George Smith (U3), Nancy Buffone and David Ziomek Co-Chairs Steering Committee
The Town Gown Steering Committee heard a brief presentation from their $60,000 consultants this afternoon, appropriately enough at the UMass police station, and heard an earful about student housing and student behavior, which have brought this college town to a tipping point.
Lead consultant George Smith of U3 Advisers said they are still in the "due diligence and research phase" meeting with all the stakeholders from the Chancellor on down, and he is targeting August for release of preliminary findings.
But Ken Rosenthal, the first member of the Steering Committee to speak after the presentation chastised the consultants for not meeting with neighbors living in the battle zones.
UMPD Chief John Horvath, Ken Rosenthal, Tony Maroulis
Amherst Planning Director Jonathan Tucker defended his department saying they are not pursuing any one particular housing plan, but a range of options -- inclusionary zoning, greater density expansion at already existing apartment complexes, student housing (in the right place) -- and that when it comes to housing, the solution is simple: the town just needs MORE.
Of course out of the two dozen or so members of the general public who attended the presentation a good number were activists neighbors who react to students the way vampires react to daylight.
Nancy Buffone did say UMass, which currently houses 62% of its students, is looking at public private partnerships to build taxable student housing on school property but it's "very complex" with a wide variety of political, legal, and financial implications.
Local developers Dave Williams and Kyle Wilson, who are currently constructing Olympia Place, a complex near UMass housing 236 students and Kendrick Place at the edge of town center which will house 102 tenants, were in attendance. They probably would not welcome the competition of a huge new student housing development on or off campus (unless of course they were the chosen developer).
As they say on Facebook under relationships, "It's complicated."
19 comments:
Huh? You've got it all wrong. The newest, nicest apartments aren't going to be worried. It's the owners of Swiss Village, Cliffside, the Boulders. Which are students going to choose? Old and run down, or new.
Yes, but new also means pricey.
For a reasonable price they can buy my house. I only have four more years and it's going to be a rental anyway. I'm ready to move on, let the students pay my mortgage on this house, and the new one I plan on in a neighboring town.
Why does Amherst have to build housing for every Umass student? What about Umass, land near the shopping centers, Hadley, Sunderland, Pelham, Shutesbury, Leverett? Spread the fun. Apartment housing along University Drive and Route 9 next to the stores are great places to build apt buidling and there is already plenty of parking.
I love how these developers put there own spin on these projects. Telling the people how much the town stands to benifit. The truth of the matter is this. The only people to benifit here are the developers!
If we had a better bus system that reached Shutesbury, Pelham, etc, we could have student housing further from downtown. The success of the apt buildings in Sunderland are testament to the fact that students are willing to live (happily) miles from school.
let the students pay my mortgage on this house, and the new one I plan on in a neighboring town
This is why I believe that the Amherst property market -- a speculative bubble -- is going to implode spectacularly.
There are a lot of people who are still paying a mortgage on one house while also paying a second (larger) mortgage on the nicer house they actually live in -- using the current high-profit student rental to pay for both, using their other income for other expenses.
If anything were to pop this balloon -- any form of increase in supply or reduction of demand -- if some fall they were no longer able to gouge UM students the way they currently do -- they'd be unable to pay EITHER mortgage!
Three possibilities:
1: Fewer students and/or fewer students living off campus (i.e. UM building more dorms).
2: Competition -- more rental housing *in* Amherst or better access to housing in *other* communities. (Note opposition to both The Retreat and the Triangle Street Roundabout.)
3: Inflation. The FED can't keep printing money forever and is already hinting of higher interest rates in the near future. Anyone remember the days of James Earl Carter and 18% mortgage rates & subsidized student loans at 9%?
Even if people have "locked in" their current mortgage rate (on both properties) their other interest rates (e.g. credit cards) will go up -- as will the mortgage rate of anyone wishing to purchase either of their properties. Inflation will also raise prices overall so the little maintenance they do will cost them more.
Hence even if they continue to get the same number of dollars per month, if inflation reduces the value of those dollars, it is the same thing as receiving fewer dollars without inflation.
And remember that all of this is based on the belief that UM students are an inexhaustible fungible resource -- that more will show up each fall (and have parents somehow able to pay for them doing so). Anyone remember what happened to the Penn Central Railroad???
A UMass degree is no long getting kids jobs -- and that's starting to be noticed. As we go into the depths of the Second Great Depression, parents don't have the money -- and with increased interest rates, will find it far more difficult to borrow it.
