A majority of the Amherst Town Council just asked UMass to build more tax-exempt apartments and dorms. That’s textbook NIMBYism — and it risks weakening Amherst’s tax base for decades.

Start with the basic fact: on-campus student housing is exempt from local property taxes. If the Fieldstone apartment building, for example, were located just one block south, it would generate roughly $3.9 million annually. But because it sits on campus, it contributes nothing to Amherst’s schools, roads, or senior services.

That matters because property taxes make up about 70% of Amherst’s budget, which leaves the town with only three sustainable options: (1) grow the tax base through new off-campus development; (2) raise taxes on current residents via overrides; or (3) cut services, likely starting with schools.

The first option is clearly the best — and entirely viable. Student housing is uniquely well-suited to generating net tax revenue. College students don’t attend public schools, so they contribute far more than they consume. By contrast, a family like mine — with two kids in the schools — costs the town roughly $50,000 per year. Every new off-campus apartment helps subsidize public education. Dorms don’t.

And UMass has no obligation to fix this. As a public institution, University of Massachusetts is accountable to the commonwealth and its students, not to Amherst’s tax base. It is rational for UMass to leverage its tax-exempt status to attract development. But it is not rational for Amherst to encourage it. When we do, we are effectively subsidizing private development on tax-exempt land.

The Town Council’s position sends a clear message: we’ll absorb the costs of growth, but we don’t want the revenue. That kind of fiscal shortsightedness makes future overrides more likely and makes Amherst less attractive to families and businesses.

Students aren’t going anywhere, and the town will bear infrastructure and public safety costs either way. The question is simple: should development help fund Amherst — or should Amherst subsidize development?

The answer should be obvious.

Evan Naismith

Amherst