Proposed mixed use development would replace closed saw mill (top center)
In Amherst no building project bigger than a dog house is safe from coordinated attack by concerned neighbors worried about the destruction of their neighborhood, even though some of them have not been living there long enough to really know the neighborhood.
In South Amherst, Butternut Farm, a "friendly 40B" 26-unit initiative, was bitterly opposed by neighbors, including a failed lawsuit that only served to delay the project an extra half-dozen years and increase costs to the non-profit developer, HAPHousing.
Clark House, 100 subsidized units. About to be sold to a "qualified Preservation buyer"
And the Clark House, the first six story building in town center, was also fought over almost 40 years ago and would never have happened if not the for Amherst Redevelopment Authority, a quasi state agency with the power of eminent domain.
So I'm hardly shocked the usual suspects in North Amherst are now sharpening their pitchforks and fueling up the turbo charged torches to oppose the badly needed subsidized housing mixed-use proposal to help complete the Mill District vision.
Beacon purchased Rolling Green for $30.25 million ($1.25 million of town CPA $)
Ironically if not for Beacon Communities purchasing the 204 unit Rolling Green Apartments in East Amherst our Subsidized Housing Inventory would have fallen below 10%, so a Chapter 40B in the Mill District -- build whatever you want as long as it's 25% affordable housing -- would now be a slam dunk.
You better not even build a dog house unless you have Vince's personal approval.
ReplyDeleteImagine the outcry if another monstrosity like the Clark House was proposed! Surely, this more reasonable proposal will be welcomed once people understand the neighborhood scale of the project.
ReplyDeleteIt would be terrible if North Amherst neighbors and other Amherst residents participated in meetings to discuss this project, which will be a game-changer. Better to have these decisions made out of the public eye, without input or information, until there is a need for town tax money (and shoot down all questions then.) Things go so much faster without public involvement.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why we need to get a mayor/council so that discussions can be public.
ReplyDelete11:55 are you a TM member? If so you have no credibility on open government.
ReplyDeleteAnd most of my readers would know I first broke this story (which was not hard to do since I was given a press release) six weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteThis has not exactly been a stealth project.
Has Carol Grey accidentally sent her opinion to everyone on the planet yet?
ReplyDeleteI wonder how this project would or would not have fit or been likely to have been proposed if the form based code zoning initiative that many of these same folks shot down had passed.
ReplyDeleteYou can't have it both ways. Zoning and building departments beget nimby's. The rental bylaw is nimby, the town is pretty much run by taking entitlements from others....that is nimby.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, building stuff on private property should not have to be accepted by the public....or it would be public property, by deninition.
But Larry said the unAmerican bad words....emminent domaign.
11:55, I take it you would rather have an empty, dirt lot than affordable housing? This is why the inclusionary zoning bylaw failed last year - lip service to affordable housing, but when it comes down to it, there's no real support because the ruling elite of this town don't want to live next to "those people". I think your real goal for this project is to "talk it to death" in the name of making it "better." Can't wait for you and your minions to form a "Save Historic North Amherst" committee and file a lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteAnother nail in the nymby TM coffin
ReplyDelete60 units is allowed by right. 140 are being proposed. four-story buildings abutting story and a half Cape Cod houses. Why does more housing have to be over-kill? Why not propose something more reasonable that would fit better into the neeighborhood? WE are not against affordable housing; just something that complies with current zoning. Form-based code zoning wouldn't have allowed this much density. A "NIMBY"
ReplyDeleteAffordable housing is simply not profitable.
ReplyDeleteSo in order to make it work at a 25% level, a developer needs greater density. And going up is better than going wide.
Clearly 11:55 was speaking (writing) tongue-in-cheek. That said, this IS a good location for a mixed-use project with an affordable housing component. Larry is right that "going up is better than going wide" but it should be kept to a reasonable scale overall (reducing the number of residential units and including some retail or professional office or workshop space, and maybe re-use of the old/new sawmill structures).
ReplyDelete