A Casualty Of Confrontation

Stop The Retreat: A movement in the weeds

So for the Anons who questioned the combative headline in my first ever guest post (probably my last) in the war over "The Retreat" -- high end housing for college students, our #1 demographic -- I offer the following sad Facebook exchange:

Hey, if the national media can cite Facebook as attribution for an alleged 11-year-old's taunting of President Obama over the supposedly imminent attack on Syria, I don't feel bad using Facebook here. 

The Amherst Bulletin, obviously still clinging to its long retired role as supreme gatekeeper, allowed NIMBY opponent Jack Hirsch two columns attacking "The Retreat", the second one where he took on Mr. Grabbe by name.

When Mr. Grabbe asked editor Larry Parnass for the right to respond he was turned down because the editor-in-chief wanted to give Mr. Hirsch "the last word."

 

(outnumbered) Nick Grabbe invoking 1st Amendment rights at 7/29 Select Board meeting

Okay, fair enough (not really) I suppose -- except in this week's Bulletin they publish another attack on "The Retreat" and again Mr. Grabbe is mentioned by name, with an almost snarky like quality you expect to find on a blog rather than staid old fashioned print newspaper.

Yes as President Truman once observed the public arena can be an uncomfortably warm kitchen, but in Amherst it's more like one-room commercial pizza joint on a hot, humid late-August afternoon.

Amherst:  where even the h is silent.  And now you know why.

War Over "The Retreat" Continues

 Landmark Properties has agreed to "save the salamanders"

By NICK GRABBE

Where you stand on the Retreat depends on where you sit.

Jack Hirsch, whose column appears in this week's Amherst Bulletin, lives in Cushman, so it makes sense that he doesn't want to see open space near his house turned into a student housing development.

I live near the Regional Middle School, and have three student houses within 200 feet of me (the closest house to the Retreat will be more than 300 feet away). I think it makes sense for student housing to be clustered together, under close supervision, rather than spread out on residential streets, in houses owned by absentee landlords.

In my Bulletin column of Aug. 16, I gave three reasons why I think this development is in the interest of the town as a whole. In this week's Bulletin, Hirsch responds to two of my reasons – and ignores the third.

First, I argued that the Retreat will bring in $395,000 a year, as estimated by the town assessor, in desperately needed tax revenue. Hirsch maintains that Landmark Properties, the owners of the Retreat, may not pay their taxes.

There's no evidence that Landmark has been a tax evader in other towns where it has built student housing. And even if it didn't pay its taxes, Town Hall could easily put a lien on the property until payments were made.

 

Jack Hirsch ill-fated presentation to Amherst Town Meeting

I thought Hirsch was going to say that the $395,000 would be offset by increased costs for police and roads, as some Cushman residents have maintained. Maybe he's realized the absurdity of that argument. Some of the $395,000 might be offset by increased costs, but it's well established that the biggest loser for the town in the tax-vs.-expense calculus is single-family houses (like the ones in Cushman). 

That's because of the cost of educating children (the Amherst elementary schools spend $17,000 per student). The Retreat will not have many tenants with children in the schools.

Second, I argued that if Amherst continues to resist new student housing, speculators will have even more incentive to buy up single-family houses when they come on the market and convert them to student rentals. That's because the demand for rentals will far exceed the supply. 

First-time home-buyers will have a harder time competing with speculators, and there will be more conflict between students and longtime residents.

Hirsch responds that there are 14,000 UMass students living in the Amherst area, so the 700 beds in the Retreat wouldn't make a difference. UMass plans to expand its student population, so any contribution to the housing stock will reduce the flow of students onto residential streets. Those extra students won't go away if the Retreat isn't built; they'll just live in neighborhoods like mine. 

Hirsch did not respond to my information that many of the houses northeast of the Retreat site have had septic system failures, and are close to tributaries of the Atkins Reservoir, a major source of Amherst's drinking water. 

When the Retreat is built, the developer will pay to extend the sewer line to Flat Hills Road, making it much less expensive for the town to extend it to the streets with failing septic systems.

This was not speculation; it was the opinion of the superintendent of public works. The Cushman people like to present their cause as being environmentally virtuous, defending the spotted salamanders that live on part of the Retreat site and decrying the cars the students would have (but why would they drive them to campus, where there's little parking, rather than take the bus?) 

I'm not surprised that Hirsch ignores the news that the Retreat would help clean up an environmental hazard caused by his neighbors.

Stop The Retreat:  Campaign is starting to list

The letters written by Cushman residents, and the red-and-white signs they've convinced friends in other parts of town to put on their lawns, may lead some people to believe that Amherst will be voting on whether to allow the Retreat. No such vote will take place, because Landmark Properties has a legal right to built student housing on this land. 

The plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board and Conservation Commission, but they don't have the power to reject it. These two panels and the Select Board voted nearly unanimously not to have the town buy the land to prevent the development.

It isn't clear to me how “Save Historic Cushman” plans to stop the Retreat. Will the opponents lie down in front of the bulldozers? The organization has hired an expensive Concord attorney, who has filed an appeal in Land Court maintaining that the Retreat is a dormitory, which is prohibited in this zoning district. 

More appeals will probably follow, in an attempt to delay the Retreat. But in San Marcos, Texas, it took Landmark 20 years before before it got approval to build the student development. Are the Cushman residents willing to keep paying their attorney that long? 

For now, they are willing to have the town spend public money on their appeals.

I think they should use their time and energy lobbying Sen. Stan Rosenberg, soon to be the Senate president, to get a law change that would allow a public-private partnership to build taxable housing on property owned by UMass. 

That would provide clustered student housing near the campus, but allow Amherst to reap the tax benefits.

The Retreat may have some negative consequences on Cushman, chiefly weekend traffic, but the neighborhood will still be “historic.” For Amherst as a whole, the Retreat has substantial benefits.

Nick Grabbe is a former Amherst Bulletin editor/reporter and a long time Amherst resident.

Select Board Just Said NO

Not

The Amherst Select Board voted unanimously 4-0 (1 absent) NOT to a invoke a $6.5 million "Right Of First Refusal" for 154 acres of run-of-the-mill woodland in northeast Amherst to stop "The Retreat", a controversial 700 bed upscale student housing development proposed by a private, taxpaying, enterprise.
 
In June Amherst Town Meeting voted 98-90 to dismiss a warrant article calling for a $1.2 million appropriation to take by eminent domain only the "development rights" of the parcel.  And over the past two weeks the Planning Board voted 8-1 against the purchase while the Conservation Commission opposition was unanimous.

 

Crowd of 80-85 pack the meeting

The Select Board meeting was one of the best attended in recent memory with over a dozen project opponents voicing their concerns about noise, traffic, vandalism, and -- what they greatly fear --  the destruction of Cushman, a quaint historic village.

Speakers questioned the transparency of process since the town took a long period of time to acknowledge the 2nd $6.5 million offer between Cowls and Landmark Properties was indeed "bona fide", which started the 120-day clock ticking for the Right Of First Refusal.   

Project proponents have repeatedly cited the desperate need in this "college town" for more student housing, with current make shift solutions -- the conversion of single family homes to rooming houses -- being far more destructive to quality of life in neighborhoods town wide.

John Musante (center) Any change in contract would bring on new 120 day Right of 1st Refusal

"The Retreat" would also generate $400,000 per year in property taxes in a town where half the property is tax exempt.  In 1987 the town took by eminent domain the Cherry Hill Golf Course to stop a 134 unit high end housing project, squandering a historic $2.2 million ($4.4 million in today's dollars).

 Cowls also owns 150 acres near Cherry Hill Golf Course (in gold) that could also be developed on the same scale as The Retreat

Tonight by NOT taking this exceedingly expensive 154 acres of woodland, town officials demonstrated they have learned from history.   Finally. 

The Republican reports

Fire & Brimstone

The vitriol over stopping the "The Retreat," a housing development targeting Amherst's #1 demographic who patronize our #1 industry, is reaching a fever pitch. NIMBYs are starting to get a tad, err, twitchy.

As usual, the call has gone out to pack the Select Board public meeting Monday night to try to intimidate them into spending $6.5 million tax dollars to "protect" a quaint neighborhood.  

After all, somewhere in an alternate universe "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many." 

Let's hope they leave the torches and pitchforks (or phasers) at home.

 ##### 

From: llan starkweather 
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 2:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: Reality of the Cushman Retreat


To the GALACTIC LOG mailing list, 

On July 21st I sent my umpteenth not to be printed letter to the editor
of the Amherst Bulletin, Reality of the Cushman Retreat, enmeshed below.
It was not printed, as most of mine the last decade have been rejected
as threatening to the media establishment that controls the Valley, so I
responded this morning with the long piece also below starting with
To the local so-called Editors of the Illuminati controlled dark media
cabal, the last obstacle to true reality for valleykind:


The immediate reply from the news department was

On Jul 26, 2013, at 10:46 AM, DHG News Dept. wrote:

 Llan Starkweather: 

 If you send another vaguely threatening email (to wit, You have a short time
left to understand what your soul's mission was) I will notify the police. 

Larry Parnass 

##### 

 I could not help but respond in this fashion:

From: llan starkweather <llan3@hughes.net>

Date: July 26, 2013 2:26:06 PM EDT

To: "DHG News Dept." 

