Amherst is losing its way. You can see the signs in the $90,000 line item for a downtown wayfinding system included in the capital expenditures portion of Amherst’s fiscal year 2019 budget.
Of course, unless you are a member of Town Meeting or otherwise active in town government, you are unlikely to have looked at that. So let me explain.
Each year a portion of the Amherst budget is dedicated to capital expenses such as the acquisition of equipment and vehicles, and repairs and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure. Annual spending recommendations, to be voted on by Town Meeting, along with a multi-year plan, are developed by the Joint Capital Planning Committee (JCPC) made up of representatives from the Select Board, School Committee, library board of trustees and Finance Committee.
The $90,000 expenditure for a downtown wayfinding system, recently approved by Town Meeting in a close vote, plus another $90,000 projected for next year, will pay for fabrication and installation of signs in the downtown area. It is unusual in that it was not anticipated in JCPC’s five year plans presented in prior years.
Instead, it appears to have been fast-tracked after the Planning Department and the Amherst Business Improvement District (BID) restarted a stalled design effort last spring, guided by a working group with representatives from the Select Board, the BID, town staff, the University of Massachusetts, the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce and the Emily Dickinson Museum. Noticeably lacking were ordinary taxpayers and residents of Amherst neighborhoods.
According to a presentation made to the Select Board last summer, the goal of the wayfinding system is to “solve the key challenge of bringing tourism … and commerce into the town center,” to help parents of students and others find their way, and “also to encourage people to move throughout town by foot, by bike … fully using all the attractions and assets of the town.”
The concept may be fine, but the scale and cost are out of line with Amherst’s needs and budget. The plan calls for a “core family of five sign types” and, according to minutes from a February JCPC meeting, up to 50 total signs.
These include large welcome signs at four or five locations “that identify the entrance into the town center,” large “arrival kiosks” to be placed “near large parking areas to greet people … and direct them towards desirable destinations,” and smaller “en route kiosks” at intersections and other locations. “Directional posts” are for “leading or drawing visitors along paths” to the destinations referenced in the kiosks, while interpretive panels will “be placed at cultural sites throughout town.”
Ninety-thousand dollars, or even $180,000 over two years, might not seem a lot in an $8 million capital budget, but look at it in the context of our other needs. This year, the budget includes just $100,000 for maintenance and repair of all sidewalks “around town,” and even this is an unusual expenditure, anticipated to drop to just $30,000 per year starting next year. This despite the fact that many sidewalks are in such disrepair that reports of falls aren’t uncommon, and elders, joggers and wheelchair users all face difficulties using them. What’s the point in showing people where to go if we can’t maintain the sidewalks for them to use?
Spending so much on “wayfinding” downtown also seems unbalanced when so many parts of town don’t have sidewalks at all. Neighborhoods along East Pleasant Street have been lobbying for sidewalks for several years. Although the JCPC is to be commended for creating a citizen request form to obtain community input, a request for $50,000 study for a potential East Pleasant Street sidewalk did not get the green light provided to the wayfinding system.
Beyond the capital budget, it is particularly jarring that spending on expensive signs is being proposed in a year that is so challenging financially, with significant cuts being made to operating budgets. It is striking that the same people advocating for the signs, most notably the Select Board and town manager, have been simultaneously warning about the budgetary impact of increases to the budget elsewhere.
They warned Town Meeting against reinstating $60,000 for community services that had been eliminated after Town Meeting added it last year. They warned against restoring $15,000 to the school budget for vouchers to allow low-income students to attend after-school programs, and against spending $100,000 to preserve the high school culinary and preschool programs.
In each case (the first two of which passed), they argued that these increases could damage our bottom line. Yet $180,000 on downtown signs was presented as a necessary expense.
There are very different competing visions for Amherst, and with the coming change of government, Amherst voters and residents will need to decide what direction they want to go and work hard to figure out how to find the way there.
Jim Oldham, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 5, directs Equity Trust, an Amherst-based nonprofit working nationally for land reform and economic justice. He is the father of two children, one a current Amherst Regional High School student, the other a graduate.
