"That Really Stinks"

Budget Coordinating Group this morning

Good thing about being a fly on the wall at public meetings not usually attended by reporters is town officials are a tad more forthright with their comments.

Take this morning's Budget Coordinating Group meeting for instance.  During his update on the Echo Village negotiation with mega-property owner Jamie Cherewatti, after lamenting the deal falling through at the last minute, Town Manger Musante closed with, "That really stinks".

The town had put all their eggs in one basket with a proposed Community Development Block Grant request of $800,000 because $600,000 of that would have gone towards purchasing from Cherewatti the 24 unit Echo Village Apartment complex.

James Cherewatti on left

The deadline for the grant application was February 14 (how romantic) and Cherewatti's last second rejection (by ignoring it) of a "fair market" purchase offer means the grant application is now dead.  The price offered is exempt from Open Meeting Law public disclosure, although the principal party who made the offer could probably release it.  

The Town Manager pointed out to the BCG, "That has a domino effect on three other programs:  Homeless Shelter, Food Pantry Program at the Survival Center, and $20,000 in emergency funds for the needy."

His proposal, which seemed to garner the support of the group, is to now take a $125,000 recommendation to Town Meeting using Free Cash.

He specifically wants it to be a stand alone item separate from the overall budget to telegraph that it's a "transitional" emergency appropriation, and not a return to the old days of annual town funding of Social Service programs. 

Finance Director Sandy Pooler floated the idea of having the money come out of Stabilization Fund which requires a two thirds vote to reinforce that this is a one time thing, and that Town Meeting "would really have to think about it."

BCG Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe cautioned it could send the message that town officials were setting too high a hurdle and it could be "off putting" to Town Meeting members.

Pooler responded that many things -- including bridge replacement or DPW snow and ice budget increases -- requires a  two-thirds vote, so this is not "singling out" social services.

Finance Chair and Select Board candidate Andy Steinberg thought perhaps the $125,000 should simply be in the routine general fund budget.   Stephanie O'Keeffe quickly responded the Select Board voted Monday unanimously that it be a stand alone article.  This reinforces the notion that we are simply "bridging the gap."

Select Board member Alisa Brewer (always a tad more forthright) added, "I will say it more aggressively:  NO!"

Even the Amherst Bulletin is aroused

Rental Permit Bylaw Upheld

Attorney General approves a bevy of Amherst Town Meeting bylaws

The road to the most important legislation passed by Town Meeting in over a generations has been rocky to say the least.  The Rental Registration Bylaw was bitterly opposed leading up to Town Meeting last Spring where it passed by a surprisingly w-i-d-e margin.

According to the state's Top Cop, "We acknowledge the letters and emails sent to us opposing the amendments adopted under Article 29 (Rental Registration Permit).  Interestingly the Attorney General's office goes on to say, "While we cannot conclude that any of these arguments furnish a basis for disapproval of the by-law, these letters and materials have aided our review."

One section of the bylaw states a registration form should be submitted to the "appropriate Town office."  Which in this case is the Principal Code Official (Rob Morra, Building Commissioner).  The AG has suggested the town clarify that section of the bylaw to identify the Principal Code official as the rental czar who issues permits, and can issue exemptions.

Apparently landlords had problems with the section of the bylaw that requires tenants to be made aware of the provisions of the new Rental Bylaw and inspection system, and that a copy of the lease be provided to the town.   The charge was that this is a violation of the "prohibition against regulation of a private civil relationship,"  which was used to strike down "rent control."

The AG found that section permissible because it is specifically limited. The boiler plate language in the bylaw clearly states: "Subject to and as limited by the Constitution of the Commonwealth."  So if a landlord finds something in the permit bylaw requirements that violates the state Constitution, then they can safely ignore it.

The new bylaw also requires the Select Board to appoint a Rental Appeals Board, to act as ombudsmen to help resolve issues amicably.  

Is the $100 permit fee a tax and therefor illegal because a municipality "has no independent power of taxation"?  The Attorney General thinks not. "Fees are collected not to raise revenues but to compensate the governmental entity providing the services for its expenses."

And in this case the Building Department has to hire a new full-time building inspector and administrative assistant to help oversee the program.  Amherst has identified 1,570 rental properties with a total of 5,265 individual rental units. That's a lot of oversight!

