Amherst Planning Board last night (like lambs to slaughter)
Last year at the very last minute the Planning Board pulled back their Inclusionary Zoning overhaul that would require across the board 10% affordable units in any new housing project of 10 units or more.
They were reacting to concerns from the business community who complained it would make things especially arduous in the downtown or Village Centers where development costs are higher.
One good result was the town came up with Article 21, tax incentives to help alleviate the pain for developers who otherwise can't make the affordable unit requirement work.
Last night Town Meeting, considering it required a two-thirds vote, overwhelmingly rejected the Planning Board's two-years-in-the-making Inclusionary Zoning Article 22 by a 100 No to 88 Yes vote after 1.5 hours of sometimes snippy discussion.
Critics said it was unnecessary simply because the Planning Board was not correctly interpreting the current Inclusionary Zoning bylaw which trips the 10% affordable unit requirement whenever a Special Permit is required.
The Kendrick Place development (36 units) required two concessions -- an extra 10 feet of height and extra lot coverage -- but they were not considered major enough to trip the existing bylaw.
And of course this same scenario played out just up the road with the same developer's One East Pleasant Street (80 units).
Using future home of One East Pleasant as leasing office for Kendrick Place
As a result certain BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) types now consider the Planning Board to be made up of Robber Baron, pro-development hacks.
Will the Planning Board take another shot at appeasing the unappeasable next year? Who could blame them if they do not.
Sure Article 21, the property tax breaks package, did pass because the unholy alliance of the BANANA/NIMBY crowd faltered. But will that alone make a difference? Probably not.
Perhaps the best idea last night came from black sheep Town Meeting member Kevin Collins, who floated the sometimes-you-have-to-destroy-the-Village-in-order-to-save-it concept by suggesting we allow the town to fall below the 10% Subsidized Housing Index.
Click to enlarge/read
That way any developer can come in and build pretty much whatever they want as long as it is 25% affordable.
Maybe now that town/gown relations seem to be at a high water mark, it's time to revive the Gateway Project.
Gateway Area with former Frat Row (on right) shovel ready for a signature project
Nobody cares.
ReplyDeleteExcept for that pack of NIMBYs sharpening their pitchforks and filling up the gas butane torches.
ReplyDeleteOh, the NIMBYs care alright. About wasting everyone's time, insisting they want affordable housing when in fact their agenda is to use it as a prophylactic against all future development. They know that affordable housing requirements without big offsets will squash future projects.
ReplyDeleteBut the non-NIMBYs still don't care.
ReplyDeleteI like that line, "a prophylactic against all future development". That's exactly it. Nicely stated.
Just give them a worthy cause and they will use it to stop development in its tracks. Watch Mary Wentworth do it with downtown parking later this week.
But voters keep returning members like her year after year after year.
Ms. Wentworth's article requires a two-thirds vote, so that's not going to pass.
ReplyDeleteBut even if it gets a majority, then all hope is lost.
The debate on inclusionary zoning has raised some questions:
ReplyDelete1) Where has inclusionary zoning actually worked, especially in Massachusetts? What is its track record? (Perhaps this has been explored, and I missed it.)
2) Is there realistically an inclusionary zoning article that could ever get 2/3'ds of this Town Meeting, as it currently and foreseeably is constituted, or is this simply an exhausting fool's errand?
3) Is there an argument that needs to be discussed openly (and not just on Email listservs) that ANY inclusionary zoning article would actually be harmful to all of housing development in Amherst, damaging the cause of middle-class home building or other segments?
If you were on the floor of Town Meeting last night, you were aware of quite a few attack points against this inclusionary zoning Article 22, including one with a civil rights dimension from Ms. Boutilier, that she was distributing a summary of during the meeting. It was like a circular firing squad.
It's time to stop torturing our Planning Board with this will-o'-the-wisp, this notion that there is some inclusionary zoning article that could pass, which seems to be receding before us as we repeatedly try to walk toward it.
Let's pursue affordable housing through other avenues, using the other "tools in the toolkit", as the Town Manager puts it, and let's stop wasting energy on zoning. There is a segment of Town Meeting that feels the need to punish someone for Kendrick Place being built, and they've chosen the Planning Director and the Planning Board. That retribution is what we saw last night. It's time to step back, and stop beating our heads against the wall, for an objective around which we clearly have no political consensus.
Rich Morse
It does not make sense to force integration between poor and non poor people. It will not be maintained.
ReplyDeleteIt would make about as much sense to require each Amherst resident to allow a homeless person to live with them in their house 10% of the hear.
People segregate on many fronts. in the pioneer valley we significantly segregate on race and income. Do the powers that be honestly think they can solve racism and elitism via regulations. Ha.
When you spend $20k a year per student in a town, affordable housing is a distant memory. The goal was to make the housing more expensive, I mean more valuable. This is also more costly, I mean less affordable.
Perhaps if the town wants housing to cost less, it should stop doing all kinds of collective things to make it worth more. To do both at the same time is throwing good money over bad.
"If the town wants housing to cost less, it should stop doing all kinds of collective things to make it worth more."
ReplyDeleteIf someone could explain what is meant here, I would appreciate it.
Also called "After you finish serving me my capucino, enjoy your drive home to Palmer."
ReplyDelete