Subject: Reality of the Cushman Retreat

You have a short time before god puts you out of your nasty lying business
in allegiance with evil against humanity. Your soul's mission is your
mismanaged affair and it is more than vaguely threatened. What a poor
substitute for a being of any good will you are, little soul-shrunk Parnass.
How many lines of god's truth did you read before you started shaking your
fists at any attempt to awaken in you your real purpose in incarnation. 

I am done with you, but like Zimmerman, god isn't. And that doesn't change the
fact that you have been intentionally using your elite power to fuck me over
for a decade and would 'notify the police' for my rocking your cradle of the
dark hegemonic forces' dominant protection. Or that this valley has for very
long been denied truth and reality out of the fear in those who have usurped
all power-over through control of the fucking media. I speak for those who
cannot, or do not even know they are targeted and are being disposed of as
useless eaters by the hegemony that is now currently and finally being
revealed and dis-mantled. 

You are a loving god too. Know that. 

##### 

The Republican reports 

Con Com: Conserve $6.5 Million

Amherst Conservation Commission

The Amherst Conservation Commission hiked down the same path as the Planning Board did last week by voting unanimously NOT to recommend the Amherst Select Board exercise Right Of First Refusal on 154 acres of upland woodland in northeast Amherst.

The property, owned by the state's largest private landowner W.D. Cowls, Inc, is currently under a $6.5 million contract to Georgia developer Landmark Properties, who specialize in cottage style student housing with high end amenities.   

The gated community planned for Amherst, The Retreat, will house 700 students and it has stirred bitter neighborhood opposition since day one.

About two dozen residents showed up last week to the Planning Board hearing hoping to convince the board to recommend the town invoke the expensive taking.  Tonight 21 concerned citizens showed up and the committee allowed an hour for public comment.

 Dave Ziomek, Director of Conservation and Development (and Assistant Town Manager):  "Daunting price tag for an unremarkable property."

Then, after a brief 25 minute discussion the board came to its unanimous recommendation NOT to purchase the property, but were also clear about not supporting the proposed development because of potential environmental impacts.

The Select Board has the final authority and will make their decision Monday night (July 29).  The funding would also require a two-thirds vote of Amherst Town Meeting who already overwhelmingly voted down a scheme to take the "development rights" of the property for $1.2 million.

The chance the SB will ignore the unanimous advice of the Planning Board and Conservation Committee is about as likely as an asteroid taking out town center one of these hot summer nights.

Gluttonou$ Game of Golf

 

Despite a bold, suck up assurance to the Select Board from Town Manager John Musante -- "The golf course will cover its operating and employee benefits costs entirely from user fees" -- the White Elephant continues to lumber along in the red as Cherry Hill Golf Course closed the fiscal year requiring $47,141 in tax support, a little more than it did the previous year.

Now $47,000 may not sound like much, but it seems to be the best case scenario with the ailing recreation business.  And worse case scenario is a repeat of the seven straight years (2001-2007) the course required $100,000 in annual tax support.

The course always comes close to covering "operation costs" but those costs do not include employee benefits, capital items (heavy equipment), and insurance.  Cherry Hill never covers those. 

So the year that just started July 1st (FY14) the course has an extra $12,000 in capital over and above the year just completed.  Thus they will easily lose $60,000.  Still, not such a big deal.  However the following year (FY15) they have $97,500 in capital improvements on tap, so that year they will lose between $130,000 and $140,000.

Having such a large piece of property tied up in the golf business rather than, say, student housing, a solar farm, or private landfill -- all of which would pay significant annual property taxes -- underscores the hidden value of opportunity costs. In this case, opportunity lost.

Even Amherst Golf Course, owned by tax-exempt Amherst College, pays over $7,000 per year in property taxes to the town yet still  manages to make money for the College.  Maybe we should let them run Cherry Hill?

Oh yes, that's right, the town already turned down a private management company that offered to pay $30,000 guaranteed annually to run Cherry Hill. 

Cherry Hill, at $2.2 million dollars ($4.4 million in today's dollars), was the most expensive land taking in town history.   All to satisfy North Amherst  NIMBYs, who railroaded Town Meeting into the nefarious use of eminent domain to stop a 134-unit housing development.

Today we have some of those same NIMBYs (Vince O'Connor for one)  trying to fast track the town into taking 154 acres of property in northeast Amherst to stop a desperately needed 170 unit student housing development.  For an astounding $6.5 million dollars, a new record.

Those who fail to learn from history ...

Back story in emails

Notice how nervous Cherry Hill makes public officials

 

The Retreat Charges Forward

The influential Planning Board voted 8-1 to advise the Amherst Select Board NOT to invoke a Right Of First Refusal on the 154 acres of woodland in northeast Amherst currently under a $6.5 million contract to become a gated student community known as "The Retreat."

