Let's Do The Time Warp

"Portal" in Kendrick Park

The town is trying to raise the last $3,000 necessary to buy this $10,000 piece of art that has been located in Kendrick Park for three years now.  The "Portal" is a symbolic entryway connecting downtown Amherst to our number one employer, UMass Amherst.  

Kind of what the "Gateway Project" would have been.  Only smaller.

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

Amherst In Bloom

Snell Street Rhododendrons

As we head towards a quaint New England summer, made less so by the lack of a July 4 Parade, Amherst becomes a different town. Especially now that our number one employer, UMass/Amherst, is on hiatus. Friendlier, more intimate, and a l-o-t less busy.

And prettier (well, mostly).

 Having just taken down one Kellogg Avenue Pin Oak the church decided to trim the remaining two

 

400 of these (for the birds) NIMBY stop signs have sprouted all over Amherst

 

11 Phillips Street sprouts weeds

 

621 East Pleasant Street sprouts tents

Sound & Fury

 Demonstrators in favor of article 42 (taking Echo Village Apartments) outside auditorium

Amherst Town Meeting dodged a bullet this evening -- actually two -- by voting to refer article 42, the expensive eminent domain taking of Echo Village Apartments (minimum of $2.6 million) back to the Housing and Sheltering Committee for further study, but by only one vote, 95-94.

Echo Village Apartments now managed by Eagle Crest Management aka Jamie Cherewatti

Then Town Meeting voted to adjourn ten minutes before the 10:00 p.m. deadline rather than taking up article 43, the other eminent domain article that could prove many times more expensive than the previous one.

The Finance Committee voted 6-0 against both the controversial articles and that sobering vote tally clearly convinced Town Meeting to be wary of using eminent domain. 

Earlier in the evening Town Meeting voted to spend $60,000 to help buy the 5 acre Rock Farm on South East Street. The four Select Board members in attendance all voted against the deal but it still narrowly acquired the necessary two thirds vote, 125-57.

Total cost of the public/private deal is $500,000.  A benefit to Greenfield Savings Bank, who holds the mortgage, and immediate neighbors living on South East Street.

4 standing no votes from Amherst Select Boad

As part of the deal two lots were pre auctioned at just over $130,000 each.  One will go to a private builder who will construct an expensive house and the other to a social service agency that will build a group home for developmentally disabled individuals, thus tax exempt. 

Over half of Amherst is currently owned by tax exempt institutions leading to one of the highest property tax rates in the region for the other half of property owners who are on the tax rolls.

Pig In A Poke?

 Rock Farm, 650 South East Street

Tonight Amherst Town Meeting will be asked to tap Community Preservation Act funds -- that reserve of money that falls from the heavens -- to the tune of $125,000 to complete a public/private land deal that essentially only benefits neighbors living along South East Street.

I was surprised to learn no environmental study of the land had been completed, as a even a cursory examination of the property reveals potential environmental hazards:  three rusting 55 gallon oil drums.

Just one of the downsides brought on by using Other People's Money:  a lack of due diligence.  

55 gallon oil drum near collapsed structure

Another 55 gallon drum under debris

Rock Farm, South East Street Amherst. with 55 gallon drum hiding in plain sight

More good reasons to vote NO on Article 24C

And Another One Gone

Four mighty oaks line west end of Kellogg Avenue last year

 

Kellogg Avenue looking barren with two pin oaks gone

While it took 114 years to grow from tiny acorn to a towering shade tree, it took less than four hours today to reduce the majestic pin oak on Kellogg Avenue into a tidy jigsaw puzzle of logs loaded on the back of a big truck.

The tree stood on Kellogg Avenue, town land, but unfortunately its roots trespassed on church property.  The Unitarian Universalist Society Church is in the midst of a major expansion, so cutting the roots in their way would have inevitably led to the death of the tree anyway.  Ah, the price of progress.

 

The diminished view from Rao's Coffee

Last week Amherst Town Meeting voted to grant the church $106,000 in public money  to restore a stained glass Tiffany window, Angel of the Lilies.

The cost to the general public for this expansion seems to keep going up.

By Any Other Name

Roadside memorial for Livingston "Liv" Pangburn, age 22

A heartfelt tribute has appeared on the site of the terrible truck vs bicycle accident that took the life of a promising 22 year old on Sunday late afternoon just off the entry to Amherst College on always busy Rt 9, probably made more so by Amherst College commencement functions that same day. 

I could tell by the original response of the first Amherst police officer on the scene that it was bad ... really bad.

So I continued to send out live updates as I heard them over the scanner and got to the scene less than an hour after the incident to (carefully) photograph the intensive investigation.

By 7:42 p. m. when I was first to publish (beyond simple updates on Twitter) the awful news, I could not get two reliable sources to confirm the accident was indeed fatal, so I held off on that ever so final piece of information.  Even though I was convinced of the awful truth.

Much later that night MassLive.com covered the story and early next morning the Memorial Day print edition of the Daily Hampshire Gazette had it on the front page.   But both of them had used the wrong name and gender for the victim based on information supplied by the District Attorney's office, normally what you consider a "reliable source."

Since the DAs office is considered ultra reliable and since the information they were providing was after hours "breaking news," safe to say neither of the established mainstream media outlets bothered to corroborate the name of the victim with a second source.  

Because friends  and family of Livingston "Liv" Pangburn would most certainly would have told them about how he would wish to be remembered.  

Kind of like the epic mistake made by too many mainstream media outlets covering the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where early widely circulated reports misidentified the brother as the shooter.  

Being first has always been an important motivator for journalists -- especially now with the ability for instant online publication.

Being right, however, trumps it every time.
  

#####

In an email to the entire Hampshire College community yesterday Presdient Jonathan Lash avoided pronouns altogether:

"It is with deep sadness I must let the community know that Hampshire student Livingston Pangburn, 11F, died in a bicycling accident in the town of Amherst on Sunday.  Counseling Services will hold walk in hours tomorrow Tuesday May 28 from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. for those needing support.  We will honor Liv's memory in the fall, when students return to campus."

I'm also told by a Hampshire College professor:

"Hampshire academic records now allow students not only to choose their names (e.g. if they prefer a nickname to their full name etc.) but also include a preferred pronoun: that way, the teacher or administrator does not have to guess, or student does not have to assume the burden of correcting them etc."