New Town Logo: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
Amherst downtown business community dodged a dirty bomb last night as Town Meeting -- all too narrowly -- rejected by 97 Yes-83 No (but it required a 2/3 Yes vote) a citizen petition article requiring strict parking requirements with any new development in the Municipal Parking District which currently exempts such parking requirements.
CVS parking lot downtown
And the common sense reason for that is parking is very expensive, and takes up precious space. Besides, Amherst is a "green community" where walking, cycling, skateboarding and public transportation are highly encouraged.
The scary thing about last night is that more than a majority of Town Meeting members supported this anti-business, no growth strategy.
Currently Amherst has an out of whack tax base: 10% commercial, 90% residential. Hadley by comparison has 34% commercial tax base and 66% residential. And their property tax rate is almost half that of Amherst.
All of their commercial property is located along the RT9 corridor, aka two shopping malls, which provide plenty of free parking. No wonder our downtown is struggling.
The other anti-development travesty last night was the scuttling of Article 23, which would have rezoned four adjacent properties bordering UMass and Amherst town center, thus allowing greater housing density.
Currently problem #1 in our little college town is lack of housing.
Currently problem #1 in our little college town is lack of housing.
Naturally the neighbors, whose backyards run down a steep incline into the zone would have none of it. And naturally, because we're talking Amherst Town Meeting, their NIMBY sentiments prevailed.
Only in the Banana Republic of Amherst
ReplyDeleteA Banana Republic would be nice to have in Amherst.
ReplyDeleteYes, the crushing poverty would be a nice change.
DeleteLarry- article 23 should have failed as it did. While the town lawyer claimed it did not constitute spot zoning, most people see it that way. It is naked creep zoning. The Wentworth article failed and it was frightening how many folks voted for it. The guy, who said the article wasn't about parking but rather about stopping development was absolutely right (and he supported the article). If I had pointed that out (against the article) I am sure a point of order would have been raised. Last night lots of folks left disgusted with TM (but for very different reasons).
ReplyDeletePeople who see that as "spot zoning" should be forever banned from Town Meeting.
ReplyDeleteAs should those who voted for the skunk Ms. Wentworth brought to the picnic.
Is there any way to get rid of town meeting?
ReplyDeleteTakes the signatures of 15% of the current registered voters to call for a Charter change.
ReplyDelete"People who see that as "spot zoning" should be forever banned from Town Meeting.
ReplyDeleteAs should those who voted for the skunk Ms. Wentworth brought to the picnic."
And this from a guy who can't wave enough flags reminding us of the worlds greatest Democracy.
We should allow only those voters who agree with our point of view. Ok, Mao.
Zoning is an immoral way to get control of things you don't own.
ReplyDeleteMost of the political problems in Amherst result from the degradation of property ownership rights to be replaced by entitlement rights.
I do not understand why I would need town approval to add to my house, with minimal consequence to everyone else in town....but I can pop out a kid without a permit and cost the town an assured $250k in schooling alone.
You shouldn't need permission to have a child or use your property.
Besides, cars are not a right, requirement or otherwise. We are told all the time driving is a privilege. Developers should not have to make extra efforts by law to facilitate someone's privilege before the person has even been identified.
Again, all this comes from putting your property rights up for a constantly changing vote. I guess the cool thing about my kid example is that the town COULD require a permit to have a kid. All it would take is a vote of your neighbors. I guess everyone with kids already knows that state can come and take them, manage them, force you to do things with them, sorry to remind you that you kid is no more yours than your house. They both belong to the community, you can tell because it is the community that has the final call, not you.
The way to get rid of town meeting is to install liberty, where you decide. Will never happen, esp in the commune of Amherst.
Consider it a basic intelligence requirement.
ReplyDelete(And I have a feeling you would fail as well).
Town meeting consists of Amherst residents who are dedicated enough to spend multiple evenings debating policy in an effort to improve their town.
ReplyDeleteFormal votes are taken and majorities rule.
Looks like democracy to me!
Larry, why do you hate democracy?
Why do you want to change the rules just because the vote didn't go your way?
Why do you call people names just because they disagree with you?
My sainted Irish Mother taught me democracy = majority rules. And a majority is 50% plus one.
ReplyDeleteNot a SINGLE Town Meeting member, or member of Select Board or School Committee member last night won their seat in a local election that garnered a 50% turnout.
Why do you ask questions from under the cowardly cloak of anonymity?
The tyranny of the majority.
DeleteDuring Monday's session I counted 6 TM members sleeping during the tax exemption article.
ReplyDeleteIt is truly frightening that the parking article mustered a majority. Only two years ago the banana faction was barely over a third of TM; enough to defeat zoning articles but nothing more. Now they have real power and it is only going to grow. They are hostile, angry, bitter, resentful, and fearful like rabid, cornered animals. And as we all know it is far easier to unite people against something (reasonable development) than for it (reasonable development).