Planning Board Chair David Webber summed it up succinctly:  "The price ($6.5 million) is too high."

About two dozen neighbors impacted by the development turned out to voice their displeasure with the project, including the usual worries over noise, traffic and vandalism.  But it's not like a casino is on the drawing board.

The Retreat will house 700 students on 154 acres, generating about 1,000 car trips per day vs Mohegan Sun's proposed casino in Palmer on 150 acres, generating 20,000 visitors and 10,000 cars per day.

Most of the 1.5 hours of testimony was wasted with long winded complaints about procedure.

 Jack Hirsch wants a "cost benefit analysis"

Under Ch61 the town has 120 days to decide to invoke its Right Of First Refusal, but the clock only starts ticking when a "bona fied" offer has been made.

 Assistant Town Manager Dave Ziomek:  "Property is not a high priority for the town."

Landmark Properties contract with W.D. Cowls, Inc was first submitted in March but the town rejected it as not bona fide, due to an easy escape clause.

The second contract was tendered on April 23 and was also initially rejected but after months of haggling the Town Attorney agreed on Monday that it was legitimate.  Therefor the 120 days is retroactive to April 23, or a drop dead deadline of August 21.

 Vince O'Connor:  Town Attorney should be "terminated" for taking too long reviewing contract

Either way the Select Board set their July 29 meeting as the day of reckoning and asked for the advice of the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission, who will take up the discussion next week.

 W.D. Cowls President Cinda Jones:  Gets paid $6.5 million one way or the other

Planning Board member Connie Kruger pointed out the town has a "significant need for student housing" and that the number one cost to the town for servicing new housing is children in the public schools -- which for this project will be zero.

 

Amherst Planning Board:  David Webber Chair (center) voted yes, Sandra Anderson (far right) only dissenting vote

The Retreat is a double win for the town: providing badly needed housing for a never ending supply of students coming to UMass/Amherst, while generating hundreds of thousands in annual property tax revenues.

Town Hall Showdown

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign ...

On Wednesday night the Amherst Planning Board will be the first official town body to weigh in on the possible acquisition of 154 acres of sub prime woodland in northeast Amherst currently owned by W.D. Cowls, Inc, the largest private landowner in the state.

The property is enrolled in the state's Chapter 61A conservation program so it pays very little to the town in property taxes, but Amherst gets a "Right Of First Refusal" should the property come out of CH61A due to a sale.  In this case to a developer.  A b-i-g one, Landmark Properties.
 
By now any of you living within the Happy Valley nuclear fallout zone have noticed the ubiquitous red stop signs sprinkled on lawns everywhere.  The Retreat is what they wish to stop, a 190 unit student cottage style housing development proposed for the 154 acre parcel.

Although ideally, with a zoning change allowing denser development, only 30% of the property will be used; but as it now stands twice that percentage would be required ... and is allowed by right.

If built, the town assessor has guestimated The Retreat will pay the town $395,182 per year in annual property taxes with a guaranteed increase every year of 2.5%.

NIMBYs were already unceremoniously torpedoed at Amherst Town Meeting when they tried to have the town take the property by eminent domain, a drastic measure requiring a two-thirds super majority.  The "Motion to Dismiss" the article passed easily. 

Both the Planning Board and Conservation Commission are required to make a "recommendation" to the five-member Amherst Select Board, the final authority on deciding the Right Of First Refusal.

Late this afternoon the Town Attorney confirmed to the Select Board that the $6.5 million purchase and sale agreement for the property was legitimate.

Thus the ROFR will be a costly one, as the $6.5 million required to match Landmark Properties offer is more than the combined reserves the town has saved in Free Cash and Stabilization funds.

The Select Board vote (July 29th meeting) only requires a simple majority, but Town Meeting would also have to support funding the move with a two-thirds majority vote. 

Wednesday night's meeting sets the stage for a (remotely) possible epic failure.  Any member of the Planning Board who recommends this taking should be forced to write on a chalkboard 6.5 million times:  "America was founded on Free Enterprise."

Growing Pains

 

Coming Soon:  Commonwealth College 1,500 beds

In his May 15 appearance before Amherst Town Meeting to pitch the joint town/gown study on coexisting in harmony, Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy proactively addressed the #1 criticism leveled at UMass/Amherst:  build more housing to keep students on campus.

The Chancellor clearly pointed out that this fall, when Commonwealth College Residential housing goes on line (1,500 beds), UMass/Amherst will be #3 in the nation for housing students on campus. 

The relatively recent construction of "North Residential" also added 800 beds.

North Residential housing complex

And when Commonwealth College dorms come on line they, like North Residential, will not pay property taxes, even though both will be protected by the Amherst Fire Department.

This year AFD cost taxpayers just over $4 million to fund yet they spend 23% of their time dealing with UMass.

