, and other structures governed by local zoning codes. We have already seen this with the pending proposal on solar arrays: potential developers have already filed their plans and will not be subject to future changes.

And would the potential problem of large-scale solar developments rise to the level of an emergency? Amherst does have some regulations on the books, so we are not unprepared. And, of course, proponents of solar arrays would argue that the real emergency is not loss of open land or forests but climate change itself!

While calls for moratoriums raise public interest in local issues and provide a symbolic lift to folks who have a special grievance, they are a blunt instrument of policy making. It would be far better for the Town Council to direct the Planning Board and Department to bring them specific responses to specific, perceived problems.

Let’s declare a moratorium on moratoriums.

[Editor’s notes. You can read previous posts about solar energy in Amherst and the proposed moratorium by clicking on the Climate change mitigation category in our menu. Town Council will vote on the proposed moratorium this evening during the regular Council meeting. You can find links to the virtual meeting, agenda, and materials here.]

A civil conversation, part 1

By Andy Churchill and Meg Gage

[Note: this is the first in a series of respectful conversations from different points of view about Amherst issues. Please send any ideas for topics to the editors.]

Meg: So, Andy, what did we get ourselves into here? I do appreciate the opportunity to dig into our different perspectives about Amherst issues and controversies. We worked well together on the Charter Commission, although we were on opposite sides of a bunch of big issues. How about you?

Andy: Hi Meg – yes, we differed on the Charter, but we’ve also found common cause on some key issues, like the need for a new elementary school. And we’re both concerned about Amherst being divided into separate, hostile camps that don’t talk (and more importantly, listen) to each other. I hope we can do better than the national scene in that regard!

Meg: Yes! But, Andy, let’s not be too chummy or this point/counterpoint isn’t going to be very interesting for anyone to read! Let’s talk about downtown. Amherst property taxes are too high – in large part because of fixed, structural facts – a huge amount of tax-exempt property in the colleges and University (later let’s talk about whether they contribute enough PILOT!) lots of conservation and APR land. So, our town leaders are looking at redesigning our downtown to bring in more taxes. But I feel there’s been quite a bit of cart before the horse in that thinking. It sometimes seems the town is willing to build anything that appears profitable regardless of the impact.

Andy: Whoa – slow down a little! There’s a lot packed into that little paragraph.

Meg: OK – fair enough. Say more . . .

Andy: It’s important to make the connection between the services residents are asking for and the revenues we have to pay for them. When I was on the School Committee I became increasingly worried about where the money would come from to pay for our kids’ education, along with all the other things we want, including public safety, roads, sidewalks, libraries, recreation, elder services, social services – the list goes on and on.

Meg: I agree, so far. We want a lot of things that are expensive!

Andy: Our ability to pay for those things is constrained, as you note, by large amounts of tax-exempt land. So, we need to do the best we can to generate revenue from the remaining parts of town. And to keep the full burden from falling on residents’ property taxes, that means we need commercial development somewhere. Our Master Plan says we should focus commercial development in the downtown and the village centers, to avoid sprawl in the rest of town. So encouraging appropriate, taxable development in downtown is important, both to support the services Amherst residents want and to keep the tax burden from going even higher. Do you agree?

Meg: Yes, I do, although we might not agree 100% on what constitutes “appropriate” development. I definitely agree the downtown is a large part of the solution. But it’s not development at any cost. We should be able to build profitable buildings that are not eyesores, don’t injure the streetscape, and house businesses where year-round residents – i.e. not only students – will hang out and spend money. Let’s encourage downtown activity that will generate income for the town, without destroying the downtown we all cherish.

Andy: Okay. Do you think others on “your side” feel the same way? Do they see development in the downtown as part of the solution? It makes a big difference if we’re actually talking about HOW we should develop downtown rather than fighting about IF we should develop it. I think there’s a lack of trust among some on “my side” about that – often it seems like people raise objections to the process or the details of a project as a way of stopping it, not because they are really interested in making it better.

Meg: I truly think the difference is more about HOW to develop rather than whether to develop. That said, my “side,” such as it is a “side,” has a wide range of opinions on the downtown. However, I believe most of the people I identify with want to use good planning tools and updated assessments of how the 21^st Century economy works to create a rejuvenated and successful downtown where people want hang out.

Andy: Well, I hope those people include students, because I think they are key to our fiscally sustainable future. More on that below.

In terms of “eyesores” downtown, you may be surprised that I agree with you that 1 East Pleasant, the big building by Kendrick Park, is pretty clunky in its design. Although when I realize that it and its triangular sister (which I like) bring the town almost $2 million in taxes every three years – it starts to look a bit prettier! I do give credit to the developers, Archipelago, for figuring out how to build things again in Amherst, where most others had thrown up their hands and said, “These people are impossible.”

