Many Amherst residents don’t like the size and appearance of the two new five-story buildings in the northern part of downtown. What most of them don’t know is that these buildings helped the town avoid budget cuts or an override vote.
I checked with three town officials who work closely with Amherst’s finances, and the verdict was unanimous: the extra taxing capacity that these buildings provided was critical to balancing the current year’s budget.
Under state law, towns can raise the amount collected in property taxes by only 2.5 percent a year, unless voters approve an override. The only exception is for “new growth.” Towns can supplement that 2.5 percent increase in taxes with the amount of tax revenue coming from new construction.
When the budget for the current fiscal year was planned, most of the Town’s basic expenses, including salary hikes for employees, could be met within that 2.5 percent limit. But officials were hit by a large, unanticipated expense for employee health care.
The Town received about $800,000 in taxes from “new growth,” and those two five-story buildings were a major part of that. Next year, new buildings in North Amherst and on University Drive are expected to provide a similar tax benefit.
Amherst residents have expensive tastes in municipal services. We pay our employees well, and we have a very low teacher-to-student ratio. These are good things, but they cost money, and someone has to pay for them. In the past, that someone has been residential taxpayers, whose average annual bill is among the highest in Western Mass.
Without that infusion of tax revenue from new construction, Amherst would have had to consider laying off employees or asking residents to raise their taxes even higher. If you wish those buildings had never been built, ask yourself which you were prefer.
Lots of people don’t like looking at these buildings. I get that. Many see them as visually imposing and too close to the street. Many don’t like their architecture. Some people wish that Amherst was still a sleepy college town.
In addition to the enormous tax benefits of these buildings, there are other factors to consider.
They are helping to alleviate Amherst’s housing crunch. There hasn’t been much housing construction over the last few decades, and with demand increasing, that’s a recipe for price hikes, students living in residential neighborhoods, and long commutes from less-expensive towns.
The new buildings are helping to revitalize downtown. There are hundreds of new downtown residents, not all of them students, plus 70 highly-paid employees working at Kendrick Place. This influx of people helps restaurants, the Amherst Cinema and other businesses. We could even approach the critical mass of downtown activity that would make a food market viable.
The buildings are consistent with Amherst’s master plan, which directed development to downtown and village centers. The goal was to avoid sprawl, preserve open space, and respect the integrity of single-family neighborhoods.
Is climate change high on your list of priorities? The new buildings are extremely energy-efficient, and provide a way for University students and staff to live and commute without cars or long commutes.
Concerned about noise and crime? According to police, there have been almost zero problems at Kendrick Place. Worried about traffic and parking? Tenants there are much less likely to have cars than other residents, instead using Zip Cars, buses, bicycles and Uber. The Kendrick Place developer leased spaces in an underutilized lot on Pray Street for the few tenants with cars. The new building at 1 East Pleasant has 38 parking spaces.
A candidate for Town Council, responding to negative comments from residents about the buildings, has proposed a moratorium on downtown development until the council can address zoning. This is probably illegal, and could cost taxpayers a lot in legal fees while increasing housing prices.
There are better ways to address the issue. The Town Council could adopt Form-Based Zoning, a concept that was rejected by Town Meeting. It would help ensure that development is in keeping with the surrounding area. The Council could provide incentives for developers to provide affordable and/or family housing, or require them in buildings above a certain height.
As for the two new five-story buildings, Amherst will get used to them. They are not the tallest buildings in downtown Amherst, and they take up only a small percentage of the space. In the 1980s, the Tucker-Taft building just south of the Central Fire Station drew similar condemnation, but now it is an accepted part of the visual landscape of downtown Amherst.
If residents don’t like the appearance of these buildings, that’s OK. But they should accept that the buildings have provided benefits to Amherst, too.
Nick Grabbe, a former editor and writer at the Bulletin, was a member of the Charter Commission and now coordinates a blog at abetteramherst.org.