As of yesterday the Building Commissioner has received 160 applications (85% of them filed via the Internet) and issued permits for 56.  Or just a tiny bit over 10% of the rental properties in town. 

The law takes effect January 1st.

Town may want to think about stepping up PR outreach effort

The Huddle Continues

John Kennedy, Kumble Subbaswamy left, Stephanie O'Keeffe, John Musante right 5/15 Town Meeting

So yeah, five months after Amherst Town Meeting approved spending $30,000 for yet another study, the 'Mega Powers That Be' have finally gotten around to forming a -- you guessed it -- "steering committee."

At this pace we should see concrete results by the next Summer Olympics.

The September 30 Public Scolding Paid Off

Ban The Blarney

 

McMurphy's downtown Amherst 3/10/12 10:45 AM

UPDATE (Sunday afternoon):   

Looks like the "Half Way to Blarney Blowout" promotion disappeared from the McMurphy's Facebook page over the past 24 hours. What's up with that? Something I said, hopefully.

Original Post:

"You're name is mud" may still be a familiar expression as the negativity is obvious -- even if you don't know the sad story of Dr. Mudd and his cold hearted patient, John Wilkes Booth. 

The term "Blarney Blowout," unlike the innocent doctor just doing his job,  has also earned a mud like moniker.  A well deserved one.

This promotion encourages exuberant college aged youth to consume copious amounts of alcohol starting very early in the day, all in the name of profit.  What could go wrong?

In July an Amherst man was acquitted of rape using the "morning-after-regret" defense.  Of course the morning after was a follow up to a day of partying during the "Blarney Blowout" 2011 edition.

And we already know the pernicious public safety impact of the 2013 event, when thousands of youth packed the quad area of Townhouse Apartments requiring a bevy of police (town, state and UMass) dressed in riot gear to bring under control. 

UMass/Amherst recently became serious about the dangers of out-of-control partying.  Cancelling Fantazia at the Mullins Center due to concerns over the drug "Molly" certainly demonstrate that. 

The 5-member Amherst Select Board are also the town's "Liquor Commissioners" (and ironically enough, "Sewer Commissioners".)

If Umass can impose its will on the privately operated Mullins Center to cancel a potentially dangerous production, the Select Board should follow suit and come down on McMurphy's Uptown Tavern like a ton of kegs.

And that's no blarney.

Giving responsible drinkers a bad name

9/11/14?

Amherst Town Center 9/11/11.  Commemorative flags will not fly again until 2016, unless

So I'm trying to anticipate the excuse the Amherst Select Board will conjure up this evening during the 7:15 PM flag discussion to reject placing on the local 3/25/14 election ballot the never ending question of flying the commemorative flags every 9/11, thus allowing the voters decide this issue once and for all.

Sure they will mention the shameful 2007 Amherst Town Meeting vote by a whopping 96-41 not to fly the flags annually.  And that advisory resolution had requested they fly at half staff, which completely negates the argument that the commemorative flags are  "too festive."

Kind of hard for the average person to misread the intentions of twenty nine 3' by 5' American flags at half staff.

And I'm sure one of them will argue that governance by referendum can be a dangerous thing.  Would slavery had ended 150 years ago if it were put up to a popular vote at the time?  Or would women have been given the right to vote in 1920 if it had been decided at the ballot box?

Of course the counter to that is we are Amherst, the only town (according to Tracy Kidder) with a "foreign policy." So sure, historically speaking the townspeople would have done the right thing.

As they will do on March 25 if the Select Board has the courage to allow this festering issue to come to a vote.

After all, they seem to love the tagline:  "Amherst, where only the h is silent."  Then why not let the people speak?

Let's Take A Vote

Shanksville Pennsylvania 10:04 AM 9/11/01

 As Flight 93 streaked toward Washington D.C. that fateful morning, passengers huddled in the back of the plane realized they had become unwilling conscripts in a suicide mission. So they decided to do something about it. 

But before they made their desperate, valiant attempt to retake the plane, they did something as American as apple pie: they took a vote.

Men and women from all walks of life decided -- in the most democratic manner possible -- to go to war defending their country.

