Elections signaled desire for change

By BRYAN HARVEY

Published on April 06, 2007

The recent election in Amherst was a teeth-rattling political realignment. We've gotten used to close votes: an override that passes by 89 votes, a charter proposal that loses by 13. So for a challenger to oust one incumbent by an astonishing 2-1 margin - and handily outpoll the other incumbent on the ballot - seems important. Add the resounding rebuff of the challenge to Moderator Harrison Gregg, and the success of efforts to bring a reform agenda to Town Meeting, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that Something Big happened in Amherst two Tuesdays ago.

But what? While some voters may have been sending a message to Select Board members Anne Awad and Robie Hubley about their personal relationship, the scale of Hubley's defeat and the other results suggest that something else was at work. Local elections are often referenda on the general direction of town government, and on March 27 Amherst voters said they weren't happy.

This is perfectly understandable. Being unhappy is the right response to Amherst's deteriorating financial condition. But what makes this year's election especially significant is that, for the first time, voters were offered a clear choice about how to deal with it.

This Select Board, by and large, has approached the budget crisis as an inescapable death spiral in which services will continue to be whacked away to fit whatever revenues happen to be available. This gloom is relieved only by occasional dreams that the state, the colleges, or somebody will step in to save the day. Citizens who find this "strategy" lacking are met with a shrug of the shoulders and a stern warning that citizens won't accept increased taxes, so nothing can be done.

But Alisa Brewer represented a growing number of citizens who believe that something can indeed be done. Rather than throwing up its hands, the town can take responsibility for its future. Spending must be controlled, but cutting services does not have to be the only solution to balancing the budget. Living within our means does not mean we have to give up on living.

Voters will have a chance to take another step on May 1, when the override component of a plan proposed by the Finance Committee appears on the ballot. This time, an override is more than a stopgap. It's the down payment - good for at least three years - on a commitment to control spending and reduce tax pressures by growing the tax base.

The Amherst of protected open space, good schools and services, and diverse inhabitants is a dream living on borrowed time. We have secured the open space we love, but the price was a tax base so narrow that our homes are almost the sole source of taxes. Service levels cannot be maintained on that basis, and more and more citizens are priced out of town. A long-term financial plan of the kind proposed by the Finance Committee can begin to reverse our fortunes and break the cycle of higher taxes and diminishing services.

So to sustain our community's quality of life, other sources of local revenue must be developed, primarily through expansion of appropriate economic activity in the limited areas available for it. Some have referred to this idea - balancing our tax-exempt open space and educational institutions with appropriate taxable activity - as "sustainability."

And it's not some nutty only-in-Amherst scheme. In fact, it's the norm in progressive communities across the country. Here's how they describe it in Austin, Texas, that blue oasis in the red Texas desert: Sustainability "provides a framework under which communities can use resources efficiently, create efficient infrastructures, protect and enhance the quality of life, and create new businesses to strengthen their economies."

Sounds good to me. But in Amherst the concept has been resisted by many who would apparently rather let schools and public safety deteriorate than deal with the devil of expanded commercial activity, however benign. They would sacrifice the very things that make Amherst the kind of community that attracted us to begin with, and with them the high property values that help to offset the fact that taxes tend to be higher in a place like Amherst.

The sustainability agenda is not a panacea. It does not promise an end to tight budgets, or to the need - at least as an interim measure - for some tax support beyond the 21/2 percent cap. But it does promise a change in course and a plausible plan to sustain Amherst in recognizable form. The voters may not have endorsed the specifics of a plan on March 27, but they clearly signaled that they are ready to try something new.

Bryan Harvey, a former Select Board chair, is associate provost at the University of Massachusetts.