LETTERS

Published on May 26, 2006

A different perspective from Orchard Valley

To the Bulletin:

I live in Orchard Valley and I was dismayed and disappointed by the Select Board's about-face on applying for grant funds for the renovation of the farmhouse at 12 Longmeadow Drive. This farmhouse is at the entrance to our neighborhood. It is currently boarded up while some opponents wage a war of attrition on the current owners, HAP Inc.

The May 12 Bulletin included a letter that applauded the Select Board for 'listening' to the neighbors. Actually, I don't feel listened to and I too am a neighbor. I attended the first public hearing at which the project was discussed and a unanimous favorable vote taken. There were many supporters of affordable housing there. I was unable to attend the second meeting, but I wrote the Select Board to make them aware of my continued support for HAP's plans.

However, our collective advocacy for the project was out-gunned. What the opponents to the project used was a big stick - they threatened a lawsuit against the Town. Worked like a charm! These opponents either have deep pockets or unlimited access to pro bono legal assistance.

They have already challenged the comprehensive zoning permit for affordable housing at this location. In fact, they have been listened to repeatedly by the Town and by the courts, and their challenge was denied. Now they are trying to appeal the court decision. Apparently, they do not intend to take 'no' for an answer, even if the Town and the courts do not support them. I think it's a shame.

Orchard Valley is a great neighborhood. I love living here and intend to do so for some time to come. I believe Amherst needs affordable housing and this kind of small-scale project, close to Route 116, public transportation and a local village center, makes great sense. The Select Board's vote delayed, and probably denied, an application for funding for the restoration of the boarded farmhouse and insured that this eyesore will greet us as we enter the neighborhood.

I have no idea what actions the Select Board envisions to 'negotiate a compromise' on the project. I would love to be included, as I, too, am a neighbor and a voter and an advocate for this affordable housing project. A few vocal opponents should not be the only ones whose views are taken into account by the Select Board. Supporters of affordable housing should come to the table too.

Marylou Sullivan
Amherst

Sunset Avenue rejects fraternity as neighbor

To the Bulletin:

The buildings known as 'frat row' on North Pleasant Street may be sold to the University of Massachusetts. The current owner, ATG Properties, Inc., owns the building at 118 Sunset Ave. and wants to rent this to one of the 'evictees.'

The house (the historic Ray Stannard Baker House) was vacated over a year ago, after a fire and numerous code violations caused the suspension of Alpha Tau Gamma fraternity. Since then we have enjoyed peace and quiet - no trash in our front yards, no huge mob scenes, no fights in the parking lot, no roaring cars with blasting horns and stereos, no snowmobiles circling the house - and no middle-of-the-night fires. Based on our experience of having a fraternity embedded in our residential neighborhood for a number of years, we find fraternity activities incompatible with residential life in our community. The behavior promoted by fraternity life should be an embarrassment to the University of Massachusetts.

Fraternity culture used to be different. Many fraternities had an adult presence in the house, as well as cooks and cleaning services. Men ate in their houses and regarded them as homes. Fraternities actively practiced community service and leadership skills. Parties were often held on campus and few students had cars.

Today, these unsupervised houses cannot be properly managed. They can barely sustain conformity with health and fire codes consistently. They are visual pig sties. Huge parties can be amassed instantly with an Internet posting or cell phones. Massive parties and poor property maintenance put an enormous burden on town resources and the neighbors who end up policing fraternity behavior.

The University should encourage fraternities to move on campus. Students have informed neighborhood residents that they prefer to live off-campus because enforcement is more lax, but they have also told us they do not want to spend their free time maintaining old houses. On campus they can be assured of safe and proper housing and not be burdened by property management.

There are 22 children, elderly, and visiting grandchildren on our street. Most are working people who have to keep regular hours. We feel we have a right to enjoy our property without unreasonable interference, as does anyone in this town. We have made it known to ATG, Inc. that we do not want them to house another fraternity in 118 Sunset Ave. but return it to residential property in conformity with the Town of Amherst By-law.

Connie Gillen
Amherst

Shutesbury could help overcome oil addiction

To the Bulletin:

Most of the time, like everyone else up here in Shutesbury, I protect myself from greenhouse gases by keeping my head conveniently lodged in the sand. And it is just such an effective strategy that I am not very motivated or compelled to do anything else.

Well, maybe I feel a little frustration that I don't seem to have many easy or cheap options to avoid generating CO2. And yes, serious concern, gloominess and sometimes guilt that I will be passing on to my children a grievously compromised planet in so much worse shape than when it was given me.

