Everyone gets in on development talk
Editor’s note: The following is the second of three parts of a special Devil’s Advocate series of commentary concerning the controversy over development in Williamstown.
By DAVE FEHR
The Willliamstown Select Board elections in May were focused heavily on issues of economic and residential development.
The town meeting did so as well, especially the articles concerning an elected vs. appointed planning board. If you went to the meet-the-candidates sessions, or followed the process in the papers, you heard and read some interesting viewpoints:
Philip Guy: “I do not agree with the contention that any residential growth is costing the town money. We need this extra revenue in order to continue fully funding our schools.” (He lost his Select Board seat.)
Ron Turbin: “Persuading software companies to relocate here might be easier than imagined.” (He won, and is now a selectman.) Ron, now that you’re in office, start persuading. You’ll find that it’s excruciatingly difficult, as the Berkshire Capital Investors and Village Ventures people know all too well. Those were local venture capital efforts with twin goals: (a) Generate a financial return to the investing partners, and (b) Create jobs in the region. The net result is, 10 years later, few remaining area jobs, maybe none in Williamstown itself. It was a shot worth taking, but the projects will likely not be replicated in Berkshire County. BCI and VV actually invested seed money in companies willing to locate here or, if they had begun here, to remain in the area and grow. Even that didn’t get the job done.
Dusty Bahlman: “Private developers should be asked to increase the town’s stock of lower-priced housing.” (He also lost.) You don’t (ITAL) ask (ITAL) developers, you offer incentives to them. If Cable Mills is a go, and provides some affordable units, it will be because town and state funding grants went to the developer to offset the losses he would incur when including these alongside his market-priced units. Same for the biscuit factory in North Adams. Around here, private money alone won’t support either affordable or low-income housing. Governments, churches, Williams College (Pine Cobble development, the old elementary school apartments) and charities must provide the extra funding needed.
Turbin, again: “I’ve always thought this would be a great place for a brewery.”
And again: “There’s the site of the former town garage on Water Street, now being used as an unpaved parking lot. It’s one of a few spots identified in the town’s master plan that could be developed.” Gee, why didn’t town manager Peter Fohlin think of that? As a matter of fact, he did. Shortly after the garage was demolished, the town requested proposals from parties interested in developing that site. There was just one reply, from someone who was happy to develop it using town money; Williamstown would absorb the losses, if any, while the developer would keep the profits, if any. Such a deal! Probably the town will try again, and maybe the next attempt will result in something being built which will yield some tax receipts. But it’s been quite awhile, and nobody’s knocking down Fohlin’s door.
Fohlin: “The town must add a minimum of $16.3 million of new real estate development to the tax base each year to stay even with increases in the budget.” Sarah Gardner, former (and maybe future) member of the Planning Board, said she found those numbers to be improbably high. At least one Select Board candidate agreed with her.
Fohlin: “I stand by that figure. In the most recent fiscal year, the town saw $16.8 million in new growth, which generated $193,047 in new tax revenue — about enough to keep pace with increased expenditures.”
I find it curious that Gardner, or anybody else, would question whether Fohlin knew what he was talking about. Those numbers are easy to digest — I understand them, and I’m not an accountant. Fohlin told me that if the town and schools can keep overall annual spending growth to about 3.5 percent, through effort and some give and take, Williamstown can usually build a balanced budget. Two-and-a-half percent (the maximum allowed without a Prop 2.5 override) would come from an increase in the property tax rate, with most of the remainder from new growth.
All this being said, perhaps this is but a tempest in a teapot. Most likely there will (ITAL) never (ITAL) be major development in Williamstown, residential or commercial, and the reasons will have little to do with what we’ve discussed in this series. Incidentally, I’ve read where both Bee Hill and Northwest Hill were described as “major” developments. They’re not. Sun City is a major development. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are major developments. A new Toyota plant is major. By the more modest Berkshire County standards, Jiminy Peak and the proposed condos at Snowy Owl (which New Ashford would love to have, but I’m guessing won’t get) are major developments.
Williamstown won’t see anything of this magnitude.
Why not? Simply — lack of demand. All the barriers to development — a paucity of available land; zoning, topographical and conservation restrictions; limited sewer and water hookups; inadequate roads; challenges in court; vernal pools and Jefferson salamanders, are useful tools to fight development. But the most useful of all (which should give comfort to the tree-huggers and pause to the developers) is the fact that not that many people want to locate here or start businesses here.
Or maybe they’d like to, but can’t afford to.
Dave Fehr writes Devil’s Advocate every now and then for The Advocate. In the next installment of this series on development, Fehr looks at projects already in the pipeline and their consequences on the town.