Graph courtesy Amherst Firefighters Local 1764

Umass is scheduled to grow over a ten year period at only 300 students per year.  Had the Gateway Project not been scuttled by noisy NIMBYs that alone would handled a couple of years worth of growth.

And of course The Retreat, a taxpaying student development in northeast Amherst would also absorb a couple of years worth of UMass growth.  If it ever gets built. 

Or, if provincial Amherst Town Meeting had only approved Form Based Zoning in village centers last year we would already be seeing mixed use buildings going up in North Amherst to greatly stimulate both commercial and residential stock.  

Executive Session: Do Not Disturb

 11:05 AM, Town Manager's office: 4 of 5 Amherst SB members attended

Perhaps the reason the state calls it "Executive Session" is because it mimics a private boardroom meeting between a CEO and a corporation's Board of Directors.  In other words, by invite only.

Although in the case of a public body like the Amherst Select Board, they still have to convene in open session (hence allowing miscreants like me to take a photo) before retreating into private conversation.   Or in this case, evicting the general public. 

The meeting was posted to start at 11:00 AM and finish by 11:59 AM (somebody must have been worried about lunch).  Actual start time was 11:06, as SB member Alisa Brewer was her usual few minutes late.  And I'm told by SB Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe the meeting adjourned at 12:39 PM.

The reason for the secret meeting was a discussion of Cowls Cushman properties (154 acres) that are currently under a Purchase& Sale agreement with Landmark Properties for $6.5 million. 

The town can either invoke the "right of first refusal" and match any legitimate offer on the table for the property, or can simply take it by eminent domain via a simple majority vote of the Select Board. 

Although the draconian use of eminent domain also requires Town Meeting authorization for monetary backing. 

The town would then be liable to pay W.D.Cowls, Inc the "highest and best use" for the property, which obviously is not that of its current condition, a tree farm.

Sore Losers

In case a Town Meeting member decides to "Move to reconsider" badly beaten Article 43, the anti-business, socialistic land grab of 154 acres of private property in northeast Amherst, the Town Clerk should hand out dunce caps at check in Monday night as only a Nitwit would admit they were "confused" by the June 3rd discussion and vote.

The article lost 99-90 by way of a "Move to Dismiss."  My six-year-old, not yet even in 1st grade, understands the meaning of the word "dismiss." 

And I find it hard to believe anyone who saw my initial five-minute presentation could somehow find it "confusing," and think I was doing so in support of such a dangerously naive warrant article. 

But I'll let you be the judge of that:

Ain't No Stoppin' Us Now

Amherst Town Meeting

Lightening struck twice on the floor of Amherst Town Meeting (followed by a double rainbow) tonight.

The controversial use of eminent domain (article 43) would have snatched 154 acres of woodland property development rights from a private owner to prevent a private corporation's student housing development.

I preemptively made the "Motion to dismiss" to send the stern message that article 43 was naive, dangerous and dead wrong.   After less than 1.5 hours of discussion the socialistic article was killed by way of a 99 "Yes"-90 "No" vote supporting my motion.

And yes, it's not often Amherst Town Meeting supports a Larry Kelley motion.

Since it involved eminent domain the original article would have required a two-thirds vote to pass.  Both the Finance Committee and Select Board strongly opposed the original article.

Amherst Select Board voted 4-1 against article 43

Then, amazingly, Town Meeting really pulled out all the stops and supported a mixed use zoning change (article 31)  that will allow for increased density of housing in commercial districts ... like North Amherst.  

Any zoning change requires a two-thirds vote.  When a "Motion to refer" article 31 back to the Planning Board -- similar to dismissal -- only failed by 94 "No" to 82 "Yes," it was looking doubtful a two-thirds majority would be attained for passage.

Finance Committee makes room for Planning Board as TM discusses zoning

However, when the smoke cleared after a recorded Tally Vote, Article 31, "Standards and Conditions for Mixed Use Buildings" passed handily 119 to 56.

On Monday Town Meeting will take up discussions of companion pro development zoning articles all unanimously approved by the Planning Board. 

And the battered NIMBYs will be out in force.

A Really BIG Deal

Cushman Village

For the 255th Annual Amherst Town Meeting tonight's session is D-Day: Disaster or -- let's hope -- Delightful.

Mainly due to article 43, the hostile snatching by eminent domain of 154 acres of average grade woodland to stop a badly needed student housing development, the modern day version of the bogeyman.

But if town meeting members have done their due diligence homework, they will support my "motion to dismiss" the dangerous article that opens the door to all sorts of bad legal consequences.

The town has not used the tyrannical power of eminent domain for such a large land taking since 1987 when, also at the request of North Amherst residents, they absorbed the 90 acres Cherry Hill Golf Course costing taxpayers $2.2 million ($4.4 million in today's dollars).

