Letter: Support for Williamstown Planning Board Recommendations

Letter to the Editor06:15PM / Sunday, May 08, 2022Print Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

I support the Williamstown Planning Board's bylaw recommendations. They represent a good first step towards reducing the artificial barriers in our decades-old zoning map.

While some have criticized the board for moving too fast, I found the process deliberate and thorough. The board engaged the community in an open discussion. There was a spirited debate, with many opportunities for community input. The original proposal was changed in response to suggestions received along the way, which reflected the board's willingness to listen and respond to the community.

The final product (1) removes barriers for apartments above businesses and small scale multi-unit homes, (2) permits more density in the center of town where there is existing infrastructure, (3) reduces lot sizes to promote more diverse housing options (4) allows for the conversation of former hotels for assisted living facilities, and (5) removes directive language that requires the zoning board look unfavorably on any extension of the town's utilities, even it helped increase housing opportunities. These are common sense approaches to the housing challenges we face in town.

Some have expressed their desire for yet more study. We can, of course, delay addressing our housing challenges and wait for more academic studies, but I agree with the board that we should act this year. We talk about our collective conviction to create a more inclusive and welcoming community — it's time to act on those convictions.

I've also heard some say the proposal will create more housing, but there's no guarantee that it will be more affordable. Why would we reject a proposal because it may not help and, instead, cling tightly to our exclusive zoning map which we know, from over 50 years of data, keeps prices artificially high and less wealthy families out.

Approval of this proposal would send a clear signal that we are serious about taking down the economic barriers in our zoning by-laws. The challenge of dismantling these barriers and creating more housing options will not be resolved with just one change. It will take many changes over several years and the board's proposal is a good first step.

Fred Puddester
Williamstown, Mass.

Tags: housing, zoning,

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Save & Earn with Greylock

3.30% APY 6-month certificate. Click to learn more! Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Letter: Vote No on 'Jungle' Primaries

Letter to the Editor02:05PM / Wednesday, September 30, 2026

To the Editor:

They don't call them "jungle primaries" for nothing.

Question 3 on the November ballot would trash two-party primary elections and replace them with California-style, chaotic — and extraordinarily costly — "jungle" primaries that would destroy the very political parties that have kept America stable since Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison created them in the 1790s.

Jungle primaries put all candidates, regardless of party, on one ballot with the top two vote-getters facing off in the general election — even if they're from the same party. That would create chaos, but the real issue is money: Jungle primaries give a distinct advantage to candidates backed by corporate money and the super wealthy. In short, jungle primaries move our primaries from the ballot box to big donor meetings long before campaigning even begins.

When something this radical is proposed, you have to look at who's behind it, who's funding it, and ask "why" they are doing it.

Their philosophical guru is Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor who ran for governor in 2022 but couldn't get 15 percent of the Democratic Convention vote to win the party's endorsement.

The money behind this extreme attack on small "d" democratic politics tells us more. With over $5 million in the bank as of Aug. 28, this is a very well-funded campaign — the lion's share of which came from wealthy Boston-area private equity individuals.

Twenty-two private equity executives gave $3.99 million, or 77 percent of all the money from individuals. Current and former Bain Capital executives contributed $1.92 million, and Berkshire Partners executives put up $1.32 million. In short, 22 rich people put up nearly $4 million to change how five million of us vote. Yes, it seems the ultra-wealthy want to destroy the two-party system that has kept our politics stable for 200 years.

View Full Story