Letters

Published on August 22, 2008

Where are the chairs?

To the Bulletin: The comfortable chairs that graced the lobby of the Bangs Community Center have been removed and replaced with potted plants. For many years, the people of Amherst made good use of the lobby. It was a welcoming oasis for a weary soul to sit and rest, a refuge from the weather, a good place to rendezvous. But now the chairs have been exiled and vegetation has been chosen over humans. A little bit of the magic that makes Amherst special is gone. Heartbreaking.

Philip Brothers
Amherst

Just plain smart

To the Bulletin:

All the angst and animosities following the 3-2 decision by the Select Board to reschedule the special election to fill Anne Awad's seat on the board would likely have been avoided had the board and citizens been aware of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Walgren vs. Board of Selectmen of the Town of Amherst, decided Aug. 8, 1975.

Walgren initially asked the federal District Court to postpone the town caucus scheduled for Jan. 19, 1973, which was during winter recess when perhaps 10 percent (or less) of the students would be out of town. Although Judge Garrity found for the town, much of the debate among Select Board members was the validity, and importance, of a statement Garrity allegedly made in chambers admonishing the town to never again schedule elections, or such matters as voter registration and filing of nomination forms, when university and college students were not in session. Walgren, however, appealed Garrity's decision to the First Circuit, and it is that court's opinion that provides the crucial guidance.

In the current case, the special election was initially scheduled for Sept. 16, soon after most college and university students would be just returning to town for the 2008-2009 school year. The majority of the Select Board - Gerry Weiss, Diana Stein, and Anne Awad (the "Select Board 3") - voted to reset the date for Nov. 4 because they were concerned that the Sept. 16 date would have the practical effect of disenfranchising vast numbers of students, as well as limiting their ability to nominate candidates to fill the Select Board vacancy. The Select Board 3 also were concerned that the issue could end up in the courts, which could be very costly and likely lead to postponement of the Sept. 16 date in any event.

As it turns out, the instincts of the Select Board 3 to take Garrity's alleged warning seriously were largely confirmed by the First Circuit. As the First Circuit said, "We would not wish the end result of this lengthy litigation to be construed as authority for setting critical election dates during college recesses in communities having a very large if not majority proportion of students who are also eligible voters in the 18-20 year age group, without a showing of some substantial justification. In short, we would be disturbed if, given time to explore alternatives and given alternatives which would satisfy all reasonable town objectives, a town continued to insist on elections during vacation or recess, secure in the conviction that returning to town and absentee voting would be considered insignificant burdens."

Of course, we can debate whether the absence of one Select Board member for an additional seven weeks would be of such significance that it outweighs concerns about student participation in the election. And some in town would argue that, since student participation in these elections has always been modest, we should not be overly concerned about them. Furthermore, the Sept. 16 date is not literally while school is not in session. But if you believe, as I do, that there is a real risk that at least one student - and it takes only one-of 20,000 plus students - might seek to postpone the September election, and that a judge would take the challenge seriously, then the Select Board's decision makes eminent sense. It also happened to be the right thing to do.

John O. Fox
Amherst

This time, it's personal

To the Bulletin: One of the many things that makes Amherst a good community in which to live is the willingness of its residents to volunteer to help in a variety of ways, whether it be through charitable endeavors, creating cultural and educational opportunities, or serving on the town's boards and committees. Although they lead busy lives with commitments to work and families, talented people still step forward to donate countless hours for our benefit. The quality of life in our community is enhanced by these people. They deserve to be thanked for their work and not personally attacked in an editorial ("Project greenlight," Aug. 15).

I am very concerned that this sort of harsh public criticism of individual volunteers will only serve to weaken our community. Why would anyone want to help with town governance when they might receive unfair criticism in the press for taking their responsibilities seriously.

Seven hours before the Planning Board meeting on Aug. 6, planning staff forwarded to board members about six pages of emails containing a legal opinion from town counsel. A site visit was scheduled for the afternoon that same day. It is perfectly reasonable that some board members would want to take time to read through the extensive materials and arrive at a sound decision. Aug. 6 was the very first time this project appeared before the board. The project seems to be a good one, but legitimate questions were raised about why 78 parking spaces were needed, why the sidewalk along Larkspur Drive was to be removed, and whether there was an attempt by the current PRP owner to "circumvent" part of the zoning bylaw. The decision could have been taken up at the Planning Board's next meeting - not a lengthy delay that would in any way endanger the project.

I commend Denise Barberet, Susan Pynchon, and Eduardo Suarez for their patience, thoroughness and careful decision-making.

Amherst needs a local newspaper that cares about the community as much as its resident volunteers do. It is time that the Amherst Bulletin set a better standard for itself by offering a complete open, unbiased, factually-based discussion of issues before the town. We've had enough of the personal attacks.

Mary Streeter
Amherst

Build it ... we're already here

To the Bulletin: In Jim Oldham's column about the proposed condominium complex on South East Street, he writes, "By all means, let's build more housing in Amherst for elders and people with disabilities."

But, not this one. No, not this one.

So, where, Jim, would you build them? I'd put my money on your finding reasons to object to other proposed sites, also. On the one hand, I understand. I love open lands, too. But, I am an elder with a disability who hopes with all her heart to be able to stay in the Amherst area. There are, however, so few one-level condo possibilities. Ask any realtor. Ask any older person who has tried to stay in Amherst, but has had to move to Northampton, South Hadley, Easthampton or another area town that is building for the aging population. We know older people are the volunteers so many organizations count on, and each person who left town had many years remaining to give to the Amherst community. Amherst has, in general, built for students. Now, however, there are many of us older folks who want to continue to serve our community and live with our friends and neighbors. We do not want to move away.

I'm hoping and praying that the Strawberry Fields project will become an option for my husband and me. It may not be perfect in absolutely every aspect, but with all the attention to its design since 2005, I have to believe it is as carefully thought out as a project can be, and it definitely will fill an extremely critical need.

Barbara Benda Jenkins
Amherst