Letter: Strong Community Opposition Appears To Dwarf Support For Garage On North Prospect Street

The following letter was sent to the Amherst Town Council on December 8, 2021

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Parking Facility Overlay District on North Prospect Street (Map 14A, Parcel 33).

In this letter I would like to focus on the extent of support for the proposed change because we are told that there is “no evidence the community is against the garage,” and only letters of support from the business community (see here and here). 

1. The letter from Amherst Cinema expresses a need for parking in general. This is understandable. Any cinema wants as much parking as possible. The letter does not state that there is a need for a parking garage specifically or that there is a need for any type of additional parking at the proposed site. (In another context I have seen research that shows that garages are unsafe for people who look vulnerable – women, elderly, disabled etc. Lights and cameras can help catch a criminal but by then it is too late for the victim.  That research should also be done if you proceed with a garage model.) Would Amherst Cinema support the replacement of a residentially zoned area to build a garage when we have a shortage of affordable housing?

2. Town Councilor Dorothy Pam sent out an email to her constituents alerting us about the proposed zoning amendment and the short timeline – she did not provide a pre-written letter or offer assistance in writing letters. More than 60 people were present at the Town Council meeting on November 29, including many from outside the district. Only two speakers spoke in favor of the garage.

3. Prior to the December 6 Council meeting, Amherst Forward sent a letter with some inaccuracies (for example, indicating that the CVS Parking lot was the site of the proposed garage), asking for support for the garage, and subsequent to that, there were still no speakers in favor of the parking structure. At the December 6 meeting, the Council President had stated that any member of the public who wished to speak must activate the “raise hand” function prior to the commencement of public comment. However, she then proceeded to make an exception for the Director of the Chamber of Commerce, who had not asked to speak in the time allotted for everyone else, but asked to speak after public comment had begun. This is a severe breach of the President’s own rules. It ensured that the head of the Chamber got the last word. There was no such opportunity offered to any others, who may also have been late to “raise hand” to speak.

4. More recently, yet another letter has gone out. This time it was from the Chamber itself, to everyone on its mailing list (I got one even though my business has not yet joined the Chamber), noting that we absolutely need the “North Pleasant Street” garage to respond to both perceived and actual needs. Note it does not specify the town-owned parking lot next to the CVS lot. This letter also proposed a “public-private partnership,” which I would support – an actual public-private partnership, that is. 

The reality is that there is no neighborhood support for a parking garage on the town-owned lot facing North Prospect Street. Proponents are being vague about location and need, so signed support must be questioned. There is a lot of support among my neighbors and myself for a thriving downtown with lots of small businesses, cultural attractions, restaurants, etc. The letters from business owners indicate the general desire for more and more easy access to parking in downtown Amherst. This validates the studies to date indicating that there is a perception that there is a need for parking. Notably these studies are clear that there is no actual need for a parking garage.

The proposed zoning change on this specific lot is not referenced in calls for support for the overlay. It is premature for an overlay structure restricted to one area with no factual basis, with no study of the best location, or of other ways to address perceptions. Community opposition is strong despite our lack of organization or resources of organizations such as Amherst Forward or the Chamber of Commerce. Opposition to the proposed overlay district is based on the reality that there is no evidence to support it.

A residentially zoned location such as Parcel 33 on North Prospect Street, where there is a need for affordable housing for people who live and work here year round, who can and will support local businesses year round – not as a one-off event – should be used for housing, not parking. 

Finally, I will leave you with text from the Master Plan, Chapter 9 on Transport and Circulation. Quotes are taken from the first two paragraphs:

Goal: 

A balanced, inclusive, accessible, safe, environmentally responsible transportation and circulation system that serves users of public transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers, and that is connected within and among different modes both in Amherst and the region. 

This plan seeks to expand public transit service in a manner that is more efficient, user-friendly, and environmentally sound. The plan aims to develop policies that would reduce dependency on the private automobile, better organize parking in the downtown and village centers, improve traffic flow on major streets, and promote traffic calming in residential areas. Finally, the plan encourages more walking and biking by improving the pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure in Amherst.

While I have been in a position of disagreement with the council during my short tenure as a resident of Amherst, and I don’t understand the rationale for your votes, I appreciate the challenges of being the first Town Council. I hope you are also flexible enough now to reconsider, based on the volume and persistence of community comments. 

Rani Parker, 

Rani Parker is a resident of District 3 and North Prospect Street