Although they fell short of the objective that awful morning, their supreme sacrifice saved scores of fellow Americans and represented the first tactical victory in "the war on terror."

So I suppose it's fitting that the Amherst Select Board agenda for Monday night's meeting was finalized on Wednesday afternoon, the 12th anniversary of the most heinous attack on American soil in our entire history.

The Select Board will act on a voter petition I handed in two weeks ago with more than the requisite number of signatures, requesting they place the "only in Amherst" controversy of flying commemorative flags on 9/11 before the voters this March 25.

(Last year's annual town election had a 7% turnout.)

Whether you think the commemorative flags should fly annually on 9/11 -- as they do on Memorial Day -- or agree that once every five years is sufficient, surely we can all agree there's no harm in confirming that with "The People."

After all, isn't that one of the most cherished rights our flag represents?  

"We the People," cordially request ...

Defending The Indefensible

 One commemorative flag in downtown today (DPW forgot to take it down after Labor Day)

In her well timed guest column in the weekly Amherst Bulletin (the last one before 9/11), Amherst's top elected town official takes me to task for essentially being stubborn in the matter of not flying the 29 commemorative flags in the downtown every 9/11 as opposed to only once every five years.

When I was growing up in  Amherst, well before Ms. O'Keeffe was born, my Irish mother attributed that streak of stubbornness to my Irish heritage.

But I also learned early on from Martin Luther King, Jr. that it's okay for an individual (of any race, creed, color or national heritage) to break a law that their conscience tells them is "unjust."

And for Amherst to disallow flying the commemorative flags four-out-of-five 9/11s is simply wrong.  (Especially since we fly them every Memorial Day -- as we should!)

When I first started this campaign twelve years ago,  some critics considered the gesture a pro-Afghanistan war statement, and then a year or two later as a pro-Iraq war statement; and perhaps now some zealots would consider it a pro-Syria war statement.

It's not about politics, period.  It's about 3,000 Americans who got up on a gorgeous Tuesday morning to go about their daily routine, and over a two-hour period were ruthlessly murdered.

Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe also fails to mention that twice now in public meetings I have offered to abide by the will of the voters.

Yes, Town Meeting turned down my advisory request by a two-thirds vote and the Select Board by a 60/40 vote.  Interestingly Ms. O'Keeffe voted in the majority.

However back in May, 2007 after she voted YES as a Town Meeting member to flying the flags annually on 9/11 she wrote on her blog:

"I don’t need to have commemorative flags at half-staff downtown to mark my 9/11 remembrance, but it doesn’t hurt.

If you strip away all the overwrought Amherst stuff that becomes part and parcel of this article, it is really saying, “Should we fly flags downtown every year on 9/11?”

And to that, I say – “Sure! Why not?” To me, answers to “why not” were not compelling, but of course, I was in the minority." 

#####

"The People" have not been allowed to weigh in on this important matter, and the Select Board --who has twice now refused to place the item on the annual town election ballot -- seems to want to keep it that way.

What are they afraid of?

#AmherstMA Select Board @StephanieOK http://t.co/coHB16m8A5 vs citizen-journalist @amherstac http://t.co/JpsEZvyTdX on 9-11 flag display
— CitizenWald (@CitizenWald) September 6, 2013

Citizen Wald is Select Board member Jim Wald

A Final (And Future) Request

"The People" wish to weigh in ...

Memo:  Amherst Select Board

Re:  Citizen Petition to fly the commemorative flags every 9/11

The Town Clerk informs me all the signatures required for requesting that you place the 9/11 commemorative flags advisory question before the voters on March 25, 2014 were certified.

I would ask that you take up official discussion of this at your next scheduled meeting Monday, September 16, while the awful anniversary is still fresh in our minds. 

As you know this petition now has to be acted on by you at least 90 days prior to March 25.  

I would also point out that you have until close of business tomorrow to call a Select Board meeting for Monday, September 9 ... in time for allowing the flags to fly this coming 9/11.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.

Larry Kelley

A Very Simple Request (Denied)

 

Amherst Select Board meeting 8/26/13

For the second time in less than a year the Amherst Select Board refused to allow the 29 commemorative American flags to fly in the downtown to remember the horror of 9/11, and commemorate the innocent lives taken that awful day.