ReplyDeleteAmherst is slowly loosing its family center. Whether you blame poor schools, growing University pushing up home values, small percentage of noisy student, etc. It does not really matter. The town in the future will have a huge student population spread all over town. The townies that are left will have a stronger activist / paranoid bent and town meeting will continue to become a stronger anti business, anti growth institution, pro ethnic diversity, pro environment, anti car, pro social justice. Its just the way things are going.
ReplyDeleteto add to 12:04: that group is also well organized in several prencincts- they get like-minded (ie crazy-minded) folks to run for TM and actively work to get their opponents (ie rationale folks) off TM
ReplyDeleteanon@12:44: the left-over townies you describe (similar to Vince and Mary W) aren't really anti-car or pro-environment. That is clear from last night's discussion. They are entirely immoral and will adopt any "convenient" stance just to push their own very selfish, irrational, inflexible agenda. they are BANANAs. I don't understand the reasons why fewer families decide to live in Amherst. House prices are currently lower than they were 14 years ago when I moved here. But the town better figure that out!
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying "immoral." Explain please.
DeleteThe BANANAS actually don't like each other, but are willing to work together for the "thrill kill".
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone really think that Sean Whats-His-Face (from "Stop the Retreat" fame) and Vince OConnor care about the well-being of residents on Mt Pleasant and Pokeberry Ridge?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend routine.
ReplyDeleteOr an unholy alliance.
Not sure where you got your housing numbers but we bought our house in amherst in 98 and in today's market it would cost double the price. We should build a real parking garage behind CVS. I agree in decreasing our carbon foot print when possible but you have to be realistic.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to sell you some of my carbon credits at a reduced price...
Deleteanon@329; we bought our house in mid-2002, we would be lucky to break even with what we paid then plus the renovations/maintenance costs we've invested. Prices are barely back to what they were in 2003. Then it was rare to find a house below $300K then. Now there are quite a few below that.
ReplyDeleteThere is a simple end-run around this.
ReplyDelete1: The owners either sell to UMass or UMass takes the land via eminent domain. No Town approval is needed for either.
2: UMass leases the property to a private developer who then builds what the zoning change would have been needed to build -- I don't think that any Town approval would be needed because the land is being leased from the State.
2A: If the lease held in the name of the developer puts the land back under Town control, then UMass gets into one of the private-public partnership agreements that Eddie Hull and others were (are?) working on which means that this legally is a UMass building, exempt from all Amherst regs.
3: Property tax which would have been paid to Amherst had the zoning been changed -- isn't because the land has also become tax exempt.
4: Amherst Town Meeting can huff and puff until they collectively pass out but there is nothing they can do to stop this.
5: And in the process, they have lost ALL control over what is built there. It's the Chapter 40B nightmare writ large -- UMass which seeks housing for LOTS of students and a developer seeking to profit from providing it can do whatever they damn well please REGARDLESS of how badly it harms the neighborhood....
6: And the only recourse Amherst BANANAs would have would be to Governor Charlie Baker -- and you won't get far with him on this...
Ed, has there been some interest shown by UMass in this property? Why would they get involved for measly bit of land?
ReplyDeleteEd, what you just described will never happen. Do you REALLY think Umass would dare take on that fight for one small bit of land? You're a joke! Is it an intentional joke? Or are you searching for an optimistic vantage point to view something you obviously feel quite sad about? Sorry, you lost.
ReplyDelete"Ed, has there been some interest shown by UMass in this property? Why would they get involved for measly bit of land?
ReplyDeleteI know there has been a great deal of interest in the so-called "public-private partnerships, with two different projects on two different sites.
And when you realize how much of the undeveloped UM land is "wetlands" -- All that land North & West is wetland, as is (I believe) much of the land where they were going to build the Med School, across the street from Sylvan. And if Frat Row isn't being considered for this, there isn't a whole lot of land left.
"Ed, what you just described will never happen."
A few years ago, I would have said the same thing about gays in the military.
"Do you REALLY think Umass would dare take on that fight for one small bit of land?"
Depending on who would be making money on the deal, absolutely! Besides, "one small bit" pf buildable land is quite valuable when you have few other places you can build.
"Or are you searching for an optimistic vantage point to view something you obviously feel quite sad about? "
Why would I feel "sad"?
I merely presented a comment on how easy it would be to make an end run around what some seem to think is a ban on development.
Last call for my carbon credits sale... Iwas hoping to make a couple of bucks before I put them out front on a 'Free' table. I really thought I could elicit more interest here in Amherst...
ReplyDelete