Meg: Have you seen the affordable housing building in Northampton at 155 Pleasant Street? It is a very large 4-story building with 23 affordable units. It is set back from the sidewalk and has an attractive design. Why can’t we build housing like that in Amherst? (Maybe Archipelago needs better architects??)

Andy: Yes, I’ve seen that building – it looks nice in that context; I wonder if it would look the same in ours. But I agree with your larger point, which is that we need some design standards to guide future development. I just want to make sure we are actually focused on generating that new development, which we are going to need to fund the services we want for our town without soaking the residential taxpayers, and not just throwing up roadblocks to make it unprofitable so it won’t happen at all.

Meg: I think most people who have raised questions about development are unhappy with what appears to be unexamined options and inappropriate building style, scale and landscape. People want to know that various options have been considered. Also, some people feel the developers and the BID are calling the shots and there’s little room for additional input and different points of view. For example, I don’t think people on my “side” are automatically opposed to a parking garage, but feel that we shouldn’t change zoning for a specific location until we’ve established the need and scale and considered all possible locations.

Andy: Okay, but I am tired of hearing for each new building, “Where is the parking?” I don’t think we want to encourage individual parking lots for each new project, and requiring underground parking for each building increases costs and makes projects less affordable. Centralized parking is a core feature of developing vibrant downtowns. I love going to Northampton and knowing that there’s a place for me to park where I don’t have to figure out in advance how long I’ll be there. It’s welcoming, and it lets the streetscape serve pedestrians, not cars.

Meg: Yes, I love the Northampton parking garage too — where the coffee is strong and so are the women! But is Amherst proposing student parking because the new buildings don’t have any? We need to unpack that. I know we each have more to say on this topic, but we’re running out of space here. In a future chat, I’d like to talk about the idea of “two sides,” more about the balance between retail and housing, the role of the arts, and form-based development. And do we have the courage to look at how the Charter that we both worked on has turned out?

Andy: Sure, and I would also like to explore our attitudes toward college students. I feel like some vocal folks in town (and I don’t believe you are one of them!) like living in a college town but would prefer if it had no college students in it. On the contrary, I feel like the students are a great resource that we should do a better job of leveraging for the town’s benefit.

Meg: Very funny! A college town with no college students! Yes, I like both living in a college town and living with students around. They make life interesting – at the peak of the recent windy snowstorm, several of our North Amherst student neighbors were in their front yard playing beer pong! So many things to talk about – all useful to unpack! Looking forward to the next round.

Andy: Okay, let’s reconvene soon for Round 2 and continue to argue about – I mean, discuss – the good, the bad, and the ugly of downtown Amherst!

The next two years, part 1

By George Ryan

Now that the new Council has chosen a Council President (Lynn Griesemer) and Vice-President (Ana Devlin Gauthier) and Griesemer has made appointments to the four standing Council committees, I thought I would dust off my crystal ball and look ahead at some of the key issues and challenges that will face the Town and its elected representatives over the next two years. In today’s post I discuss two issues, and subsequent posts will address other pressing challenges.

A new elementary school. The Elementary School Building Committee and the Amherst School Committee are conducting outreach to get community input on a proposal for a new elementary building that will combine the Fort River and Wildwood school populations.

Funding for a new or renovated school will come from two sources: a grant from the funding agency, the Massachusetts School Building Association (MSBA), and money from the town that will be borrowed and paid back over 30 years. The town’s portion will exceed what can be paid for from its cash flow or regular budgets, so a “debt exclusion override” is anticipated. Such debt is temporary, raising property taxes only while the debt is repaid. It does not permanently increase the Town’s tax collection.

If the MSBA approves the school proposal, Town Council will to vote to put on the ballot a debt exclusion for voter approval. At the moment, the best guess for when such a vote would take place is March/April of 2023. A majority vote on the Council would put a debt exclusion on the ballot, and if a majority of voters approved it, a super-majority of Councilors would be required for the actual borrowing.

It will be critical that Council votes unanimously to put the debt exclusion on the ballot. But equally critical will be the willingness of the Council to convince Amherst boters to approve it. It is always a tough sell to persuade voters to increase their taxes. There is no question that Amherst needs a 21st-century school – the question that will likely be answered in the coming year is whether this Council will take a strong position in support of our children’s future.

Addressing the Housing Crisis. It is no secret that there is a housing crisis in Amherst. Demand far outstrips supply, the cost of rentals has skyrocketed, it is increasingly difficult for first-time home buyers to find homes they can afford, and conversion of single-family and two-family homes into student rentals continues to be a lucrative option for many investors.