Watchdog Wire takes up the fight

 

Pendragon is from Amherst.  Shocked, shocked I say

Flag Flap Deja Vu

Town flies flag daily (as does every municipality in Mass)

On August 27, almost exactly a year ago, the Amherst Select Board refused to allow the commemorative flags to fly in the downtown on 9/11.  Since the issue was officially on the agenda that night a simply majority vote could have made it happen.  

Two of the Select Board members (Jim Wald and Alisa Brewer) have previously voted in the affirmative and Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe as a Town Meeting member voted to support the annual flying of the  flags on 9/11.

Last year the SB did meet again on 9/10 (oddly enough they are not meeting on Monday September 9 this year) and I again appeared before them -- this time during 6:30 PM "Public Comment" -- to make a last desperate plea to fly the flags.  

But knowing they would not I also made a  request the board put this issue to rest once and for all.  

How?  

With a simply majority vote the Select Board can place an advisory question on the annual town election ballot.  I promised that night to abide by the direct decision of the voters.  I even returned to a Select Board meeting in March to remind them of the request.  They refused.  

So here we are ... again. 

Masslive/Springfield Republican reports

Larry Kelley plans to urge Amherst Select Board to reverse policy, display US flags on Sept. 11 http://t.co/TevMnZ02U8
— GazetteNET (@gazettenet) August 23, 2013

Freedom From Controversy?

The Brits got it right

If Norman Rockwell were alive and working today he could use Amherst as a model for a fifth freedom:  "The Freedom From Controversy." 

Only he would use Amherst as an example of how not to go about it.

Last August 27 the Amherst Select Board pocket vetoed flying the 29 commemorative flags on 9/11.  Within days it made news in both the Gazette and Springfield Republican and our local TV stations.

The Republican/MassLive article was picked up and prominently displayed on New York based September 11th Families' Association website where it was spotted by Fox News, which led to an appearance on their highly rated "Fox and Friends" a week before the sad anniversary.

This year, apparently, they are not taking any chances:

Click to enlarge/read

Opportunity Lost?

Last year at the 8/27 Amherst Select Board meeting Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe did not even allow the board, our executive branch, to vote on the request to fly the 29 commemorative flags in the downtown on 9/11.

The town routinely flies the flags, purchased in the summer of 2001,  on Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Flag Day, July 4th, Patriots Day and yes, even Labor Day (coming soon).

But in her closing remarks she was "sure Mr Kelley would bring this back next year, and he should do that."



And even Select Board member Aaron Hayden (who always votes "No") also remarked that night "This is an opportunity for us to really sort of put our heads together and be thoughtful, out loud, about important issues -- clearly important issues -- so I do appreciate that opportunity."



Now it's beginning to look like the issue will not even be allowed on the agenda for the SB 8/26 meeting, the last meeting prior to that awful anniversary. The old ignore it and hope it goes away routine.

So much for appreciating "that opportunity." 

Back story told in emails (click this link)

A Tragic Reminder

Tip of the North Tower, after the fall

Memo: Amherst Select Board
Re: Annual Request to remember/honor 3,000 murdered Americans

Since the Select Board will not have a "Public Comment/Question" period on Monday, August 19 and since the SB only meets one more time prior to that stunningly sad anniversary, please consider this a formal request to place on the August 26 agenda for public discussion the unresolved issue of allowing the 29 commemorative flags to fly in the downtown on 9/11/13, the 12th anniversary of the most heinous attack on American soil in our entire history.

Furthermore I would request 9/11 be added to current list of six days the commemorative flags fly annually.

I would also point out that one of those approved occasions is Memorial Day, not exactly "celebratory" -- but a national day of mourning and remembrance for those who perished protecting our most cherished freedoms.  

One of which is to "petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Thank you,

Larry Kelley

#####

From: Stephanie O'Keeffe
To: Larry Kelley
Cc: Select Board ; John Musante ; David Ziomek
Sent: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 2:07 pm
Subject: Re: 9/11
Larry --

If any Select Board member supports the request that this be put on the 8/26 agenda, I will schedule it and let you know.

Take care.