Which of course underscores the significant value of the parcel now in question:  More than 50% larger than Cherry Hill, with public water/sewer located nearby.

In fact the town help build a stub of an access road 25 years ago when it purchased in a friendly manner adjacent land for a water treatment plant, clearly acknowledging development was in the cards for that particular parcel.

A few years ago Amherst College purchased at auction the 37 acre Dakin Estate (one quarter the size of the Cowls land) near their 9 hole golf course for $4.3 million in order to stop housing developer Barry Roberts.

If Landmark Properties should be driven off by the nasty NIMBY reception they are receiving W.D. Cowls, Inc could simply sell or develop 15 building lots on the property, some of them along Henry Street where the salamanders roam.

Yes, if W.D. Cowls, Inc President Cinda Jones was the "Wicked Witch of the West" she would reenact the demise of her equally wicked sister and drop a house on the cute little critters.  But, fortunately, she's not a wicked witch (and she dresses better).

Last week Town Meeting purchased the 5 acres Rock Farm on South East Street and as part of the deal two private building lots were sold for $132,000 each.  By that accounting just the 15 lots that are available to build on "by right" on Cowls land are worth w-a-y more than the $1.2 million Town Meeting is being asked to use should they trigger the nuclear option, eminent domain.

Since the property is currently in Ch61A the town has "Right Of First Refusal."  And there's plenty of time for that as the state allows 120 days from when a "bona fide" offer is first tendered for the property. 

At the moment both private parties trying to do the $6.5 million deal are fighting with the town over what constitutes a "bona fide offer," kind of like President Clinton questioning the definition of "is."

Interestingly the reason why the state mandates offers be real is to avoid municipalities being taken advantage of by unscrupulous sellers who simply rig a (fake) deal with a friend or business associate in order to get a municipality to pay an artificially inflated price.

In the 1995 The Trust for Public Land vs Marmer, et al, 4 LCR 90, 95 case, the court declared:  "Clearly , the statute does not envision the municipality ... being required to purchase a parcel of land for a sum which the original offeree may chose, at its option, to never pay."

Obviously the presence of 400 "Stop The Retreat" signs all over the Happy Valley indicate most people know the two private parties are deadly serious about doing this deal.

So if the town really wants to socialistically stop it the only alternative is to implement the Right of First Refusal, and that will cost many more millions than the $1.2 million figure showing in Article 43.

And at this stage, with the town desperately in need of a new ($12 million) South Fire Station and renovations to 40-year-old elementary schools, that is really not a rational decision. 

Also tonight, ironically enough, Town Meeting could consider zoning tweaks (Articles 30, 31, and 32) to allow common sense increases in residential density to Commercial Village Centers -- especially North Amherst.

You know, the type of smart incremental growth that if enacted a few years ago could have obviated The Retreat.

Smoking gun letter from appraiser

Pancakes For A Cause

Lining up at Puffer's Pond Pancake Breakfast

It seemed a little less crowded this year compared to last at the 22nd Annual Puffer's Pond Pancake Breakfast, a fundraiser for the most popular conservation area in Amherst.

 Puffer's Pond Pancake Breakfast:  A family oriented event

Perhaps it was the oppressive heat or maybe because last year family and friends held a tribute remembrance ceremony to honor revered town icon Stephen Puffer. In my coverage last year I noted how folks on both side of the bitterly contested Village Center Form Based Zoning article (which narrowly failed) were all present, but seemed to sit at different tables.

This year of course the ever-so-related bitter controversy is Article 43, which seeks to kill a much needed taxpaying student housing development in northeast Amherst; but with use of town government's nuclear option, eminent domain.

Isn't Amherst supposed to be a "Nuclear Free Zone?"

Volunteer wearing "Stop The Retreat" button and donated W.D. Cowls, Inc apron

NIMBY Backpedal

 What, no Frisbees?

UPDATED Friday morning with Cinda response to Anons

Now that the first eminent domain article failed on the floor of Amherst Town Meeting, mainly due to Finance Committee advice,  socialistic NIMBY zealots are getting a tad nervous with the other -- even more controversial -- eminent domain article, coming up for discussion Monday night.  Also unanimously opposed by our fiscal watchdogs, the Finance Committee. 

Amazingly they are trying to back away from the heavy handed use of eminent domain.  Since most red blooded Americans believe passionately in property rights (even in Amherst), they probably should have thought of that before placing the article on the warrant.