In response to this crisis, Town Council adopted a Comprehensive Housing Policy in September 2021 that identified five primary goals in the area of housing. The first two involve promoting more pathways to home ownership by increasing the supply of diverse housing types and increasing the supply and variety of affordable and market-rate rental housing. The question is whether this Town Council will take steps to begin to address these challenges.

The policy identified strategies for increasing housing supply, but it will take leadership from the Council (combined with pressure from the community) to ensure action. Some possible priorities for the Council:

While it is easy to blame the University for our housing crisis, there are real possibilities for collaboration with UMass for off-campus housing development employing the P3 model (public-private partnership) now in use on campus. Will the Council pursue this?
There are also real possibilities for redevelopment in the center of Town that could provide substantially more housing units for senior citizens as well as transitional housing for those experiencing homelessness. Will the Council explore this?
Money has been set aside for consultants to create design guidelines for future development in our downtown and village centers. Will that happen soon?
And there are zoning reforms that could increase housing opportunities: allowing duplexes by right in all residential zoning districts, raising the current cap on the number of units allowed in apartment buildings, and adopting some form of overlay district in the BL (Limited Business) zone adjacent to our downtown to increase density and create more affordable units. These were high priorities for many of us in the previous Council. Will there be the same sense of urgency in the new body?

CVS option for a parking garage should not be ruled out

By Nick Grabbe

Opponents of a parking garage on Town-owned land behind the CVS store talk as if they believe that the Town Council is about to decide to put one there. In fact, a “yes” vote on the proposed “overlay” zoning would be merely the first step in the decision-making process.

They say they don’t think a decision should be rushed. In fact, this zoning change was first brought up last spring, and speculation about using this town-owned site for a parking garage has been going on for several decades.

Residents of North Prospect Street say a parking garage would be incompatible with their historic district. But plantings can minimize the visual impact. And the current vista of a crumbling parking lot doesn’t exactly say “historic district,” does it?

These residents like the convenience of living on the edge of a commercial district but are outraged at the prospect of something designed to improve the commercial district. They are not the ones who need a parking garage, because they can easily walk downtown. And people who say they want businesses downtown that sell everyday items should not oppose things that make it easier to attract enough customers to come here to support those businesses.

So they don’t want to have a parking garage built across from their homes? Of course they don’t! No one wants to see development outside their front doors. Their voices have been heard, and they’ll be heard again, but now the Town Council must make a decision next Monday based on what’s in the best interests of all the residents of Amherst. “Our job is to take the community-wide view,” said Council President Lynn Griesemer.

I don’t know whether Town-ow ed land just north of the CVS lot is the best site for a second parking garage, but I don’t think it should be ruled out. And I’m willing to consider the opinion that we don’t need another garage at all. But all a two-thirds vote on the Town Council for “overlay” zoning would do is make a garage there possible.

I know a former town official who has studied the parking issue for many years, and he thinks the Town-owned land just north of the CVS lot is the most centrally located of the possible garage sites and is the most useful in terms of revitalizing adjacent properties. It could be the most accessible with some traffic modifications, it would provide the biggest net gain of spaces, and it is the most easily, affordably and efficiently developed, he says. And this may be the only site where a private developer would be willing to finance the construction and operation of a garage.

There are, of course, serious questions that need to be answered about the CVS site. Would access from North Pleasant Street cause traffic backups? How would egress onto narrow North Prospect Street work? How would it be financed and run? How big would it be? How would public safety be assured inside the garage?

And what are the advantages and disadvantages of having a garage there as opposed to other possible sites, such as just west of the Amherst Cinema? Is adding tiers to the Boltwood Walk garage structurally impossible? And will the Jones Library’s renovation and expansion project, combined with the Drake music and entertainment venue at the former High Horse site, dramatically increase the demand for parking?

Some opponents of the zoning article want to close off consideration of a parking garage at the CVS site before the debate over siting has begun. Some of them maintain that the decision should be delayed until the new Town Council is seated. Councilor Darcy Dumont invoked her right to delay a vote without saying why a delay was needed.

Some garage opponents have used overheated rhetoric, comparing the Town Council to “Mayor Daley’s Chicago” and referring to a parking garage as an “invasive species.” Dorothy Pam has acted more like a community organizer than a Town Councilor by whipping up the neighborhood and calling votes on zoning articles that have been around for months a “coup” and an “emergency.”

Among the opponents addressing the Town Council, only Meg Gage made the more reasoned argument that a “yes” vote on the CVS zoning article might create “momentum” toward siting a garage there.

