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

A reason to miss 'His Lordship'

So Mr. Weiss must have had too much cake at his going away party preceding the Select Board meeting last night, as he couldn't even spit out a spirited counter using his taxpayer funded Bully Pulpit of his previous spot-on pubic statement that the People's Republic has been "living beyond its means."

And if my memory serves he specifically pointed out the raises and step increases granted to the town employees--mainly the Teachers Union. The concessions made to the Town Manager (Police) and now most recently the Regional School Committee are token at best.


And I believe Mr. Weiss was also the attribution/source used by that damn "anti-Override organization" disclosing the over-$1 million surplus last Fiscal Year.

Equal opportunity flag disparager

So at least His Lordship (about to become a mere Commoner) Gerry Weiss even has problems with a People's Republic of Amherst town flag, in addition to the 29 commemorative American flags that he likes to see as little as possible unfurled in town center.

And since those US flags only cost $40 each, safe to say a new flag of the same size with the town seal (or whatever a committee comes up with) will not be overly expensive.

Mr. Weiss loved to champion the subsidy of golf at Cherry Hill and considered $10,000 in tax monies nothing when applied to that pursuit, but God forbid we spend a couple hundred on a flag.

Gotta love the cocky, self centered body language at the very end.

The Gitmo shuffle

Obviously the cataclysmic events of 9/11 brought national attention to the Amherst Select Board decision from the night before restricting the display of 29 commemorative American flags in the downtown.

Around 6:00 AM that morning the AP sent out a brief one-paragraph article about the Amherst town officials decision from the night before, just proving how slow a news day 9/11 first dawned.

Unfortunately some of the BIG media (Fox and CNN) got the story wrong--probably in the confusion of what started going terribly wrong at 8:46 that morning. As a result, some folks watched the Twin Towers fall and then heard a story about a small town in western Massachusetts restricting the rights of residents and businesses to fly the American flag. You can just imagine the hate mail that flowed into Amherst Town Hall that week.

Well as that old saying goes, "here we go again." This Gitmo detainees to Amherst story hit the AP wire on Tuesday (curiously they did not carry it a month ago when the Springfield Republican first covered the story) and within hours the story broke about Federal authorities arresting a Sudbury, Massachusetts resident for plotting to attack shopping malls (probably in the Boston area.) Not a good mix for Amherst.

But, once again, the story is not always presented fairly. Some people make is sound as though Amherst is laying out the welcome mat and promising to harbor Osama Bin Laden. The two men now named by Ruth Hooke are, rightfully, getting great scrutiny and may not pass the smell test.

But the actual Warrant article does not name names and does say four times that the person or persons (does not even mention a number) will have been "cleared." Surely out of all the people left at Gitmo, there does have to be one or two who are completely innocent. Therefore they are not "terrorists".

So if they do ever come to Amherst, the town would not be coddling terrorists.

Michael Graham rips Amherst on radio and in print. Ouch.

Howie Carr Piles on. Double ouch.

And now even the Wall Street Journal. Triple ouch.

The Amherst Bulletin speaks, in their wimpy sort of of way.

Ruth Hooke on welcoming Gitmo guys to Amherst

Whew! So yesterday's 443 hits set a new world's record (about half coming from Boston radio station WTKK 96.9) surpassing last year's 412 when the AP covered Ms. Awad resigning as Amherst Select Board member citing stalking and harassment by little old me as the reason. This of course set the stage for a replacement election last October and a reorganization of the Select Board where Princess Stephanie ousted Gerry Weiss as Chair.

Selectman Weiss speaks

Mr. Weiss's Chariot.

So Boston radio personality Michael Graham wanted to hear Mr. Weiss out on this proposal to allow (2) "cleared" Gitmo detainees to resettle here. Happy to oblige him.

The warrant article (#14) Town Meeting will vote on does not contain any names whatsoever and clearly uses the word "cleared" four times.

So again, just for record. If there is any chance in Hell the two individuals have any connection to terrorist activities I will of course vote No on the floor of Town Meeting. But this naming of the two is kind of a new wrinkle and I'm now told that the two in particular may have some connection to bad things. Makes me wonder about the definition of "cleared."

Amherst Town Meeting: I gave it my best shot

Mr. Graham's blog post about the People's Republic

Yes, the petitioner and Mr. Weiss show up in the Hall of Shame

Really Dumb Foreign policy from the People's Republic

A Mexican standoff

Helen Thelen , Stephanie O'Keeffe, Alisa Brewer, Kevin Joy. Friday

So the trials and tribulations of the July 4’th Parade in the People’s Republic of Amherst is starting to resemble an old Buck Rogers movie serial with every week a new cliffhanger ending to the ongoing sad saga.

At last week's Select Board meeting (out of nowhere) former Lordship Gerry Weiss issued a public “plea” for the private Parade Committee to relent “just this year” and allow “free speech” in the Parade line of march so that the town could allow Police and Fire vehicles so that retiring police chief Charlie Scherpa and Fire Chief Keith Hoyle could lead the parade as Grand Marshals.

I asked the previous week: why can’t the town—just this year--allow the Parade Committee their First Amendment right (upheld by a 9-0 Supreme Court decision) to decide "what not to say" and allow town equipment so that two retiring chiefs with over 75 years of service could be publicly thanked by the people--especially children--in the community?

On Friday Princess Stephanie and Alisa Brewer (one shy of a Select board quorum) came to the VFW to press the issue with the July 4’th Parade Committee. No shots fired, but no treaty signed.

Interestingly last Monday Alisa Brewer said the town’s 250’th Parade Committee had created a superb float that would be in the Hadley 350’th Parade this coming Saturday and the Amherst July 4’th Parade.

Hmmm…even if the float is built with all volunteer labor and donated materials it is still town property. But town officials are allowing this vehicle in the July 4’th Parade even though enforcing a ban on police and fire vehicles unless the Committee surrenders their principals?

Oh, I forgot: the town’s 250’ th Parade is being held to a totally different set of standards than is the private July 4’th Parade.