Vince O'Connor, one man protest
Like "1 East Pleasant Street" for instance, a proposed 5-story mixed use development with 78 apartments and retail for up to four businesses on the ground floor. All plunked down on a 35,000 square foot parcel on the northern end of Amherst town center, currently known as "The Carriage Shops".
Tonight's Planning Board meeting on the subject (probably not the only one) will no doubt be well attended by the usual suspects, with the usual complaint: not the right place for the project.
Of course with some people -- all too many in Amherst -- there's never a right place for any project.
28 comments:
Don't laugh. He defeated the Retreat didn't he?
No, he was not overly involved with that particular battle.
And truth to be said, the cost of development is what really killed the project.
Yeah, because the neighbors all wanted it.
I do love how the townies all think they stopped the Retreat. As Larry correctly states economics did, not lawn signs and trust fund adults. That company wanted to build housing and get RIO but the costs of doing it would not allow that to happen for them anytime soon so they pulled out. It's not the first project they proposed and pulled out of. Fear not, more housing is coming.
Anons this AM and Larry,
You guys just don't get it do you? Yes, the cost of the project killed it, but the cost was driven up because the residents of Cushman and beyond pointed out (through diligent, fact based research and advocacy to the Planning Board) that it would cost that much to have the development meet existing zoning regulations.
Landmark's preliminary site plan (12/13) came in with over 50, yes that's 50, waiver requests which, if granted, would have gutted the zoning laws and set a precedent that would have opened up Amherst to any kind of development. When Landmark submitted it's final site plan a few months ago little was changed and when that site plan was reviewed by an outside engineering firm, over a 100 zoning issues were identified. Landmark just did not want to spend the money to build housing that would meet code because it would have killed their return on their investment. But that's their model: cheap housing with a quick return to cover initial costs, then sell it off a few years later to someone else to make a profit.
IF W.D. Cowls had accepted the final offer from Landmark (well below the original $6.5 million) they never would have pulled out. Period.
When I saw the difference between the site prep costs and the actual property cost, I kinda never really expected this to happen.
I also think someone did a bit of market research and determined what I suspect -- their target demographic is expected to decline in the near/mid future.
Remember that their business model depended upon renting to individuals in a shared unit -- you can't rent Section 8 that way. (Or at least you aren't supposed to, and we won;t get into the house out on Metacomet Road in Belchertown....)
Furthermore, that location was only valuable to people who (a) had vehicles and (b) wanted to be close to UMass -- even with 120% of market, the Retreat rents would be way above what Section 8 would pay -- and why would anyone other than a young college kid want to live out there?
On the other hand, if you build units that you can rent Section 8, then you aren't worried about the Higher Ed Bubble imploding....
"IF W.D. Cowls had accepted the final offer from Landmark (well below the original $6.5 million) they never would have pulled out."
Wouldn't that have then given the Town an opportunity to acquire the property for the same (far lower) price?
Once Cinda put it in that tax thing, she had to let the Town buy it for the same price someone else was willing to buy it for. Not an inflated price but what they actually would hand her in portraits of Presidents.
Hence would she not be precluded from taking less than the figure she gave to the town to match -- and/or be required to give the town a second opportunity to purchase at the lower price?
Yes if an offer was less than 5% off from the original it would trip the town's Right of First Refusal.
But it still would have been millions of dollars the town does not have.
At least Vince is covering his beardface for photos now. It shows a distinct increase of sensitivity towards others.
Come on now, that's what they said about Abe Lincoln.
And the project at One East Pleasant Street doesn't comply with multiple zoning bylaws either. Not only that one member of the public at the Design Review meeting last night thought it looked just like a factory!! then changed her mind and said a DOWNTOWN PRISON!...
In that case she probably will not want to live there.
If enough people share her view, the project will fail.
That's how the private sector works.
Larry,
I have to disagree with your 11:52 AM response to my earlier comment. Landmark itself, in their letter of withdrawal, stated it "realizes the current proposal's discordant reception among townspeople." And, that cited "certain, shifting design and regulatory interpretations effectively produced an untenable plan and prohibited an economically feasible project." This is a nice, face-saving way of saying "We can't make any money of this project if you make us follow the current zoning codes."
Landmark's proposal failed because citizens used the town's planning process to bring to light the economic unfeasibility of this plan. It was citizen input that brought all the zoning issues to light and forced Landmark to withdraw once they realized the Planning Board was serious about following the regulations.
I expect you'll disagree with this view, but the result would have been different if we had just rolled over and not objected.
I myself would like to see
holy Vincent
dragging around a large wooden
cross.
Come on
you old messiah you.
Vince saves!
-Squeaky Squeaks
p.s. Fore-ev-errrrr
annnnd evvvvvvv-errrrrrr...
Rene: The Planning Board would have done their job, with or without you.
