Letter: Voters Should Reject Changes to RR Zone

Letter to the Editor07:00PM / Sunday, May 15, 2022Print Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

Williamstown residents attending town meeting on Tuesday, May 17, would be well-advised to watch the most recent "Talks on the Hill" at Williamstown Rural Lands, now playing on WilliNet.

It is hard not to conclude that town voters should reject the Planning Board's proposed articles with respect to our Rural Residence districts. In a succinct 30-minute presentation on "Low-Density Development," Regina Fink and Annika Harrington provide viewers with a deep understanding of the complexities of rural development and housing, delivered with a clarity that has been lacking from the Planning Board itself.

With neither research nor actual planning, the board is bringing a lengthy and confusing list of changes to town meeting. In origin and conception, several proposals treat the General and Rural Residence districts as equivalent, reducing lot sizes, decreasing frontage requirements, and allowing multi-unit buildings in both, as if equity were somehow served by using the same broad brush on zones that are different for a reason.

Rural Residence lands are not on the town water and sewer, they are farther from services and goods, and they provide important ecosystem benefits, such as farm and forestland, wildlife and plant preservation, stormwater management and carbon sequestration. As the climate crisis changes the paradigms by which our society can expect to live and survive, it is disheartening to see our Planning Board present us with a shallow, outdated, and naïve plan that will only further fragment our vital rural areas, without the slightest advantage in terms of affordability and equity.

The proposals are being championed by those who are rightly concerned about the lack of affordable housing in Williamstown, but Ms. Fink and Ms. Harrington pointed to research showing that the simplistic approach proposed by our Planning Board could have exactly the opposite effect, driving up housing prices and only further limiting access to the rich.

I urge town voters not to support the Planning Board's ill-conceived proposals for the Rural Residence district. Let's demand instead that the Board come back again after having done their own actual planning, research, and creative thinking.

Anne O'Connor
Williamstown, Mass.

Tags: town meeting 2022, zoning,

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

rk MILES Blding Materials

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

www.rkmiles.com

Now's the time...

to harvest value from your home. Click for more details about a HELOC. Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

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