And conservatives are not happy with higher education in general -- should conservatives acquire power on the state or federal level, money for higher ed would be reduced.
A lot of people may "have" a lot of things, but they are way, way, WAY into debt more than people realize. One example is Richie Tisei who is running against John Tierney. While Tisei owns numerous expensive properties "on paper", all are so heavily mortgaged that, in reality, he actually owns almost nothing!
My point: People who could afford the modest house rode the speculative bubble to purchase a second house they can't afford *AND THEN* committed the money they would have used for the first mortgage to yet other things. Without the continued ability to "gouge" UM students, THEY LOOSE EVERYTHING!
"...land near the shopping centers ...Apartment housing along University Drive and Route 9 next to the stores are great places to build apt buidling and there is already plenty of parking...."
One word: "Wetlands."
There is a lot that could not be built today -- Stop & Shop comes to mind -- but more importantly, think of a wet sponge and what happens when you push your hand down on part of it.
All of the buildings that have been built in the past half century, along with all the roads (particularly the 116 "bypass", have dramatically raised the water table and hence created wetlands which thus makes it un-buildable land.
Remember that 116 used to continue up North Pleasant Street -- and the current divided highway was built to Interstate Specs -- as was the Rocky Hill Road overpass -- with the massive weight of the gravel roadbed pushing down on this "sponge."
Back in the late 1960's, lots of brick & concrete "WPA-built" UMass buildings were demolished to make space for new ones, a lot of that was dumped on swampland to create North Village. (You can still find chunks of brick buildings in the woods.) North Village actually "floats" up & down which is why it has flexible lead water pipes. (Yes GEO, *lead*...)
Hence, in addition to protecting the existing (original) wetlands, a half century of filling wetlands has made even more land unbuildable because of wetland protections.
Hence, while along University Drive and Route 9 next to the stores are great places to build apt buildings environmental laws PROHIBIT them from being built there!
As an aside, the National Fish & Wildlife building was built on wetlands -- I am not making this up...
"If we had a better bus system that reached Shutesbury, Pelham, etc, we could have student housing further from downtown. The success of the apt buildings in Sunderland are testament to the fact that students are willing to live (happily) miles from school.
A PVTA bus which meets current emissions standards only gets 4MPG -- and still pollutes far more than a gasoline engine. By contrast, a compact car gets 30MPG and can carry four students.
I mention this for those who think that forcing UM students out of cars and into buses will help the environment -- particularly when it takes TWO trips of the bus while a car can be parked on campus -- a bus bringing students to or from campus has to return nearly empty in order to make a second trip.
Building better roads and more campus parking would enable students to live further away from Amherst itself!!!
A lot of student would prefer to live at home with their parents and not even have to rent ANYTHING -- they would commute from MetroBoston if they could do so.
I joke about the "Trans-Quabbin Expressway" but if it were not for the last 20 miles, the hassle of getting through Downtown Amherst, and then finding a place to park, a LOT MORE students would be commuting 2-3 days a week rather than living in Amherst.
Now why was the Triangle Street Roundabout really defeated?
One other thing:
"let the students pay my mortgage on this house, and the new one I plan on in a neighboring town..."
How would you like to be economically exploited so that another could get rich at your expense?
Back in the late 1960's, people who lived in the "ghetto" felt that they were being exploited -- that landlords were "gouging" them -- and that led to a lot of unpleasantness including buildings burning down in urban rioting.
To me, this is historical fact, and all *I* can say is what the "experts" of that era said -- they explain all of this as being caused by racism & economic exploitation. A group of people who were held in contempt by others who were also exploiting them to get rich.
How exactly is the current situation involving UM students any different?
"Hadley, Sunderland, Pelham, Shutesbury, Leverett?"
kids don't wanna live there, too far away, they wanna live right on/next to campus and be with there friends, go to amherst bars, and NOT commute (yes, even ten minutes can be a long enough commute to hinder students from living there)
"If we had a better bus system"
are you kidding!!?? do you know how much money it takes for the system already in place? not to mention how BIG it already is! the bus system is trying to do its best, it can't just go everywhere. and try going to other schools, this is easily one of the best bus systems in the country, except for major cities of course. don't forget, this is western massachusetts, where the only two major "cities" are amherst and noho.
and again, even better buses to neighboring towns wouldn't help much, who the hell wants to take a bus twenty-forty minutes to school at 8am? certainly the students don't when they could live a five minute walk away. In fact, a lot of students who have a five minute bus ride still prefer to drive, because, well, the bus just seems harder.