Stephanie

#####

From: Larry Kelley
To: stephanie
Cc: selectboard ; MusanteJ ; ZiomekD
Sent: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 7:41 am
Subject: Re: 9/11

Stephanie,

Since I am now getting numerous inquiries could you please announce at tonight's SB meeting one way or the other whether flying the flags on 9/11 will be placed on the 8/26 agenda? I know tonight's meeting is only a single issue affair concerning the Town Manager's evaluation but I did note the item "Calendar Preview:Upcoming Meeting Plans" on the agenda.And 9/11 is upcoming.
Thanks, Larry

#####

 Somewhat stunning reaction on Facebook, ghost of Jennie Traschen

MassLive reported last year's fiasco

9/10/01

9/10/12

Rolling Away

 

Rolling Green Apartments, 204 units

The Amherst Select Board seems to have simply thrown up their hands and quit the fight to maintain our 10% minimum threshold for Subsidized Housing Inventory, a vaccine against a Chapter 40B mega-housing development being shoved down our throats.

Currently with 1,035 affordable units out of a total of 9,621, the town stands at 10.8%.  Rolling Green's 204 units represent 20% of our total stock of affordable housing, so once lost the Town's overall SHI drops to 8.5%.

Town officials have known for a half-dozen years that Rolling Green Apartments would be eligible to go to market rate because their federally subsidized loans were closing out.

The 50 year old complex is currently valued at $9,119,200 so an eminent domain taking is unlikely.  Town Meeting showed little stomach for eminent domain action last spring, rejecting the idea of taking Echo Village Apartments or the "development rights" of the property in northeast Amherst now slated to become "The Retreat" student housing development.

Almost three years ago Town Meeting appropriated $25,000 for a study pretty much specifically targeting the Rolling Green situation.  With the deadline now a mere three weeks away, it would appear Rolling Green is a lost cause.

Not overly "affordable"

And clearly Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe is not happy about the pace or focus of the process thus far.




You also have to wonder how uncomfortable this makes about-to-be-displaced tenants at Echo Village feel? Their situation came on suddenly, as Jamie Cherewatti only bought the property in January and then immediately jacked up the rents.

Plus, unlike Rolling Green,  the 24 Echo Village units do not count towards our affordability index, so town officials have a little less to lose with their instant transition to market rate.  And in Amherst, "market rate" is EXPENSIVE.

The Feds lump Amherst in with Springfield when setting maximum allowances for Section 8 housing vouchers.  But since Amherst rental units are so expensive (median rent of $1,108 in 2010) those vouchers go elsewhere.  Currently only half the 400 vouchers administered by Amherst Housing Authority are used by clients living in Amherst. 

Fortunately the town recently commissioned a "Housing Production Plan" to shed light on this chronic housing problem, so the state allows a one year reprieve from an unfriendly Ch40B development.

Maybe now town officials will get serious.

A Safer Healthier Amherst

Stephanie O'Keeffe, Select Board Chair and strong proponent  of Rental Permit Bylaw

While it was unseasonably hot outside the Amherst Regional Middle School, the auditorium where Amherst Town Meeting convenes was even hotter as the issue of the decade, perhaps a generation, Rental Registration Property Bylaw (permit system) came to a final head.

The vote was overwhelmingly in favor, sounding like a clear two thirds majority. So decisive in fact that no one thought to call for a Tally Vote, since the measure only required a simply majority. 

With unanimous support of the Planning Board, Finance Committee, Select Board and Town Manager and more than a majority of speakers who addressed the issue from the floor, the discussion carried on for just over two hours.  A motion to refer back to the Select Board made by Town Meeting member and landlord Richard Gold failed miserably.

Landlord, lawyer and town officials wait in front row for possible call to speak

Another motion offered by Coalition of Amherst Neighborhoods to exempt owner occupied units from the new regulation also failed by a tally vote of 116-74.

Speakers against the ordinance cited costs ($100/year), constitutional issues (unreasonable search by town inspectors), and suggested Amherst is already known state wide for being over regulated.

But common sense won the day, by a very wide margin.  Not something you see all that often on the floor of Amherst Town Meeting. 

Now of course, the lawsuits begin.

Those Who Fail To Learn ...

 Ghosts of Christmas yet to come?

"Whereas:  There currently is a severe shortage of rental housing in the Town of Amherst, which shortage has been caused in part by the rapid increase in the population of the Town since 1970 resulting from its desirability as a place to live ...

