Nothing in Amherst brings out the wrath of NIMBYs quite like a proposed housing development -- especially when the prospective clients are, gasp, students. Even though two recent housing studies overwhelmingly concluded Amherst needs more housing -- especially student housing.
The Retreat, a resort like enclave of stand alone cottages clustered in the woodlands of North Amherst targeting a UMass student clientele, was announced in late February. The reaction was instant and overwhelming.
As in negative.
By the time of the first informational public hearing at the Jones Library in April a coalition of concerned citizens, "Save Historic Cushman," formed and their ubiquitous calling card, red & white 'Stop The Retreat' lawn signs, had already been planted.
Neighbors of proposed development already seeing red April 16, "informational" meeting Jones Library
The first major political confrontation would be at the annual spring Town Meeting where warrant articles only require ten signatures to get on the official warrant.
Article #43 called for the town to "Purchase a Conservation Restriction" on 154 acres of woodland for $1.2 million in northeast Amherst that is already under a purchase-and-sale agreement for $6.5 million. Once again to stop a large development of badly needed housing.
At the June 3rd session of Town Meeting the esteemed body not only failed to muster a two-thirds vote to take the 154 acre parcel by eminent domain, but they terminated (with extreme prejudice) the naive heavy-handed proposal by supporting my "move to dismiss" the article by a 98-90 vote.
Plan B then became convincing the Select Board to invoke the "Right of first refusal," since the forested property had been in a state conservation program for many years. Of course that "right" would be a tad expensive as the private deal between Landmark Properties and W.D. Cowls, Inc amounted to $6.5 million dollars.
Neither the Planning Board or Conservation Commission could be convinced to recommend to the Select Board the expensive purchase. Although the July 29 Select Board public meeting was packed with angry neighbors, the Select Board wisely choose not to play that expensive card.
Once again the "Save Historic Cushman" crowd was resoundingly told "No" by town government.
At the beginning of this month (December 2) the Select Board once again held a public hearing to decide whether they should make a recommendation to the Planning Board, who now holds the fate of the project in their hands.
Once again the usual suspects showed up in force voicing the usual concerns. The Select Board decided to send Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe to the December 4th packed-beyond-building-code-limits Planning Board meeting to remind the board just how important this issue is and that they need to get it right.
Since Planning Board members are old enough (well most of them anyway) to remember the classic Frankenstein scene of angry villagers armed with pitchforks marching towards the castle under the bright glow of crackling torches, perhaps no such reminder was necessary.
Landmark Properties presented their "preliminary" cluster development design to which the Planning Board issued a set of recommended alterations. Landmark will come back in this New Year with a "Definitive Plan" incorporating those tweaks.
The battle continues ...
18 comments:
If the NIMBYs want to keep that patch of woods undeveloped, why don't they put up their own money and buy it? Donate it to Nature Conservancy or keep it as a private preserve. But don't force the town to spend money just so they can enjoy having trees around.
anon 1:52 PM: well said. clearly the NIMBYers only concern is having trees around for enjoyment. selfish bastards.
I say again, look at the GIF and see where the homes were built relative to the property lines.
They all built in the BACK of their properties -- enjoying the benefit of the Jones forestland but not paying for it. And now they're not able to enjoy this -- which they never paid for -- anymore.
And we should feel sorry for them -- why?
A cluster development in the woods near a few houses is sprawl by any name. Wake up it's not 1960 anymore.
Maybe not, but supply and demand still rules -- just as it did in 1960.
Anons 1:52 and 2:35, perhaps you didn't get the memo: nobody is "forcing the town to spend money." As Larry has pointed out frequently, Town Meeting voted not to spend conservation funds to purchase this land.
Unfortunately, neither of you seem to be able to address the real issues and problems that many of us who live in Amherst (including many people who live all over town) see with this housing proposal. Simply calling names does nothing except show your lack of ability to respond to the concerns raised by many thoughtful people who have lived here a long time, contributed much to the community, and are concerned about the overall impact of this development on the town as a whole as well as the Cushman area. Perhaps reading this article (http://mobile.gazettenet.com/home/9871242-108/nimby-self-interest-or-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine) would be helpful about calling someone a NIMBY or perhaps reading the letters submitted to the planning board (public documents available at the amherstma.gov website under the planning board)) to help you understand why people are opposed to this development.