So it was a very unusual and stimulating meeting in Shutesbury Town Hall on May 16 that explored a windmill proposal from Larry Hunter and the town's energy committee. And the house was packed. It turns out, with a few grants, Shutesbury could have a wind generator for a very small outlay that would produce about $1,900 worth of electricity per year (at current electricity prices).

The meeting was interesting for what was said about electricity generation from wind power. There were naturally questions; about noise levels, bird impacts, installation and long-term maintenance costs, insurance costs and impact on abutters' real estate values.

Even more remarkable, many of us had pulled our heads out of the sand for the evening, but could not quite find a relevant or constructive way to say that we urgently need to start working on solutions and alternatives to the current asinine national plan of choking our civilization with CO2.

However, due to topology and wind patterns, there are only very few optimal locations for a windmill. And we were all very aware that some of the abutters, naturally enough, did not want to be sacrificial lambs for a bold but symbolic gesture by a bunch of their CO2-addicted neighbors. 'Get your windmill off of my hill and outta my view, thank you very much!'

As an engineer, I am very inclined to believe that we could actually solve CO2 emission problems in the next 25 years if we merely turned our technological smarts and determination to it. I am also aware that once we are struggling in survival mode with widespread Katrina-like disruptions, or droughts, or floods, there will not be much money or creative ingenuity left over to magically reinvent our fossil fuel-based society.

Desperation may be the mother of invention, but it will take a lot of capital investment and painstaking effort to retool our fundamental energy infrastructure and actually repair our atmosphere. It would be much better to start while we are on top of our game.

So I am earnestly hoping that we can all come up with the answers and accommodations to the concerns raised by some of our neighbors. Obviously, a 10-kilowatt windmill won't save us from OD-ing on CO2. But maybe it will act like a lighthouse at the top of the Shutesbury Hill, reminding us that there are some less perilous pathways leading beyond our present disastrous addiction.

Graeme Sephton
Shutesbury

Parking ticket brings thoughts on system

To the Bulletin:

There is a problem with parking spaces and ticketing, and providing reasonable pickup and loading sites.

Recently I got a ticket for 'standing' in a handicap access zone. I had pulled in front of Rao's to pick up my high school student, who had inconveniently 'parked' herself around the corner of the cafe and did not see me arrive. We had to rush off to a class. I quickly got out to retrieve her, leaving flashing lights on, and when I got back in less than five minutes, I had a ticket.

Now granted, this is 'illegal' and inconsiderate of a possible handicapped parker, yet there is also no turnaround in that lot and all other spaces were occupied, including a pull-up on the sidewalk in front of Paul's Shoe Repair. My other alternative was to block already parked cars, or use the handicapped space itself. Recovering from knee surgery, walking quickly back and forth over a longer distance was not an option.

My appeal to the town to reduce the $200 fine was not successful, thought they just recently had raised it.

I think the town should provide more reasonable access for short-term needs. This is a site where many come to pick up kids, get Chinese take out, pick up and drop off shoes, and the lot is small and difficult to negotiate. It is inconvenient to circle the town when under time constraints, seeking other parking, such as the garage out back or the CVS lot. Another active place to consider is in front of Antonio's.

I have rarely had a parking ticket, am a responsible driver, and am fine about plugging a meter for 15 minutes or more, but we should address needs for pickup and loading so citizens do not need to engage in 'irresponsible behavior.'

Steve Roof (Bulletin letter, April 28) may have time to walk or bus about, but many of us do not. Bicycling is not an option for parents who drive their children between school, town, and many activities.

Alison Ozer
Amherst

South East Street condo plan unwise

To the Bulletin:

Robie Hubley's statement in support of Article 22 at the May 15 Town Meeting was right on the mark. In supporting the proposal to place a low-density zoning designation on the 6+ acres of land at 650-52 South East St., Hubley showed that he understands why it is not suitable for high-density development allowed under its current PURD zoning designation.

Despite the failure of the article to pass, 78 voters supported rezoning, showing that the issue reaches well beyond the interests of a neighborhood group. The prospect of dense building on this plot, such as the current plan for 25 condominiums, has raised concerns from several boards.

Promoting highest-density development on a parcel that is adjacent to the Fort River, the Norwottuck Rail Trail, the Brickyard Conservation Area and the Mad Woman Farm, and that fronts a road with well-known traffic problems where it is far removed from public transportation, represents poor town planning and land use management. Such development is the wrong way to meet Amherst's housing demand and an ineffective and shortsighted means of raising tax revenue.

Jeff Lee
Amherst