Note opening sentence

  Gerry Weiss Can we have a sane discussion about right of first refusal? I could be wrong, but I believe that when land is taken out of 61, the Town has the right of First Refusal. It's the law and it's not personal. And if my memory serves me, it's not even Town Meeting that decides on whether to buy the land, it's the Select Board in consultation with various committees and the Town Manager. So, no one can take this land against your will via the right of first refusal. As far as Town Meeting goes, again, they can't take your land. They can give authorization to the Town to commit a certain amount of money toward a purchase. That's what Town Meeting does as far as land deals goes - it is the money authorizer; the Town (Musante and the SB) has the final say on making an offer or taking by eminent domain a property. I'll bet a lot of money that the Town of Amherst will not take your land by eminent domain.

4 hours ago · Like

o  

Cinda Jones There are two questions on the table, Gerry Weiss:
1) Does 2/3 of Town Meeting support Article 43?; and
2) Does the Select Board, after receiving community input and advice from the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board, want to advantage its Right of First Refusal (ROFR) under Mass. General Laws, Chapter 61?

These are two completely different questions.

(You say this is "not personal," but Save Cushman supporters have made this very personal by making groundless complaints to the Department of Environmental Protection and Amherst Conservation Commission on our logging jobs approved by the MA Department of Conservation; engaging in daily public harassment of our young forester; making anonymous public personal attacks on me; and committing vandalism at my brother's retail store.)

The Save Cushman group's Warrant Article 43 http://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22485) asks if the Town will vote "to acquire from WD Cowls, Inc., or their successors by Eminent Domain, purchase, gift, or otherwise in fee simple as a conservation restriction, easement, or other interest therein..."
Regardless of what Warrant Article 43's supporters now claim they meant, Article 43 expressly authorizes the town of Amherst to take land by eminent domain against the will of the owner. If its advocates do not want that legal authority, then the eminent domain language should be stricken from Article 43.
Unlike in Article 43, under ROFR the town has the option of, within 120 days, taking over a Purchase and Sale Agreement. The purchase and sale contract being considered by the town today as a bona fide offer has an immediate $50K deposit due and a purchase price of $6.5 million, with a closing within 2 years. This contract is for purchase of the land. It’s not for a CR.
Under the ROFR the town can't do what the Warrant Article 43 asks unless it uses Eminent Domain. If the town uses its ROFR to buy the property under the contract terms, it can't say, "we want to buy a CR" (a CR is not for sale) or "we want to fund raise for a while and then buy 70% to conserve and 30% when we get that money and then on 30% we will develop something the community wants but not student housing."
In conclusion, Gerry, to answer your questions, yes the town can authorize the expenditure of $1.2 million, but the only way Save Cushman can do what they want is through a hostile Eminent Domain taking of Cowls' land. I'm not a willing seller and I will not under any circumstances sell a Conservation Restriction when I have a contract to sell the entire property for $6.5 million, providing much needed student housing in a cluster development that permanently preserves a large portion of the property.

Response from Cinda to Anons 5/30 4:47 &  3:59

Here are some facts that should help answer your questions a paraphrase as:  Would we be seeing the Retreat proposal (for a student-occupied residential subdivision in the woods) at this time if we had we passed some of the several recent Village Center zoning change proposals that would have allowed more units in existing already-built areas? 

According to the just-released Amherst Residential Market Demand Assessment Amherst’s household growth has lagged behind other Pioneer Valley towns with less than 1% growth between 2000 and 2010 but during this same time period the town’s population increased nearly 3,000 people – all college students.  The report states that “the lack of new residential development (particularly to support the increase in student population) has led to” several serious problems including neighborhood home to rental conversions and serious affordability issues.

According to the March, 2013 released Housing Production Plan for Amherst:

-        In the 50 years between 1960 and 2010 Amherst’s population grew 176% and our housing only increased 125%. 

-        59% of people living in Amherst are college students. 

-        Student competition for scarce rental units is driving up costs and making Amherst unaffordable for families, seniors, and town employees.

-        More than half of our housing units – 54% - are renter-occupied.

Way more than half of these - 3,300 of 5,400 units - are occupied by students. 

-        Amherst’s Master Plan was quoted in the Housing Production Plan, identifying as a key objective: “supporting the creation of taxable student housing that will lessen the pressures on residential neighborhoods.”  The Master Plan directs the location of such housing to existing village centers, on town water and sewer. 

People have said “UMass students should be living on UMass land.” 

Well… UMass tried to gift the town the Gateway corridor for private development of student housing on what’s now UMass property.  But we said no.

Folks have said “Cushman is the wrong place.”

But we said no to JPI building 400 units on the Hadley side of Route 116 and then “No” to the Hope Church building on land near the University and existing multi-unit rentals. 

We said “No” three times to re-zoning proposals that encouraged infill at the town’s existing village centers of Atkins Corner and North Amherst. 

Amherst is at least 10% below its housing needs.  Our recent and future growth have to go somewhere.  Where do we want it?  If we don’t decide, the market and existing conditions will.

