Letter: In Our Rush To Build We Are Destroying The Very Conditions That Make For Successful Local Economies

The following letter was sent to Town Councilor Andy Steinberg (at large) on July 16,  2021 in reply to his response (appended below) to Friedman’s original letter (appended below), which was sent to all Town Councilors.

I appreciate your responding to my concerns.  I might add that no response was received from your colleagues, hardly speaking well for our new government.

As for your vote, may I briefly respond?  You are making two arguments, and I would question both.  First, you say that the “gain sought by the moratorium would not be achieved” because a new zoning regime could not be developed in nine months, and building permits would be rushed through after the expiration of the moratorium.  This is more an argument for a longer moratorium than a rejection of the idea.  Afterall, we will be living with the consequences of today’s building and zoning decisions; is it unreasonable to take nine months, a year, or even longer to make sure we get it right?

Your other argument is, I suspect, the one that carried the day: we need to fight against the “perception that Amherst is not a business-friendly community.”  I have two responses here: 

In our rush to build, we are undermining the very conditions that make for successful local economies. Look across the country and the communities with the reputation for being “hostile” to business are those where businesses and economic activity flourish. In this, I would include San Francisco, San Jose, Cambridge, Brooklyn, and our neighbor, Northampton.  These successful locations flourish because they provide the amenities that attract creative entrepreneurs and talented people, and because they provide small office and retail space for incubating businesses. Building ugly and destroying local businesses does not make for the type of entrepreneurial environment that we need.

Second, friendly to what sort of businesses?  We’re building big dorms for UMass students with large retail spaces to be occupied by outside chain stores.  Wouldn’t we be better off promoting local businesses than housing UMass students?  Are the giant and ugly buildings being erected to house UMass students really better for business than the Cottage Shops and other local businesses torn down to build them?  Yes, the recent construction has been good for realtors renting to affluent UMass students but it has created longer barren pedestrian areas driving customers to more pleasant shopping in Northampton or Amazon.  

Again, thank you for responding.

Gerald Friedman is Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts. He graduated from Columbia College in 1977 and earned a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1986. His most recent book, The Case for Medicare for All, appeared in March 2020 with Polity Press. Follow him on twitter at @gfriedma

Friedman’s original letter, posted below,  was sent to all members of the Amherst Town Council on June 28, 2021.

As you know, many in town have expressed concern at what they perceive to be a rush to judgment on new construction.  They fear that once more of these new buildings are built, the town will be changed forever.  They have requested a relatively short time-out to hear these concerns and consider appropriate changes.  It seems appropriate that our elected representatives should listen to these reasonable views.  Please do and support the requested moratorium.

Councilor Andy Steinberg’s response to Friedman’s Letter
Thank you for submitting comments about the proposed 180-day moratorium on the issuance of building permits for the construction of residential buildings including three or more dwelling units in three zoning districts, including the downtown.  The intention of the moratorium was to provide time to consider six zoning provisions that address the concerns of many residents about recently constructed and possible additional new buildings in the downtown.  The proposal provided for a 90-day extension of the moratorium if the zoning bylaws could not be implemented during those six-months.

I am sending this response to everyone who submitted comments, whether in support of the moratorium or in opposition to it.  By far, the largest number of comments were in support.  I read each one to understand the concerns of the people who took the time to write to the Council.

Many of you expressed your desire that new construction be consistent with your vision for our downtown, including the appearance and purposes of new buildings.  I read many comments lamenting the loss of locally owned small businesses and businesses that address the everyday needs of town residents.  In additions, there was an expressed concern about a large number of residential units that would not be attractive to families because of their design and price.  This was frequently stated as a belief that the design was intended to attract students.

Those opposed to the moratorium were concerned that the moratorium would discourage investment in our downtown, deprive the Town of tax revenue needed to support our desire for schools, libraries, other municipal services, and new initiatives such as the community responder program.  They also pointed out that Amherst is perceived as “anti-business” and that the proposed moratorium would support that perception and discourage all investment in the Town.

From my experience, the arguments for and against the proposed moratorium are valid.  I ultimately decided that I could not vote for the moratorium because it would not address the concerns of those of you who wrote to support it and would have the consequences expressed by those of you who wrote in opposition to it.

The Planning Department and Planning Board are developing proposals to address many of the issues listed in the proposed moratorium including inclusionary zoning (already adopted) and regulations of apartments, multi-use buildings, and parking.  The most difficult challenge is to develop zoning to address the appearance of buildings, usually known as “Form-based Zoning”.  It is a recommendation in our Master Plan.  When the Planning Board brought two Form-based Zoning proposals to Town Meeting, they did not pass.  An open public process needs to be part of developing any such new Zoning Bylaw.  The moratorium would continue for 270 days or until a zoning bylaw is adopted to address all listed concerns.  It would likely not be possible to achieve the goal to adopt a Form-based Zoning during the proposed moratorium.  Meanwhile the approval process for any proposed new building would continue and a building permit could be issued in nine months.  The gain sought by the moratorium would not be achieved.  The delay would encourage the perception that Amherst is not a business-friendly community, the concern expressed by many of you who opposed the moratorium.

The zoning review processes will continue and there will be an opportunity for you to express your opinions to the Planning Board and Town Council.  Regardless of your opinion about the proposed moratorium, your comments on zoning are needed.