Inside Amherst Town Meeting: Ugh

 Echo Village Apartments: threat of eminent domain taking could reappear

According to the sacred rules of Amherst Town Meeting a "Motion to reconsider" an article (almost always one that has failed) can be made by any member as long as they did not "vote in the minority".

With Article 42, the controversial $2.6 million eminent domain taking of Echo Village Apartments, 24 units of formerly low-to-moderate priced rentals, that leaves plenty of opportunity since the main motion failed last week by being referred back to a committee for more study 95 yes-94 no.

That of course sounds skin-of-your-teeth close, except the main motion (taking the apartment complex by eminent domain) required a two-thirds super majority to pass, so it really wasn't even close.

If however one of those 95 yes voters (and I was one) changes their mind and wants to stand up and make a motion to reconsider, that's all it takes.  Or someone who was not present at the meeting when the article was voted on, which in this case means 50 people. 

Thus we have a potential pool of 145 movers.  And it only takes one.

Town Meeting then debates and votes on whether they wish to reconsider.  That requires a majority vote to pass.  If passed, it then magically transforms us back to the moment before someone "called the question" to end debate.

Thus the discussion begins anew, while the clock keeps on ticking. 

Either way Town Meeting will also get to Article 43 on Monday night, the other eminent domain article.   This one calls for stealing the "development rights" on 154 acres of forest in northeast Amherst currently under contract to a student housing developer for $6.5 million dollars.

Scary to think in only one night Amherst Town Meeting could make back-to-back mistakes costing taxpayers $9 million dollars.

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

DUI DIshonor Roll

 Drivers age 21-24 make up highest percentage of drunk driver arrests (34%)

Thankfully we only had one DUI arrest last weekend, let's hope the trend continues.  But then, it only takes one to forever change innocent lives and loving families.

Click to enlarge.  Note busy intersection where arrest took place

Overlay, Underlay, Ondalay

 

Where do you stash your cash?

While Amherst may have the highest property tax rate in the region because of the high cost of our public schools and high percentage of tax exempt entities, town officials are kind of stingy when it comes to the "overlay account."

A reserve taken off the top of annual property taxes collected (our number one source of revenues for the town's $68 million budget) and held in case someone disputes their assessment. Massachusetts Department Of Revenue recommends municipalities withhold 3% ($1.2 million) but since Amherst runs a tight ship we apply only 1% or $400,000.

Currently for FY13 (which ends June 30) we have a balance of $229,345.37, having used $183,485.14.

But of that amount used the majority was not for property tax abatements brought on by complaints of overly zealous high assessments. Every year Amherst Town Meeting unanimously approves "Personal Exemptions" which benefit veterans, blind or disabled citizens, senior citizens, surviving spouses, etc.

This year that amount alone came to $134,000 -- or more than two thirds. While there still may be an appeal to the Appellate Tax Board on appeals handled at the local level safe to assume $200,000 will end up surplus.

Not exactly a slush fund since any monies expended would need Town Meeting approval, but still somewhat "found money" that can be line item targeted toward endeavors that may be a tad controversial.

Kind of like what happens with Community Preservation Act money. Town Meeting spends that as though it flowed from the Quabbin Reservoir.

The Town Manager had originally thought about financing the $60,000 joint study with UMass by using $30,000 from the overlay account but then simply went with a free cash appropriation. Since the Chancellor was scheduled to champion the article, no special help was required.

In addition to the $200,000 that will be left over this year, the overlay account for FY2012 has $37,000 and FY2011 has $27,000 and, finally, FY2010 still has $1,000.  Or a grand total of $265,000.

Additionally the town has $4,326,501 in Free Cash and $1,821,401 in Stabilization.  Oh yeah, and $202,000 that Town Meeting appropriated two years ago for War Memorial Pool renovations that was never used due to a state grant covering the costs. 

(Just don't tell anyone.) 

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