"they would commute from MetroBoston if they could do so"
they can do so, and that's even crazier. you expect kids to drive 1-2 hours to amherst? while passing multiple other schools. no way jose, can't expect that to be a reasonable option. and most kids go to college to GET AWAY FROM HOME
also, there's a reason why taking public transit helps the environment, Dr. Ed. the buses are already running so eliminating your car from the road and taking the bus would take off the emissions from even a 50mpg car.
Gee, Ed, what are your thoughts?
Signed,
Welcome to Crazyland
I know that, until this committee finishes its work, I'm going to avoid wearing my gown in town.
"they would commute from MetroBoston if they could do so"
they can do so, and that's even crazier. you expect kids to drive 1-2 hours to amherst? while passing multiple other schools. no way jose, can't expect that to be a reasonable option. and most kids go to college to GET AWAY FROM HOME"
1: Most UM students had more freedom at home than they do as college students in Amherst -- and go back home to party.
2: Most UM students are going to UMass to get a piece of paper that they hope will get them a job.
3: An increasing number already are commuting. It has to do with MONEY.
also, there's a reason why taking public transit helps the environment, Dr. Ed. the buses are already running so eliminating your car from the road and taking the bus would take off the emissions from even a 50mpg car"
Eliminating the BUS from the road would do a hell of a lot more...
Dr. Ed...
1. are you kidding me!!?? there's endless freedom at college, most kids at home can't drink regularly and as heavily under 21 (and over sometimes, myself included). can't smoke at home. can't do other drugs at home. can't bring girls/guys home. and after 18 years at home, they wanna get out of the house (not to mention the parents might want them gone as well). This is just proving to me that you are trolling.
2. yes ,they want jobs and a diploma, but they also want to get out of the house, try new things, etc. don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive
3. also has to do with increase enrollement, housing around campus (the main point of what we are talking here, adding housing). more kids means the necessity for more housing
4. you sure about eliminating the bus? eliminating the bus might add, i don't know, 100, 200, 500 more cars driving around? take your guess, how would that be better for the environment? not to mention traffic (increasing time on roads for cars, increasing pollution). show me how you think the bus isn't helping, and not with your 5th grade math, there's more to it than mpg
i'm not sure why i keep bothering, you are obviously just trolling to get a rouse. nobody honestly thinks kids want to stay at home as opposed to living at college. this is COLLEGE we are talking about. and you are aware that kids come from ACROSS THE COUNTRY TOO, right?
1. are you kidding me!!?? there's endless freedom at college
Not really. Most kids with serious drug problems bring them to college now -- what's that say?
2. yes ,they want jobs and a diploma, but they also want to get out of the house, try new things, etc. don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive
Money?
3. also has to do with increase enrollement, housing around campus (the main point of what we are talking here, adding housing). more kids means the necessity for more housing
As long as they can continue to find suckers who buy the ad copy.
4. you sure about eliminating the bus?
I was responding to the asinine statement that the bus's pollution was fixed while that of cars was optional.
nobody honestly thinks kids want to stay at home as opposed to living at college.
Those not wanting to work three jobs while trying to be students might not mind.
you are aware that kids come from ACROSS THE COUNTRY TOO, right?
High School Guidance folk in Ohio haven't heard how badly UMass sucks -- yet...
LOL, Dr. Ed, come on. you are really a funny one.
You are honestly talking about the smallest percentage of kids out there (idk, maybe one percent?). how do you figure when you say "most"? just because you add words like that doesn't make them true. "most" kids are not able to have drug problems at home and love the freedom they have at school (which is a substantial amount of freedom).
kids that work multiple jobs tend to work multiple so they can support themselves LIVING IN AN APARTMENT away from home. They want to afford the apt, so they work for it (which, btw, how many out there are working three jobs SO they can work at home? my guess would be zero. though it is a good point they need to work hard for living on their own, good job boy).
You're always a good troll Doc, fun games you play. Since you didn't actually respond with anything that was real/factual/coherent, I'll assume that's because you know I'm right, which we all already knew.
I'll assume that's because you know I'm right
No, I know that you are a paid shill for the purgatorial cesspool and like any prostitute, will say whatever makes the client happy.
I recognized the talking points -- hey, whatever - how much do they have to pay you, anyway?
Answer one question though: If you are right, why does UMass fight the "2+2" program with such passion? Could it be that LOTS of students LOVE the option of living at HOME for the first two years, going to a community college and only having to be in Amherst for 2 years?
more than likely Dr. Ed, it is not because lots of students love the option to live at home (etc etc), probably not many of them do
Post a Comment