The average Amherst homeowner has seen a $400 increase in property taxes this year. A major reason is that commercial property has not increased in value as much as residential property has. If we don’t want tax increases of this magnitude to continue, we should pay attention to the well-being of business owners. Chamber of Commerce Director Claudia Pazmany said that every day she gets complaints about inability to find parking spaces in downtown Amherst.

This zoning change the Council is about to vote on is just the start of the process. A developer would have to make a concrete proposal for a parking garage and be willing to finance it and abide by the conditions of the zoning bylaw. The developer would have to address the concerns of the North Prospect residents, as well as those of CVS’s landlord, St. Brigid’s and the Jones Library.

I remember the fierce debates over the Boltwood Walk garage in the 1990s, including multiple Town Meeting votes, referendums and court challenges. The debate over a second garage could be just as contentious. Let’s let it begin.

It’s crunch time on Town Council and tempers are flaring

By Sarah Marshall

A new Town Council will be sworn in less than five weeks from now, meaning that the current Council has little time in which to conclude any business it does not wish to refer, or pass on, to its successor. And given the holidays, time is even shorter. Council is thus squeezing in extra meetings in an effort to bring some projects, particularly revisions to several zoning bylaws, to a conclusion. Some Councilors and members of the public are very unhappy with this schedule and/or with the proposals, as was made clear at the Town Council meeting this past Monday.

Town-owned lot proposed as a site for a parking garage

This blog has avoided zoning issues in part because of the daunting complexity and jargon that make coverage a challenge, but we feel compelled to write about them now because of the huge investment that town staff, elected officials, volunteers, and residents have made this year on debating, critiquing, researching, refining, and discussing the arcane rules that determine so much of the look and feel of our town, as well as the political impacts of the zoning efforts.

First, a quick overview. Revisions to four zoning bylaws are on the table, three of which are causing heartburn: the definition of a “mixed-use” building, an “overlay” that would permit a parking garage to be built on the Town-owned lot next to the CVS lot between North Pleasant and North Prospect Streets, and parking requirements for new constructions outside the Central Business District. All proposed zoning bylaws must be “read” twice during Town Council meetings, at which point they can be voted on. This past Monday, the first readings of these proposed bylaws occurred; the second will occur on Monday, Dec. 6.

Second, some highlights of public comment. Many residents have been closely following the development of these bylaws, which has occurred over this past year in numerous public meetings of the Town Council, the Council’s Community Resources Committee, and the Planning Board. Residents of District 3, in particular, feel threatened by the potential for a parking garage on the east side of North Prospect St., opposite a local historic district. In fact, District 3 residents were asked by one of their Councilors, Dorothy Pam, to lodge comments in opposition to what she termed a “Thanksgiving coup.” I listened to much of the public comment and heard accusations of “shenanigans to make sure that you can avoid having representative government,” a “rush to judgment,” a “lack of process,” and “disenfranchising voters.” Some commenters opined that the current Council, as a lame duck, is wrong to undertake any action that is not an emergency and should let the incoming Council make the decisions. (This last comment reminds me strongly of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s excuse for refusing to give Supreme Court-nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in advance of the 2016 presidential election.) Others claimed that the process short-cut provisions of state law or our town charter.

Presumably, similar comments had already been received by email, because Council President Lynn Griesemer opened the readings of discussions of the proposed zoning bylaws with what seemed a prepared statement. My transcript of her remarks follows:

There is no bylaw that we are voting on to approve tonight. All bylaws require two readings. This is the first reading for all four that appear on the agenda, even the one we’ve seen twice before, and all we’re doing is extending the date again.

However, before moving on, I’d like to share a few observations that are reflective and supportive of our town government today, tomorrow, and long into the future. They in no way reflect how I, as one of 13 Councilors, will vote on any bylaw.

We’ve heard several comments prior to this evening and tonight regarding a desire to delay any further action on zoning amendments, in fact, all actions, until the next Council is seated. These comments include various stated reasons:

This is a lame duck Council and we should not do anything for the remainder of our term.
The public has spoken through the election, thus creating a mandate.
There has been insufficient time, research, and consideration given to these zoning articles.
And, finally, that we have not honored various state laws, charter requirements, and rules of procedure.

Regarding point one, does that mean that all Councilors only serve for one year and 10 months and that no legislative action should take place between an election and the seating of the next Council? This is not what the voters wanted when they voted for the Charter – they wanted a year-round government. If we are not going to take action now then we should have stopped taking at least certain actions last winter when we started lining all of these zoning articles up. The first ones we discussed were way back in December of 2020; the Planning staff came to us on February 22, 2021. In addition to that, since November 2, we have taken or are scheduled to take many important votes – on the budget guidelines, on establishing the CRESS and DEI Departments, on evaluating the Town Manager, and setting Town Manager goals for the coming year – most of which the next Council can change. We have a job to do, and refusing to take timely action is not in the best interests of the community.

Regarding point two, the creation of a mandate. Occasionally, we see a true sea change that might prompt us to take the extraordinary step of delaying action. However, the argument that “the people have spoken” seems to me requires some close examination. We have elected six outstanding new Councilors – that vote was confirmed just this past week. And, while it is true that two of the Councilors who have advocated to rezone the CVS parking lot were not reelected, they were defeated by a total of 50 votes and lost in one in each of their two precincts. Other incumbents, though not all, who were reelected or unopposed, to the best of my knowledge did not campaign for or against zoning changes. And the chair of the CRC committee, who argued and voted for the zoning changes in CRC, received the second highest number of votes in her town-wide election.

It is quite possible that residents in different neighborhoods hold different views on this issue. For example, the residents who do not live downtown are the ones most likely to need and use a garage. That’s OK. Our job is to take the community-wide view.

Regarding the concern of insufficient time, research, and consideration, I refer you to the second attachment to the Future Agenda Items [page 8 in this document] that is in your packet. It is the step-by-step process for each bylaw under consideration and includes the date of each step starting with the initial referral. Two of the bylaws – Mixed-use and Parking and Access (related loosely in this case as Apartment Definitions) – [were] presented in a list in February of 2021. They were referred by this Council for hearings by the Planning Board and CRC on June 28, 2021; the rezoning of the CVS parking lot was introduced to the Town Council on May 24 [and] was referred to the Planning Board and CRC for hearings. Each has been developed, vetted, and legally reviewed – including the involvement of our professional and well-qualified planning staff, Planning Board hearings, in three instances heard and reheard by CRC, and reviewed by the Town’s attorney. We do not lack information and turning back the clock at this point would be a disservice to the many residents and staff who’ve brought us to this point. We need to do our work and vote YES or NO, and move on.

Finally, in the process of bringing these bylaws forward all state laws, the Charter, Council Rules of Procedure, and practices of the relevant bodies have been followed. Having said that I encourage the Town Planning staff to seek comments on the Planning Board reports and repost them in time for our next meeting. My request to all of us and to the residents is let’s agree to disagree; but we do not want to compromise democracy in the City known as the Town of Amherst based upon which side of the issues we fall on.

In my view, the current workload for Town Council and staff, while heavy and unwelcome, is not surprising at the end of a legislative session. (And as some have suggested, the charter could be amended so that a new Council is seated promptly after election results are certified, shortening the lame-duck session and moving it away from the holiday season.) Public hearings, readings, and votes must occur within windows of time set by law. Referring the current zoning proposals to late January or beyond would require the clocks to be re-set, launching new hearings, readings, reports, etc. and demanding yet more time from staff, Council, and residents.

To be sure, Councilors are not happy to have five-hour meetings on a routine basis, let alone extra meetings during the holiday season, as some complaints and sharp exchanges suggested. At the end of Monday’s meeting, Councilor Cathy Schoen, for instance, protested against the length of meetings, only to be challenged by Councilors Griesemer and De Angelis to assist by making her own comments briefer. Councilor De Angelis asked councilors in general to limit their comments to what is most important and not to say the same thing six times for emphasis. Councilor Pam noted that the lengthy meetings and interference with the holidays discourage potential candidates for Council.

Councilor De Angelis then deplored the “attitude” held by some councilors against other councilors as well as things said and done against Councilors Ryan and Ross. She said that, while she did not always agree with their views, neither George Ryan or Evan Ross deserved the treatment they were getting from some councilors and members of the public.

Balance, not labels, needed in our debate over development

By Nick Grabbe

We sometimes divide Amherst residents into two camps: “pro-development” and “anti-development.” I believe that these labels are not helpful in charting a course for our downtown, and for ensuring that we have enough money to pay for public services.

Most people who are labeled “pro-development” acknowledge that we need to regulate how and where development takes place. No one wants Amherst to become like Houston, where there are no zoning laws and just about anything can be built anywhere. To take one example, most people who see the benefits of the apartment building at 1 East Pleasant St. would agree that it has an insufficient setback from the street.

Kendrick Place brought in new tax revenue as well as complaints

And most people who are “anti-development” or are labeled as “NIMBYs” recognize that we need growth in our tax base to support our schools, public safety and other services. And it’s clear that we need more housing, too. It is so tight this fall that many UMass students have to live far away from campus because they can’t find a room in Amherst, or have to drop out of school altogether, and rents have been pushed up.

So the real difference between these two supposed camps boils down to how strict the regulation of development should be, and what types are appropriate in each part of town. We need to thread the needle, keeping our town the way we want it to be while still creating opportunities for developers to provide housing that will produce revenue and ease the tax burden on long-term residents.

And, of course, the way we want our town to be isn’t the same for everyone. It also changes over time. Fifteen years ago, the 1,000 people participating in the master plan process supported denser development downtown and in village centers while preserving open space elsewhere. Town Meeting then paved the way for two new five-story apartment buildings on the northern edge of downtown. They have been widely criticized, and this year, two of these critics were elected to the Town Council (though one race is subject to a recount).

Amherst faces a budgeting challenge: We just don’t have enough revenue to pay for all our needs and wants. The reasons this is so are related to some things we love about our town.

More than half of Amherst’s land is exempt from local property taxes, mainly because it is on a college campus or is part of a conservation area or protected farmland. We also have a very small commercial/industrial sector (just 3.6 percent of the land) to help pay for our expenses. Plus, we have high expectations for municipal services; for example, our low teacher-student ratio in the public schools. We also believe in paying our employees competitive wages, and the sharp uptick in house prices and rents this year may cause their unions to press for higher salaries, which would cause our expenditures to increase.

The inevitable result of all these factors is very high taxes, and also difficulty funding our infrastructure and budget needs. The average annual tax bill for single-family houses in Amherst this year is estimated at $8,608, a $400 or 5 percent increase over last year. (This unusually high increase is partly attributable to higher values of residential property relative to commercial property.) The estimated average annual tax bill for this year in Northampton is $6,303, and in Hadley, it’s $4,611. Think about that for a moment: Our taxes are almost double those of our neighbor to the west!

Meanwhile, state law limits any increase in the amount a town can raise in taxes to 2.5 percent, plus the amount in taxes that have come in from “new growth.” Those two five-story buildings that so many people love to hate bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue every year and have saved us from painful budget cuts.

So we need that “new growth” if we’re going to keep pace with growing municipal expenses. In addition to the debt payments from the Jones Library project, voters will likely be asked to approve an override of the state’s tax-limit law to finance the construction of a new elementary school, as soon as next year. Millions of dollars will have to be borrowed if we are going to build a new fire station and DPW headquarters. New pressures on our spending limits are also coming from the Public Safety Working Group, African Heritage Reparations Assembly and other citizen groups.

It will be challenging to fund all these new initiatives. Meanwhile, the ability of heavily taxed residents to absorb more tax increases is limited.

But we also want to retain the things that made us want to live here in the first place. No one is proposing selling off conservation areas to developers or building student housing on the town common.

It will be harder to achieve these goals if we use simplistic labels to describe our differences over development. With several proposals for zoning changes on the table, let’s debate them with both neighborhoods and the tax base in mind, and keep our focus on what’s best for the town as a whole.

Preservation and Development Can Work Together

By Janet Marquardt

The signs of polarization in Amherst echo those across the country. However, we don’t need to think of “either/or” when it comes to our town’s future. As a member of the Historical Commission for six years now, I’ve come to believe that we should try, within all reasonable measures, to preserve those structures that contribute to the deep historical roots of Amherst. That does not mean that we cannot also construct new buildings with affordable housing and rethink how the town center should function in the future. It does, however, remind us that the quality of architectural design and construction and the arrangement of public spaces should be envisioned to last far beyond our lifetimes.

There is a concern that it is economically essential to increase the residential density of our downtown and that a failure to do so will lead to even higher taxes and emptier commercial spaces. Sarah Marshall also recently reminded us (see her post, “Who Owns Amherst’s Future?”, of July 22, 2021) that we need to expand our notions of the people we consider “desirable” residents. Current property owners are not the only kinds of faces that will enrich the culture of our town. On the other hand, Amherst will be here long after all of those who are here and who come in the next twenty years. The history of this town is one that draws visitors from around the world and how we prepare for ongoing tourism is equally important to our economic viability.

Preservation is a key element in economic planning because it can make or break strong tourism income. Taking a town like Concord as an example—not a university town but a bedroom community for Boston, hence similarly ripe for dense residential development—their 2016 income from visitors was $334,372 rising to $865,598 in 2019. It’s true that they probably should build more apartment buildings closer to town, and that home prices have kept property in the center in the hands of the wealthy, but it is an example of vibrant street life and thriving bookstores, cafés, and small shops that rely upon the historical attractions of the famous folk who lived and are buried there, not unlike those from Amherst. There are myriad other examples from across New England of towns that value preservation and have lively visitor commerce.

Naturally, there will be widely divergent opinions on what is good architectural design, which styles are appropriate, how public spaces should be constructed, where new growth should occur. That’s healthy and why public comment is welcomed at the Design Review Board, Planning Board, Historical Commission, and other town meetings. These groups bring folks of varied expertise with differing opinions together to make the best joint decisions they can for our future.

The protection of Amherst’s valuable history is good practice. It makes economic sense to look at the environmental impact of new construction versus adaptive reuse, whereby one saves old materials (often of superior, enduring local resources or even from extinct trees), and to reuse buildings whenever possible, even if cheaper new construction seems more profitable in the short run. It also behooves us to consider building behind or around iconic smaller buildings rather than razing and replacing. The Amherst Cinema building project was a good example of this kind of preservation partnership, as were the houses moved from Kendrick Park and the bank building that is now Amherst Works.

Preservation offers an educational value of “away from books” experiences with history, raising questions like “Who lived here? How did they live? What do the styles they chose tell us about what they held to be important?” and so forth. Preservation can lead to emotional attachments that foster community, pride in maintaining neighborhoods, and a sense of belonging to an historic identity. This can be a draw not only to visitors but new residents as well (I count myself in the latter from 2014). When I vote as a member of the Historical Commission to impose a delay on demolition, I am just asking that a bit more time be taken to consider alternatives and look at ways to save, reuse, or move historic buildings. I am not trying to stop development of gracious and attractive additions to Amherst’s future appearance. In fact, I welcome them.

Let’s densify!

By Elisa Campbell

I am afraid that Amherst has become a gated community, not literally, but effectively, based on the high price of housing. I don’t think any of us wanted this to happen. In 2020, housing prices were already far too high for people with jobs but no family wealth to buy, or, often, even to rent here.

And during the past year, bidding wars have pushed up the cost of housing astronomically, not just in our area but in any place that is regarded as a good place in which to live in this country.

We do not control the economy of the world, the United States, Massachusetts, or our part of Massachusetts. The only thing we Amherst residents can do is to decide what we are willing to change to help make things better for people who see few options for them here. What price are you, Amherst resident, willing to pay, or what are you willing to forgo, as an environmentally-aware, climate crisis-concerned citizen to tackle the housing problem?

Amherst needs more housing of various types, suitable for a variety of lifestyles (depending on age, mobility, and job security, for example) and incomes.

Fortunately, several efforts to build affordable housing in Amherst are under way, including:

Aspen Heights – 11 units
Amherst Studio Apartments – 28 units
New Barry Roberts development on Route 9 & University Drive – 45 units
Belchertown Road-East Street affordable housing development – perhaps 50-60 units

While Aspen Heights is built and the Roberts property is under construction, the other projects have not yet broken ground. However, when built, this number of apartments is not enough to meet the need.

Furthermore, most recent building projects do nothing for senior citizens who have lived here for decades and want to stay, but who cannot find and/or afford an option in Amherst that is on one floor and smaller than their current home. The people I know in that situation have had to move elsewhere.

An important way to increase and vary the housing supply is to densify. The housing debate in Amherst has been too narrowly focused on what downtown does or should look like. How about our existing single-family neighborhoods: can they accommodate more people? For example: how big is your house? How does that size compare to the size of the house or apartment you grew up in? Can it provide housing for more people?

How about your house lot – if it was large initially to allow for a septic system but your lot now has town sewer, it doesn’t need to be so large. Are you willing to have an accessory unit built there – even for someone who is not a relative? What if your neighbors decide to build an accessory unit – will you support them?

Regarding the debate about apartment buildings downtown, what is the alternative? The real “alternative” is sprawl. If housing can’t go up it is going to go out. Sprawl – houses spread out along roads, making it impossible to provide efficient services like water and sewer, let alone public transportation.

Sprawl is an environmental disaster eating up green space, elsewhere in the Pioneer Valley if not in Amherst, but surely influenced by our local decisions. If we collectively say NO to building “up,” does that contribute to the suburbanization of our locale (especially hill towns, such as Pelham, Shutesbury, Williamsburg, Goshen, etc.)? If so, do we care? Or are we collectively interested only in what we, as individuals, see and experience? Are you willing to see all the open fields covered with houses? Every woodland ? Even the ones you see regularly and love?

I want humans to stop occupying so much space. I want other species to have places to live their lives and continue to exist, hopefully even thrive. I am extremely distressed at what we “Homo sapiens” have done and are doing to the planet we live on – including but not limited to the climate crisis, which is clearly horrible.

If you agree with me then recognize that we have choices to make. Some choices are about downtown: can we accept new buildings of a size and design we aren’t used to, that other people can live in?

Please think – where do your kids live? How large is their place? How about your grandkids – what kind of housing do they need right now and where are they going to live? Do you think kids and grandkids of people you don’t know need and deserve a decent place to live? If so, where? Surely, at least some should have the option to live here.

Let’s make it possible.

Amherst House Prices Shoot Up

by Nick Grabbe

A flurry of home-buyers caused sale prices to jump in Amherst this spring, with houses often selling for more than their asking prices.

“It was such an unusual time, and we were all walking around scratching our heads,” said Kathy Zeamer, a spokeswoman for Jones Realty. “Even realtors who have been in business for 40 years said they’d never seen anything like this.”

“Frenzy” isn’t too strong a word for the bidding wars that real estate agents saw over houses that were well-maintained and priced reasonably, she said. She offered some eye-popping examples:

A two-bedroom house on East Pleasant Street (shown at left) was listed for sale at $299,900. In three days, there were 50 showings and nine offers, and it sold for $345,000 to an out-of-town buyer.

A house on Middle Street was listed for $599,900, and someone bought it the first day it was on the market, for $612,500 – in cash.

A house on Amity Street was listed at $665,00 and sold for $708,800 in four days.

(For a list of recent sale prices of single-family houses in Amherst, click on “Recent House Sales” at left.)

If you already own your house, this white-hot market means it is now likely worth more than a year ago, and your net worth just went up a notch. My own Amherst house, which I bought for $66,000 in 1984, is now worth about six times as much. This hot market also works well for people who have just sold a brownstone in Brooklyn for $2 million and want to buy a house in Amherst and still have plenty of money left over.

But for middle-income people and first-time home-buyers, it’s been a frustrating time. And this price run-up has increased the already-wide wealth gap in Amherst between people who own homes and those who rent.

During the pandemic, many people living in urban areas and working from home figured they could do that just as easily in Amherst. Some were attracted to the cultural and outdoor activities in the area, and some had family members here, Zeamer said. Many sales this spring were to buyers from urban areas.

“They come with a lot of cash, and look at the prices of properties here, and it looks like quite a bargain,” she said.

It’s hard for a local buyer to compete, Zeamer said. Presented with a cash offer, many sellers don’t want to take the risk that a bidder won’t be able to get financing. It can take four to six weeks to get a mortgage commitment.

Some bidders have taken to writing letters to the sellers pleading their cases, or even agreeing to waive inspections or pay closing costs, she said. But many companies counsel against writing letters to sellers “due to the possibility (or even the perception) of favoritism that may be interpreted as discriminatory,” Zeamer said.

One buyer sold his house in California for $5 million and bought a house in Amherst for $1.4 million, said real estate agent Nancy Hamel. “A first-time buyer putting down 5 percent might as well not even make an offer,” she said. “FHA buyers don’t have a chance. How do you compete with that kind of money?”

Another reason for the frenzy is that there have been fewer houses for sale than usual. Normally, there are about 100 houses for sale in Amherst. By mid-June, there were around 10.

“Many homeowners did not want people coming through their homes during the pandemic,” Zeamer said. “Since vaccines have become available, people are more relaxed about opening their homes.”

Another attraction for buyers is that mortgage interest rates are very low now. Many people worry that inflation will cause them to go up next year, so they figure that now is a good time to buy.

Although your house is worth more now, you are paying taxes on only a portion of its value. But that will change.

Many houses have sold in the last few months for 30 percent more than their assessed value, which is Town Hall’s estimate of how much a house is worth. It is calculated to determine how to distribute the property tax burden, but it takes a while for assessed values to catch up with increasing sale prices .

For example, a house on Aubinwood Road, assessed at $338,900, recently sold for $485,000. A house on Baker Street, assessed for $290,300, sold for $450,000. A house on South East Street, assessed at $365,800, recently sold for $532,000.

Property taxes are due Aug. 2. Your annual property tax is calculated by dividing your assessed value by 1,000 and then multiplying by the tax rate, which was $21.82 in the fiscal year that just ended. The tax rate for the new fiscal year has not been set yet.

The median assessed value for a single-family house is $365,650, with an annual tax obligation of $7,978 in the fiscal year that just ended.

Assessed values will likely increase next year to reflect higher sale prices this year. That will probably cause the tax rate to go down. But tax bills always go up because the amount the town needs to raise in taxation always goes up by slightly more than the 2.5 percent limit set by state law. Changes in assessments don’t directly cause tax increases and happen every five years or whenever the average sale price is more than 10 percent above assessed values.

The frenzy of buyers is now past. “It’s calmed down a little bit, and in the summer things slow down,” said Zeamer.

But the price of a house in Amherst is likely to remain high.