Where have you heard that preamble before?  The controversial Town Meeting warrant article continues:

"This severe shortage of rental housing has led to a serious public emergency with respect to the rental housing available to a substantial number of citizens of the Town, which emergency is causing a serious threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the Town."

Selected excerpts from Article #29, Rental Registration Bylaw coning up Monday night?  No.  Article #64, Rent Control Act.  Narrowly defeated by only five votes, 116 to 111.  Monday, May 16, 1983.

Yes, THIRTY YEARS AGO.

Today's landlords should consider themselves lucky that Article #29 is so light on the touch, simply ensuring that minimum common sense health and safety codes are routinely enforced for the good of tenants and the neighborhood.

The only landlords being "punished" are the ones who deserve it!

Of course should Article #29 fail tomorrow night -- and I'm confident it will not -- a fallback article comes up on Wednesday (Article #38), a similar version of Rental Registration Permit system with the main difference being owner occupied units -- whether the rental aspect is an "accessory use" or primary use --  will be exempt from the regulations.

Architects of that less restrictive article also plan to amend #29 with that wording.  

Because  most of the problems of rowdy student behavior emanate from (absentee) non owner occupied rentals, it is tempting to support #38 over the more restrictive #29.

Although the Safe & Health Working Group intended for the General Bylaw to cover all rentals, a serendipitous mistake between revisions does exclude room rentals for up to 6 tenants in owner occupied units. 

And those mom-and-pop landlords who are also town meeting members are now far more likely to support Article #29, the original bylaw created by the Safe and Healthy Neighborhoods Working Group, already approved by the Town Manager, and unanimously supported by the Select Board, Planning Board and Finance Committee.

Tune in Monday night as Amherst Town Meeting takes another bite at the 30-year-old apple.  This time the majority will get it right!

Back story told in emails

Fore!

 Cherry Hill Golf Course behind the curtain

With no discussion except my own and not a single "no" vote other than mine, a noticeably smaller (from Monday nights grand start) Amherst Town Meeting approved the Cherry Hill Golf Course operation budget for its 27th year of municipal operation as a "business."

 

And I even wore a new shirt

The 66 acre 9 hole golf course was taken by eminent domain under an "emergency measure" making the drastic action referendum proof in the spring of 1987, with an original cost of $1.6 million.

159 North Amherst NIMBYs signed a petition to get it on the Town Meeting warrant to stop a 134 unit Planned Unit Residential Development proposed by Cambridge architect Robert Kreger. 

But then after an appraisal became public, Town Meeting had to reconvene and add another $600,000 to the original appropriation bringing the total cost of acquisition to $2.2 million ($4.4 million in today's dollars), to date the most costly land purchase in town history.

Not to mention the $1 million the golf course lost in operations as an Enterprise Fund, which are supposed to be self supporting like a private sector business.  Town Meeting gave up on that idea and dissolved the enterprise fund status in November of 2006, rolling the course back into the General Fund where it's far easier to hide overhead costs like employee benefits, insurance, capital heavy equipment purchases.
 
And golf is a heavy equipment Godzilla.  Next year for instance they will request $97,500 in capital, none of which will be considered part of their "operation budget".

But year after year Town Meeting bestows their undying support using taxpayer money.  Even Sensible Center types sometimes wonder ...

#####

Winston Churchill once famously said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." In Amherst it could become, "When Town Meeting does not learn from history, taxpayers are doomed to regret it."

Article #43 calls for the town to "Purchase a Conservation Restriction" on 154 acres of woodland for $1.2 million in northeast Amherst that is already under a purchase-and-sale agreement for $6.5 million.  Once again to stop a large development of badly needed housing.

Stop The Retreat sign (cheaper by the dozen)

But the courts have long ago ruled that a municipality using the Godlike power of eminent domain must pay "highest and best use" price for the property.  Or in this case, $6.5 million!!!

More than the town has in combined total reserves between Free Cash ($4,326,501) and Stabilization ($1,821,401).

Since the town has "right of first refusal" on the property, North Amherst NIMBYs should simply put up or shut up:

Raise the $6.5 million required to match Landmark Properties' offer to W.D. Cowls, Inc ... and then, even I will support this Children's Crusade cause.

