AMHERST — A long-running debate about whether building more housing in Amherst might drive down rents and attract more families to town, or would instead provide only an increase in upscale housing options for college students, is prompting a delay in the Town Council adopting a new housing production plan.
With the draft plan prepared by the Barrett Consulting Group LLC of Hingham recommending that 700 to 900 new housing units be constructed by 2030 and a series of strategies to accomplish that, some councilors are advocating for changes to the report, including that any suggestions to build more housing be accompanied by the phrase “on the campus.”
At Monday’s Town Council meeting, District 4 Councilor Jennifer Taub said her concern is that the report focuses on a recommendation to build more student housing, even though these typically aren’t affordable.
“I don’t understand why that is articulated so many times in the report,” Taub said, adding her concern is that addressing the so-called “missing middle” housing in Amherst is only possible when developments are subsidized by the state, rather than being priced for students.
“Just saying we need to build more housing does not mean it will make it more affordable,” Taub said.
At Large Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke said the town hired an expert to offer advice on what should be done.
“We need to admit that we have a housing crisis and that everything in this report will never be agreed upon by everyone on this council,” Hanneke said.
Having the plan complete would allow the town to choose which strategies to implement, she said.
“Discussing and fighting and bickering over the specific language in this housing production plan does not move us to getting more housing created, it just delays our ability to address the issue,” Hanneke said.
The Community Resources Committee voted 2-1, with one member abstaining and one member absent, to support the housing production plan after a lengthy discussion on Oct. 23. The Planning Board has also recommended its adoption.
The plan sets forth a path for developing affordable housing that meets the state’s Chapter 40B law, with at least 10% of the town’s housing stock for low- and moderate-income families to achieve safe harbor designation from the state. That allows the town to guide development rather than having affordable housing thrust on the community.
While Amherst is above the threshold, the Planning Department in a memo wrote that the plan “provides valuable information about the housing market in town and a framework for increasing the supply of affordable and attainable housing. Additionally, an approved plan may help Amherst access other state resources. It would also provide security in the face of highly uncertain federal budget dynamics, which could disrupt resources for existing affordable properties, and possibly our safe harbor status. Most importantly, a locally adopted and state-approved HPP would represent a local consensus on housing strategy, guiding internal stakeholders and prospective developer partners alike.”
District 1 Councilor Cathy Schoen presented an analysis indicating that the plan’s recommendations haven’t been examined by the Community Resources Committee, and that while the data section of the report is excellent and will serve the town well, such as 9,000 students living off campus in Amherst, the executive summary misses some of what is in the full report and changes its tone.
Some of her concerns include there being no evidence that more density lowers costs, pointing to infill and new high rises in New York City as an example; an overemphasis on students that could be softened; and that UMass can do more developments like the Fieldstone public-private project on Massachusetts Avenue.
“This is dismissed as not practical, even though we know that one has happened and they could do more,” Schoen said.
Schoen said she can’t support the plan without some changes. “I think the message we need to be clear about is this is going to be hard, and we’ve been doing a very good job, but we need to do more,” Schoen said.
District 4 Councilor Pam Rooney, who moved the discussion to the Dec. 8 meeting, said she agrees with Schoen’s views.
“I think we need to acknowledge that the report, although really great in some instances, does draw these conclusions that aren’t exactly accurate,” Rooney said.
District 2 Councilor Pat De Angelis said it’s important the plan is adopted to make the town eligible for grants, and that councilors should set aside egos rather than objecting to it.
“What I hear in here are personal opinions about what I like and I don’t like,” De Angelis said.
“We need to get our ego out of the report and get down to the fact that it’s a very simple report,” DeAngelis said. “We don’t have to implement any of it, though there are some really excellent ideas in there.”
District 3 Councilor George Ryan said there has long been disagreement on the best strategies to getting more housing, but that the Barrett Group has presented a menu of options, and making substantial changes in the language of the report would be a waste of time.
“We could spend hours trying to edit this document,” Ryan said, pointing out that even the Community Resources Committee “didn’t have the stomach for that. We don’t have the time to do that, and it’s not going to produce what you want anyway.”