Letters

Published on March 23, 2007

'Smart growth' should guide development

To the Bulletin:

The recent debate over whether to encourage development in Amherst has so far said little about what kind of development should be encouraged.

The principles of so-called "smart growth" may be salient. The idea is neither to block all development, nor to allow it to proceed willy-nilly based on factors of the moment, such as cheap land. Instead, future development needs to be concentrated near previous development, so as to use existing infrastructure efficiently.

You can't get much closer to that than to redevelop previously developed property that is chronically vacant or grossly underutilized. Storefronts, office buildings, and other commercial properties that remain empty for months, and in some cases years, are bad for the town's tax coffers, and bad for the town's image to boot. These are the properties on which the town should be encouraging new development, in lieu of breaking ground on farmland, woodland or wetland.

A few examples come to mind.

On North Pleasant Street, the building next to the firehouse has been almost completely vacant since Via Via Pizza closed well over a year ago. No restaurant wants to move into a space in which two previous restaurants failed; some other kind of retail tenant would be needed on the ground floor to "break the curse." Might the town have a role in finding out whether the current, absentee corporate owner would be interested in selling to a locally based investor - someone who could redevelop the ground floor up, without evicting the martial-arts school?

An Indian market was finally found to fill Valley Bicycles' old shop on Main Street. But who will now occupy the space next door where the karate school was? What will happen to the forlorn shell of the much-missed Maplewood Restaurant on Belchertown Road?

When will La Cucina di Pinocchio be allowed to return to its home on Boltwood Walk, whence it was routed by fire over three years ago? And when will a new tenant be found for the Boltwood space left empty by the Raven bookstore? I could go on.

Locally owned stores and offices in and near downtown keep Amherst economically vibrant and pedestrian-friendly. They cultivate the small-town values of knowing and caring about your neighbors, while preserving the rural landscape elsewhere in town. Surely some of the indignation over Wal-Mart's proposed Superstore in Hadley is aimed at its plan to abandon an existing Wal-Mart site less than a mile away to build on former farmland.

If town government has a role to play in shaping the face of Amherst over the next 50 years, it would do well not merely to preserve open space, but to ensure that existing buildings are efficiently occupied so as to meet the needs of those who work and live in town. Main Street's doors won't stay open just by our keeping the big boxes away.

E.J. Barnes
Amherst

Two developments bad for traffic, affordability

To the Bulletin:

I am responding to the articles by Nick Grabbe on economic development in your March 2 issue.

I am an abutter of the proposed Hampshire College development, Veridian Village, which is not a retirement community as was stated, but one for "active adults." My objections are not "NIMBY," as I believe the development is well planned and that the developer is attempting to be environmentally conscientious. The development would have minimal impact on my home and my enjoyment of it. It is more likely to enhance its value, and my personal wealth.

I have three main concerns about this development, and another one proposed on South East Street: traffic, infrastructure and affordability.

Both developments have dangerous entrances/exits onto busy roads. Veridian Village's entry is directly off West Street, just south and below the sight line of Hampshire's Red Barn. The current speed limit there is 50 mph, leaving about six seconds between the point at the crest of the hill where you can first see the entry and the entry. And that is if one is obeying the speed limit.

The proposed, and desirable, Atkins Corner traffic modifications are well south and are not even visible. The promotional material about the development mentions interactions between the residents and students who live across the road, but no accommodations for a pedestrian crossing are proposed. That would yield private gain at the expense of public pain if someone is killed.

The traffic issues for the South East Street development, Strawberry Fields, are even worse. The entry is close to the narrow bridge carrying the rail trail across South East Street, and to Mill Lane. The speed limit is 40 mph, but the traffic engineer who did a study clocked the highest speeder at 70 mph.

Another infrastructure concern is the water supply. Craig Givens, the western Massachusetts regional officer for the Department of Environmental Protection, told the developer that the town is at 84 percent of its licensed water withdrawal; their project alone will bring it to 91 percent.

What is the impact of the other proposed developments on our water supply? Could the town be fined if it is exceeded? Do more wells have to be licensed? How much would it cost? This is another hidden cost of development and of private profit accruing at public cost.

Finally, there is the affordability issue, both in terms of who can afford to live in the town and the legal requirement that a certain portion of housing be affordable. Johannes Brongers of Hampshire College called the least expensive of the 120-plus units, a one-bedroom condo at $350,000, "affordable." As a professional, I can't afford that; I doubt that a teacher or police officer could either. How much will it cost us taxpayers to correct a discrepancy?

I'm tired of underwriting developers' profits, and I'm angered when they ignore our safety.

Dr. Connie Lentz
Amherst

Charter schools could inspire public schools

To the Bulletin:

The point of charter schools is to try new ways of doing things and to inspire the regular public schools to also try new ideas.

Michael Hussin, a member of the Amherst Regional School Committee, says that charter schools are answerable to no one but Boston. I disagree. Charter schools, like private schools, are directly answerable to the parents of their student bodies. If the schools don't deliver, they will lose their students and be forced to close.

On the other hand, our local public schools have a guaranteed enrollment. It is the Amherst school system, with its present administration and School Committee, that is answerable only to Boston. The only real parental input or involvement they seem to want is either our tax dollars or for us to campaign for more money.

If our Amherst school system were as answerable to parents as charter and private schools are, I doubt that they would have made cuts to the art department, nor would they be considering cuts in the music department. Instead, they would be cutting paper-pushers.

The people involved in creating the Chinese Immersion Charter School originally went to the Amherst school system with their vision. Our schools were given an incredible opportunity, which they passed up. Had the Amherst school system been open to parental input, they could have taken advantage of what was being offered by this group of committed and creative parents. They could have created a charter school within the local public school, so resources can be shared.

Rather than seeing charter schools as competition, Amherst should look to them for inspiration and for ways to raise student achievement.

Stephanie Gelfan
Amherst