#####

From their Facebook page

"Must be halted immediately."  Getting a tad aggressive are we not?

Transparency Takes A Back Seat

About 80 people were invited to the B-I-G meeting between state and town officials and private landlords at UMPD headquarters this afternoon, and at least half that showed up.  Since AFD Chief Nelson and Assistant Chief Stromgren were present, I guess it's safe to assume the room was not overcrowded.

 UMPD Chief Horvath politely blocked my entrance

What did they discuss?  We will never know ... for sure.

Click white highlighted links:

 

 My friends at Masslive cover it (sort of) 

The Official UMass Spin (no wonder they did not let me in)

 Amherst Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe arrives with UMPD escort

Dean of Student Enku Galaye arrived 1st and stayed in the shadows

 

Agenda for today's meeting (courtesy of my mole)

Right side of the room

Left side of the room 1:00 PM

 

Town Manager John Musante, before the door closed

Blarney Blowout Fallout Continues

 Did the "Blarney Blowout" downtown cause riot in North Amherst?

The normally staid Amherst Select Board became uncharacteristically animated this evening when discussing the events of last weekend where riotous behavior on the day of the now infamous "Blarney Blowout" pushed our first responders to the breaking point.

And with all our ambulances and police patrol personnel tied up dealing with drunken college aged youths, average citizens who fund both departments with their tax dollars would have been left waiting if an emergency had occurred.   

 

Vice Chancellor for University Relations John Kennedy

Select Board member Jim Wald seemed to think UMass was trying to blame the town for the riotous event at Townhouse apartments simply because the "Barney Blowout" bar promotion was allowed to occur downtown this year.  SB member Alisa Brewer went so far as to say it was "flat out ludicrous"  and she was "ashamed" of the Letter to the Editor penned by administrator John Kennedy making that association.



The always sedate town manager announced a set of initiatives to address the problem as we head into peak springtime weather:  Musante has asked UMass to keep Health Services open later on weekends to help deal with drunken students, and to provide two staffed ambulances.

He has also requested increased joint patrols between APD and UMPD around the problem areas such as Townhouse Apartments and has authorized AFD Chief Nelson to use overtime to add staffing during the problems weekends coming up.

Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe pointed out that even after her strong lobbying effort prior to the Blarney Blowout, the University did not send out a mass email to all students warning about bad behavior.  She said they were afraid it would serve to "advertise" the event.  

O'Keeffe said the charges and counter charges now ricocheting between the University and the Town demonstrate a "sign of frustration."

Well at least they are not throwing cans and bottles at each other ... yet.

The Republican Reports/Suggests

Rental Permit Passes BIG Hurdle

Jonathan Tucker, Stephanie O'Keeffe, John Kennedy 

Amherst Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe deemed the draft document the Safe & Healthy Neighborhoods Working Group has been toiling over for a dozen public meetings, "Not absolutely perfect regulations, but pretty damn good!"

And with that, after a little clarification help from Phil Jackson who seconded the motion, the committee came to a lopsided 8-2 vote in favor (2 property managers voting no) of forwarding the draft document (part 4.a.1. was taken out today, so it no longer exempts owner-occupied rentals) to the Town Manager, who will craft it into a warrant article for Amherst Town Meeting. 

The Residential Rental Property Bylaw will require a rental permit that is exceedingly easy to get and conversely, very hard to lose.  

As a General Bylaw it will only require a majority vote at Town Meeting rather than the difficult to achieve two-thirds vote that all zoning articles require.

Because we are a "college town," Amherst has a far different housing market than national average:  out of 9,621 year round units 4,258 -- or 46% -- were owner occupied, and 5001 -- or 54% -- were rentals.   National average for owner occupied units is 67%.

Also synonymous with being a college town, college students comprise 59.4% of Amherst's population.  And while the vast majority of college students are industrious, hard working, solid citizens, a small percentage who live off-campus make life miserable for average working families and retired citizens. 

With a permit system in place Amherst will have a new weapon to control irresponsible slumlords.  Like the nuclear arms race of the 1950s and 60s, weaponry town officials hope never to use, but the threat will act as a defining deterrent to bad behavior.