Most of you have little experience with building. Concessions and bending of rules are all part of how today's buildings are made. You want something or a change in the way we do things, you give up something to get it. It's all about negotiation. In the end the infeasibility was the difference between what the bottom right of the spread sheet said based on x years of building and occupancy and what the range of that number needed to be. Landmark has pulled out of a dozen attempts to build before. Amherst was not the first and no more special. Amherst lost nothing and Landmark wrote any loss off. No one lost. This was not about student housing, it was about profit and creating communities that can be built and make money. In this case the range of what was needed and the long term projections did not work out. NIMBYS may believe they had something to do with it. If it makes them feel better then great.
Larry said @ 9:50 AM.
"And truth to be said, the cost of development is what really killed the project."
Anonymous @ 10:54 AM said...
"As Larry correctly states economics did, not lawn signs and trust fund adults."
EXACTLY, though you and yours weren't saying that initially."
Anonymous @ 10:54 AM said…I do love how the townies all think they stopped the Retreat."
WHO is saying that…tell me, no, really, tell me.
"Trust fund adults?!!!" Do you even know anyone who lives in Cushman or did you read any of the coverage about the Retreat other than that which supported your position?
Like most of my immediate Cushman neighbors, we barely have a retirement income let alone a trust fund.
Instead we are long-time (some, life-long) residents who "afforded" to live in Amherst because we worked our asses off and didn't need fancy. Remember, just a year ago some of you were stating that Cushman was just a bunch of shacks anyway.
We also worked our asses off to raise the money needed to put money where our minds were.
Why do you hold it against people who stand up for and put their backs behind what they believe in? I've posted here before, disagree with many of you, but never disrespected you.
As for Vince…you may not, I often don't, agree with him but, no more than Larry about his crusade should you fault someone who puts countless (and lawful) energy in to their own.
And what's with the comments about how someone looks (different than you) and their value because of it? That is the mentality that supported too many destructive and immoral factions throughout history for you not to have learned better.
Larry @ 2:17 PM said…
"If enough people share her view, the project will fail."
Yep, I think that's called, democracy.
Actually I can think of three adults now who live along the path of the Retreat who live in a trust funded house. I'm sure there are more.
Anonymous @ 7:22 PM said…
"Actually I can think of three adults now who live along the path of the Retreat who live in a trust funded house. I'm sure there are more."
And your point is? And you know this how? And that makes their opinion less valuable why?
First you disparage us because we live in shacks, then because we're "townies", then because we're supposedly all trust fund adults.
One way or the other you'll find a way to hold against us what didn't go your way.
BTW those nimbys (contributors and documented supporters of SHC) numbered over 400 and came from every section of town.
Somewhere between a reflexive no to new projects and an automatic yes to every development is a thoughtful discussion. Let's have it.
Larry,
Actually, the Planning Board (and the Conservation Commission too) can only do their job with the help of outside consultants and interested and informed residents. This is not a slap at either of these two (or any other) town organizations. But the town simply does not have and cannot afford to keep the expertise required as staff. In the case of the Retreat, we were willing to hire an expert (as did the town) with our own money to make sure that a full outside review was done. I supppose that it's just a coincidence that Landmark withdrew very soon after our expert made his presentation which revealed all the problems with the Retreat proposal.
You should be thanking us because we saved the town the cost of the consultant they hired.
You also named the town in a Land Court lawsuit that cost taxpayer dollars to defend.
To Anon 6:25 and 11:01:
Regardless of anyone's position on The Retreat, Amherst's official population figure of 37,819 is very misleading. Take away approximately 25,000 students (and the total might be higher) and you have a small town. It's not hard to figure out where the money came from for the anti-Retreat efforts (and in what proportions) or how the 400 signatures came from all over town.
Larry at 11:35 PM
"You also named the town in a Land Court lawsuit that cost taxpayer dollars to defend."
Actually, having been intimately involved in that process, town counsel is on retainer for any and all legal matters before the town, supported by tax dollars including those paid by opponents of the Retreat. Further, if town counsel had done its job to begin with, no lawsuit filing would have been necessary.
Larry, you really should 'try' the facts.
Anonymous @ 7:21 AM..
"It's not hard to figure out where the money came from for the anti-Retreat efforts (and in what proportions) or how the 400 signatures came from all over town."
Sorry, I don't get your drift...
And if the Town Attorney's time is squandered by nuisance lawsuits that exceed his retainer, then it costs extra per hour.
The cost of the development killed the project.....
.....hahaha
......hahaha
.....hahaha
That is just great.
Oh you meant the fake costs required by authorities, not the real costs.
Well if we look at things that way, we are lucky the we can afford to go to the bathroom....or at least we can until the local authorities make the cost of doing so kill the possibility of a good squat.
Post a Comment