Letter: Let Town Meeting Vote on the Zoning Proposals

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

The Planning Board split its work into 10 articles because they're not an interconnected, inseverable mass. They are all about allowing more homes to be built in Williamstown, but they do that work in different ways, in different parts of town.

I'm a Planning Board member and a high school civics and history teacher, and I love how civic-minded and participatory this town is. I'm looking forward to us discussing and then voting on each article at town meeting. I hope we don't stifle that debate by demanding that whole unrelated groups of these articles be "tabled" or otherwise made undebatable or delayed. Let's discuss them, let's vote on them (up or down!) and then keep on working together as a town.

As a reminder: seven of the 10 articles received the unanimous (5-0) or near unanimous (4-1) support of the board. Three of them got split votes (3-2), and those have remained the most controversial, on and off the board. Those three are Articles 41, 45, and 46, and all three relate to our Rural Residence 2 zone. I supported those articles on the board, but I also completely understand why those three are more controversial. We should honestly engage with the best arguments of folks who disagree with us, not mischaracterize or demonize them. Rural affordability is an absolutely essential planning goal. But increasing density to get there has higher costs and lower benefits in our rural zones than in our downtown zone. So if most people in town want to vote down these changes, let's keep looking for other, more broadly-supported ways to get to increasing rural affordability in town.

Compare this with an article like Article 40, which allows three- and four-family dwellings in our downtown General Residence zone. In some recent letters this article has gotten swept up with the more controversial rural changes. Why? Twenty years ago, our town's last Comprehensive Plan recommended that the Planning Board "review and redraft bylaws to encourage infill/higher density housing in the town center." Every study and housing needs assessment since has supported this conclusion that we made two decades ago. Every principle of smart growth and zoning encourages downtown density and multifamily living in a walkable core. Our general residence zone is full of dense neighborhoods, college buildings with dozens of people living together, offices, restaurants, shops … What about allowing three or families to live together in one building is out of place, out of character, or in need of further study?

In any case, I hope we as a town can continue to have discussions like this, and then honestly vote how we feel. "Tabling" is a kind of parliamentary kicking the can down the road. I would instead make the old-fashioned suggestion that we simply debate the articles then vote No on the ones we don't like and Yes on the ones we do! It's an honest, open way to share our priorities with each other in town, and provide information to our town's boards and committees.

Voting yes or no on each article is a better way to tell us on the Planning Board what you want, and how we can serve you better, than tabling anything. Personally, I hope the town truly considers how many (seven out of ten) articles were deeply supported by the board, and gets a chance to vote on each one.

Peter Beck
Williamstown, Mass.

 

 


Tags: zoning,   

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

Guest Column: Full Steam Ahead: Bringing Back the Northern Tier Passenger Railroad

by Thomas HuckansGuest Column

You only need a glance outside to see a problem all too familiar to Berkshire county: closing businesses, a shrinking population, and a stunning lack of regional investment.

But 70 years ago, this wasn't an issue. On the North Adams-Boston passenger rail line before the '60s, Berkshires residents could easily go to Boston and back in a day, and the region benefited from economic influx. But as cars supplanted trains, the Northern Tier was terminated, and now only freight trains regularly use the line.

We now have a wonderful opportunity to bring back passenger rail: Bill S.2054, sponsored by state Sen. Jo Comerford (D-Hampshire, Franklin, and Worcester), was passed to study the potential for restoring rail from Boston to North Adams. In the final phase of MassDOT's study, the project is acquiring increased support and momentum. The rail's value cannot be understated: it would serve the Berkshire region, the state, and the environment by reducing traffic congestion, fostering economic growth, and cutting carbon emissions. The best part? All of us can take action to push the project forward.

Importantly, the Northern Tier would combat the inequity in infrastructure investment between eastern and western Massachusetts. For decades, the state has poured money into Boston-area projects. Perhaps the most infamous example is the Big Dig, a car infrastructure investment subject to endless delays, problems, and scandals, sucking up $24.3 billion. Considering the economic stagnation in Western Massachusetts, the disparity couldn't come at a worse time: Berkshire County was the only county in Massachusetts to report an overall population loss in the latest census.

The Northern Tier could rectify that imbalance. During the construction phase alone, 4,000 jobs and $2.3 billion of economic output would be created. After that, the existence of passenger rail would encourage Bostonians to live farther outside the city. Overall, this could lead to a population increase and greater investment in communities nearby stops. In addition to reducing carbon emissions, adding rail travel options could help reduce traffic congestion and noise pollution along Route 2 and the MassPike.

The most viable plan would take under three hours from North Adams to Shelburne Falls, Greenfield, Athol, Gardner, Fitchburg, Porter, and North Station, and would cost just under $1.6 billion.

A common critique of the Northern Tier Rail Restoration is its price tag. However, the project would take advantage of the expansion of federal and state funds, namely through $80 billion the Department of Transportation has to allocate to transportation projects. Moreover, compared to similar rail projects (like the $4 billion planned southern Massachusetts East-West line), the Northern Tier would be remarkably cheap.

One advantage? There's no need to lay new tracks. Aside from certain track upgrades, the major construction for the Northern Tier would be stations and crossings, thus its remarkably short construction phase of two to four years. In comparison, the Hartford line, running from Hartford, Conn., to Springfield spans barely 30 miles, yet cost $750 million.

In contrast, the Northern Tier would stretch over 140 miles for just over double the price.

So what can we do? A key obstacle to the Northern Tier passing through MassDOT is its estimated ridership and projected economic and environmental benefits. All of these metrics are undercounted in the most recent study.

Crucially, many drivers don't use the route that MassDOT assumes in its models as the alternative to the rail line, Route 2. due to its congestion and windy roads. In fact, even as far west as Greenfield, navigation services will recommend drivers take I-90, increasing the vehicle miles traveled and the ensuing carbon footprint.

Seeking to capture the discrepancy, a student-led Northern Tier research team from Williams College has developed and distributed a driving survey, which has already shown more than half of Williams students take the interstate to Boston. Taking the survey is an excellent way to contribute, as all data (which is anonymous) will be sent to MassDOT to factor into their benefit-cost analysis. This link takes you to the 60-second survey.

Another way to help is to spread the word. Talk to local family, friends, and community members, raising awareness of the project's benefits for our region. Attend MassDOT online meetings, and send state legislators and local officials a short letter or email letting them know you support the Northern Tier Passenger Rail Project. If you feel especially motivated, the Williams Northern Tier Research team, in collaboration with the Center for Learning in Action (CLiA), would welcome support.

Living far from the powerbrokers in Boston, it's easy to feel powerless to make positive change for our greater community. But with your support, the Northern Tier Rail can become reality, bringing investment back to Berkshire County, making the world greener, and improving the lives of generations of western Massachusetts residents to come.

Thomas Huckans, class of 2026, is a political science and astronomy major at Williams College, originally from Bloomsburg, Pa.

Survey: This survey records driving patterns from Berkshire county to Boston, specifically route and time. It also captures interest in the restoration of the Northern Tier Passenger Rail. Filling out this survey is a massive help for the cause, and all responses are greatly appreciated. Use this link.

View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories