Not
The Amherst Select Board voted unanimously 4-0 (1 absent) NOT to a invoke a $6.5 million "Right Of First Refusal" for 154 acres of run-of-the-mill woodland in northeast Amherst to stop "The Retreat", a controversial 700 bed upscale student housing development proposed by a private, taxpaying, enterprise.
In June Amherst Town Meeting voted 98-90 to dismiss a warrant article calling for a $1.2 million appropriation to take by eminent domain only the "development rights" of the parcel. And over the past two weeks the Planning Board voted 8-1 against the purchase while the Conservation Commission opposition was unanimous.
Crowd of 80-85 pack the meeting
Speakers questioned the transparency of process since the town took a long period of time to acknowledge the 2nd $6.5 million offer between Cowls and Landmark Properties was indeed "bona fide", which started the 120-day clock ticking for the Right Of First Refusal.
Project proponents have repeatedly cited the desperate need in this "college town" for more student housing, with current make shift solutions -- the conversion of single family homes to rooming houses -- being far more destructive to quality of life in neighborhoods town wide.
John Musante (center) Any change in contract would bring on new 120 day Right of 1st Refusal
"The Retreat" would also generate $400,000 per year in property taxes in a town where half the property is tax exempt. In 1987 the town took by eminent domain the Cherry Hill Golf Course to stop a 134 unit high end housing project, squandering a historic $2.2 million ($4.4 million in today's dollars).
Tonight by NOT taking this exceedingly expensive 154 acres of woodland, town officials demonstrated they have learned from history. Finally.
It is unfortunate that we have to develop this forest land when we have so many village centers that would be better places to develop. However the minority town meeting body keeps refusing to allow anything to go forward in this town. This is the clear price Amherst is going to pay for the vocal minority to have there way. I hope those people are happy now.
ReplyDeleteI have heard and I don't know that it is a fact, but the land that does not get developed will be turned over to the town for conservation. Seems like a pretty good deal for Amherst. Free land to conserve. We need more of these deals in town. Large tax base increase. Small need for services, and conservation land to boot. Seems like a win for town. Finally.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the Cherry Hill precedent had nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteBut who cares? Sanity is sanity.
Taxable student housing, YIPEEEEEE
ReplyDeleteGood for Amherst. No one loses.
ReplyDeleteI don't know anyone unhappy about Cherry Hill but you. Its impact on the town budget is miniscule.
ReplyDeleteGolf much?
ReplyDeleteNotice how the Cushman Cafe is complaining. That place is going to positively explode with new business once this thing goes in place.
ReplyDeleteYou Amherstians should be happy you have some semblance of commerce. Look at Pelham, where no one even wants to develop a lemonade stand, never mind large-scale projects like this. We are a morgue of ideas (whereas you are a hospice).
What right does the town have to steal someone's land (which is what all this boils down to) just because some people don't like the idea of someone building houses on it?
ReplyDeleteIf the residents around Cushman want to preserve this forest, why don't they buy it? Put up their own damned money, instead of making the town spend money to harm a regional business?
Are the people of Amherst just stupid, or are they aware of how selfish and corrupt they are?
Nobody is stealing the land. The town was granted to option to buy it. They would pay for it.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest fear is that North East street is already dangerous without traffic. The road is filled with blind curves and ripe with opportunities for head-on collisions. With 800 new travelers, it is only a matter of time before the fatalities and injuries will start amassing. But since most opponents will not have to traverse this road, this is not their concern.
ReplyDeleteMost likely a road straightening and widening project will magically appear and this will be the next route 116.
ReplyDeleteThe Retreat folk have a very simple response to the lawsuit -- not require that its tenants be UM students. End of problem.
ReplyDeleteBut a new one for you folks -- if they don't have to be students to live there, and you manage to pressure UM to kick them out, they *still* will be living at the Retreat, still "Raising Cain" in town and you will be SOL...
Larry, what is that proposed Alumni area near Cherry Hill? What is the proposal?
ReplyDeleteDoes UM really - honestly - think that enough alumni will actually donate if we get to hang out next to a public golf course???
The anti-Retreat people are not opposed to either development or to the specific development of private student housing in Amherst.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the Retreat is the site. Cushman is a residential neighborhood. The term "Village" is a misnomer in this case. The retreat site, on a narrow road, with no sidewalks and a railroad that will prevent expansion, is a terrible choice for this housing development. It's also too far away from campus to be easily walkable for students.
There are plenty of other vacant areas within walking distance of UMass that could support a development like the Retreat without imposing on a residential neighborhood.
"There are plenty of other vacant areas within walking distance of UMass that could support a development like the Retreat without imposing on a residential neighborhood."
ReplyDeletePossible brownfield concerns notwithstanding, I imagine that the Cowl's Sawmill Property would be ideal -- except that would never be something the town would permit -- while they don't have a choice here...
Of course, looking at the map, I'm starting to see the issue -- some folks built toward the back of their properties presuming that the adjoining land would never be developed. Well, did you BUY that land? No -- and ....
"With 800 new travelers, it is only a matter of time before the fatalities and injuries will start amassing."
ReplyDeleteHa. Hasn't been any yet on this curvy and dangerous road or is it dangerous only after 800 more people use it. I guess your assumption is that these 800 people are really bad drivers. Another laughable excuse for building needed housing.
Has anyone in "Historic Cushman" realized that (a) each town meeting seat represents about 157 residents, (b) that even though they don't vote, UM students are considered "residents" for this purpose, and that (c) precinct lines will have to be re-drawn if The Retreat is built.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Cushman Village will get five more town meeting seats -- and other parts of town will loose five. That means you get ten more votes at Town Meeting -- (the five you actually get, and the five more votes that aren't cast from other sections of town).
Why do you think Lincoln Avenue has right now -- how many of the UM students in the Southwest Dorms vote? Enough said?
While the Select Board my have said "No," the final word on this project will be the Housing Court.
ReplyDeleteOr whatever Court comes after that.
ReplyDelete