Antidotally, I can tell you that over the past 12 years I’ve had at least a dozen student housing developers approach me looking for appropriate sites for well-managed student housing developments.  Their models were all apartment style or high rises.  There is no place in Amherst that’s not already built where we allow this. 

In October 2012 I received my first call from Landmark.  I was just getting out of my mouth “yes I know there’s huge demand and need for this housing, but there’s no place available that’s zoned appropriately in Amherst and zoning change requests prove impossible lately” - when Jason said Landmark’s model is a gated residential subdivision of cottages – that he was looking for land zoned for residential homes.  I thought “Holy cow.  Somebody finally figured out how to do it.” And the deal was made pretty quickly. 

My answer to your question is “Yes.”  Had the Village Center rezoning passed, or had we zoned some place in town appropriate for more units, and specifically some places appropriate for student housing, there would be a lot less demand for residential subdivisions in the woods. 

Demographics are changing.  Seniors (the likely fastest growing population after students) want to live in Amherst’s Village Centers where they can walk or bus to restaurants or shops.  Young folks starting out in the work force enjoy a more in-town experience too.  We can’t change the fact that more than half of all renters in Amherst are students, but allowing more units of housing in Village Centers will generate a healthy mix of seniors and professionals as well.

Until Amherst stops saying “NO” to every Town Meeting zoning change proposal that would allow more units in sensible locations, there will be development people question in locations where it’s allowed.  

Cinda

Retreat Survives 1st Test

154 acre parcel targeted for eminent domain taking

The Retreat, a badly needed student housing development in northeast Amherst managed to dodge the first scud missile launched their way as the Conservation Commission last night abstained from making a recommendation on Amherst Town Meeting article #43, the unAmerican use of eminent domain to steal the property development rights from W.D. Cowls, Inc, the largest private landowner in the state with local business roots predating the American Revolution.

God Bless America.

   Cowls Memo to Conservation Comm

Truth In Advertising

 Atkins Water Treatment Plant, Market Hill Road, Historic Cushman neighborhood

The YouTube video NIMBYs published trying to rally the masses against a private land deal in northeast Amherst is loaded with misinformation.



If they were a business and Amherst Town Meeting does follow their suggestion to steal property development rights via heavy handed eminent domain taking, they would be easy pickings for a lawsuit under Mass General Law 93A (Consumer Protection) for false advertising,  which allows for triple damages.

That of course would be on top of the $6.5 million total Amherst would eventually have to come up with to fulfill the "highest and best use" reimbursement provision for a hostile land taking.

Amherst, the #4 property owner in town,  already owns or permanently protects 27% of its land mass.  And when you factor in the other BIG THREE tax exempt landowners -- Amherst College, UMass and Hampshire College respectively -- a little over 50% of all land in town is tax exempt.

Cowls 154 acre tree farm off Henry Street is hardly "North Amherst's last remaining contiguous woodland."    In fact, Cowls owns 600 acres of forest in North Amherst and this particular tract has the least desirable ranking on the town's master list for land to be conserved.

Click to enlarge

 Salamander Tunnels only "priority area" in the entire parcel

Yes the Salamander Crossing is a beloved icon, a symbol of the town's respect for conservation and saving critters both great and small.  Which is exactly why Landmark Properties has promised to protect the crossing and move the main entry way for the development away from Henry Street over to Market Hill Road, where the non-historic Water Treatment Plant sits on the side a a rocky outcropping.

 Click to enlarge/read

Landmark Properties handout for Town Meeting

Cowls sold that land to the town for the treatment plant and as part of the deal the town installed infrastructure for a future development exactly like "The Retreat."

Perhaps the biggest mistruth is the absurd assertion that the development "Will threaten the Atkins Reservoir."  The land has town water/sewer!   Unlike a lot of the houses on Flat Hills Road and Shutesbury Road that have sprouted "Stop The Retreat" red signs like worms on a lawn after a summer drizzle.

Chairman Mao, err, I mean the narrator asks, "Shouldn’t all in Amherst be involved in deciding how to use this land?"  Well, no.  It's private land and this is not the People's Republic of China.

So no, No, NO!  You do not have a right to be "involved," if that involvement means stealing the property by eminent domain. 

Be Careful What You Wish For

Henry Street, Amherst

Click title below left to read

   Amherst Warrant Article #43

If You Build It ...

Political sign on public property

One of the other benefits of "The Retreat," a proposed student housing project in northeast Amherst, besides hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual property tax revenues is the short term shot in the arm for jobs, not that Amherst is now hurting with its usual low unemployment rate standing at 3.1%.

But the Hampshire/Franklin district average is 6%, only a little better than state average of 6.8%, and presumably a construction project like The Retreat will draw local labor from all across Western Massachusetts.

   Amherst Bid Solicitation for "The Retreat"