BTW Larry, your narrative forgot to mention there's a lawsuit brought by abutters pending in Land Court against Landmark, Cowls and the Town. Until this lawsuit is settled (and this could take years), it's not clear Landmark will build. And, yes, I know they can go ahead and build IF they get final approval from the Planning Board, but would you spend millions on a site with a pending lawsuit?
that's not what lawsuits are for.
You know, I don't believe the anti-SLAPP statute precludes a countersuit against the parties that have filed a lawsuit against you.
SLAPP is Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- a corporation suing citizens personally for stuff like defamation in order to silence vocal critics. (UMass does something similar - and even more nasty - to silence critical student voices, but I digress)
Landmark can't sue citizens for opposing the Gateway, but once the citizens themselves file a lawsuit, they become litigants and no longer have this protection. Landmark can countersue for the "abuse of process" -- clearly stated above as the intent -- and now for stuff like defamation and such.
And unlike a corporation hiding behind the corporate veil, the neighbor's personal assets are on the line.
This could get really interesting....
abuse of process is not clearly stated as the intent of the lawsuit by any of the abutters, that we know of.
The point of the lawsuit, which the abutters have a perfect right to file, is to get a determination from the Land Court of the subsection of the R-O zoning which forbids "sororities, fraternities, social dormitories and similar use." (I may not have the exact zoning language here). Landmark argues that the Retreat is not student housing within this definition, the abutters argue that it is. IT is simple question of clarification of the law and there's no application here for a SLAPP suit.
The question I have is if the anti-SLAPP laws protect litigants -- I don't see how they possibly could.
Landmark has a very simple way out of all of this -- to make it very clear that ANYONE, not just students but *anyone* can live there. They could even take a "don't ask" policy as to the student status of applicants.
Imagine what you'd have then -- imagine all the partying kids could do if they didn't have to worry about ever going to class or anything....
Welcome to reality folks -- drive out Landmark and someone will build something for the quite lucrative Section 8 market -- and then you really will have fun...
UMass does not have an inherent right to grow and expect the town to provide housing. (This is aside from the fact that they say they are NOT going to grow for the next several years.) Many other large public universities are in cities that can absorb more off campus housing (and even there there's lots of opposition to the Retreat projects, and suffering after they're built). The Town of Amherst cannot handle the number of students living off campus, forcing out families and young professionals. The housing crunch is fixable by UMass carrying its weight. The Retreat is not the answer, easily evidenced by looking at the results in other places where they exist. It's so easy to call opponents NIMBY- but is it really so hard to see their point? A town wide solution is needed, not only for Cushman, but for all the areas that are suffering from the 50% rental rate, many of whom are student partiers in family neighborhoods. Take a break from the nastiness and snarkiness to consider that the Retreat many be a bad option.
UMass DOES carry their weight. They are #3 in the nation for public Universities housing students on campus.
The housing problem can be fixed with an increase in supply. That simple.
The Retreat is a good start.
UMass DOES carry their weight. They are #3 in the nation for public Universities housing students on campus.
MOST PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ARE IN CITIES THAT CAN ABSORB OFF CAMPUS STUDENTS, NOT IN TOWNS THE SIZE OF AMHERST, THAT CANNOT.
The housing problem can be fixed with an increase in supply. That simple.
NOT THAT SIMPLE. AN INCREASED SUPPLY IN AMHERST WILL ADD TO THE OVERPOPULATION, AND TIP THE SCALES EVEN MORE TOWARDS RENTALS BY STUDENTS, FEWER AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR FAMILIES.
The Retreat is a good start.
NO IT'S NOT.
MOST PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ARE IN CITIES THAT CAN ABSORB OFF CAMPUS STUDENTS, NOT IN TOWNS THE SIZE OF AMHERST, THAT CANNOT.
Which is why I'd like to see the Amherst campus downsized relative to Lowell & Dartmouth. Then you'd see plenty of "young families" -- they'll all be single mothers with Section 8 vouchers and you'll see your taxes going up, up, up but what the heck, it's only money...
In any case, UMass says there will be no growth over the next several years, as populations of all high schools and colleges nationwide are dwindling. Children of baby boomers are graduating or graduated from college. Also, the multifamily industry (what Landmark is part of) reports a significant decline in viability of large student minidorms far from campuses.
Added to commonwealth college's 1500 beds, Archipelago's project in a fraternity zone, increase in Presidential apartments, another dorm or 2, built by a private developer on campus should take care of appropriate supply. The Chancellor says this is something UMass should do, and Senator Rosenberg says UMass should make a proposal, and he can help it happen.
Yeah, what he (or she) said.
Post a Comment