It wasn’t looking good, holding a public forum on a hot and muggy evening. Mary Serreze and I arrived at 6:20 PM to set up chairs and the doors to the Unitarian Society were locked. Yikes! I would have been perspiring even without the humidity. Dozens of people milled about outside in the parking lot between the Society and Memorial Hall, as we waited for the doors to open. Finally the pastor arrived at a little past 7:00 with the key and we could all breath a sigh of relief, we would be able to conduct the forum. There had been a mix up and after some phone calls we were finally granted access. We had planned for 50-75 people but as the forum proceeded through the night we stopped counting at 100. Clearly there is concern about this project as why else would people endure such an uncomfortable evening to speak and listen?
Yours truly (standing behind the panel) prepares the audience for the forum.
Starting late and after introductions the questions and comments came rapid fire. Most of them directed at Northampton’s director of planning, Wayne Feiden and the president of Pioneer Valley Hotel Group, Shardool Parmar.
Shardool was great and was the first to arrive for the forum. He addressed tough questions from the heart describing himself and his family as immigrants who came to this country penniless but with a will to not fail. Through the years they forged a successful local business by working side by side with those they employed. Before and after the forum he mingled and spoke openly with attendees in the parking lot until everyone had departed. I was left with the impression that he will do whatever he can to accommodate the concerns of city residents, though I’m not certain that will be enough. He promised the design as it now stands will not be the final product.
Moderating this forum was not fun as people spoke out of turn and went over their times. One gentleman had to be warned due to his aggressive nature and foul language, but he apologized and we moved on. Everyone had something to say, and the difficulty in critiquing the project without being critical was evident. People wanted to be heard and agreed with. Few spoke in favor of the project and in fact no one stood and stated that they supported the project as planned.
Generally the group seemed to understand that Shardool was acting within the parameters as set forth by city zoning and the request for proposals. Wayne Feiden diplomatically addressed many questions, though many attendees did not agree with what he had to say regarding the nature of the process and how the city had acted to involve the public. An attendee asked that if Paradise City Forum volunteers can turn out this many people for a public meeting why couldn’t the city do more in order to engage the public on this issue. Wayne outlined the various public hearings and notices that have transpired to date, but many people weren’t buying what he was telling.
This area became standing room only as the forum proceeded.
Countless suggestions were offered from revisiting the request for proposals to reducing the parking requirements and building footprints. Former planning board member Fran Volkmann suggested examining the city code in order to better understand what the planning board’s authority is regarding this project. Evidently the planning board has the authority to alter this proposal by requiring different setbacks, that is the distance the building can be placed from the property line. As planned the brick walls will be strikingly close to the apartment complex on New South Street, about fifteen feet. This alley is to become home to a dumpster with hydraulic operations. In effect residents of the affordable apartments will face a brick wall with questionable air quality and limited light. A resident of the apartments asked what was in this project for them and there was no answer forthcoming. It is a fair question indeed.
Other issues raised included the lack of department of public works involvement. This is important because the DPW is charged with the upkeep of Pulaski Park but thus far questions linger regarding how this project will impact the park. Shardool indicated his interests did not include limiting public access and use of the park and felt that the issue would best be addressed by the city and its residents.
Another is that the city signed a contract with the Pioneer Valley Hotel Group before the project was granted site plan approval. Thus Mr. Parmar and his family have invested $200 thousand into design plans with no assurance that the project will move forward. This is risky and the net impact is that there will be tremendous and undue pressure on the planning board to approve this project. It seems like a contract of this nature should be signed AFTER enduring the scrutiny of city boards, not before.
The Daily Hampshire Gazette’s June 28 article is a fair-minded depiction of the evening, but much more was said by dozens of people than any one reporter or blogger can convey. The forum had a negative tilt and Suzanne Beck, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce and Joanne Campbell, Executive Director of the Valley Community Development Corporation only spoke during introductions as no questions or comments were directed their way throughout the course of the evening. The overwhelming balance of the forum was lead by the strong voices of the public and the tenor of those voices leaned strongly in favor of the city seeking alternate solutions to developing this brownfield.
Unfortunately planning board members did not attend the forum because, according to officials in the planning department, they feared being identified and confronted by residents. But this is the reality of life in the public arena. If board members wish to wield authority over projects like this, it should be incumbent upon them to gather all of the information that they can. Though planning board members cannot participate in any discussion of a project that is currently in hearing, they could have listened with no obligation to speak and simply replied, "no comment" if queried. Thus city decision-makers missed an opportunity and must now rely on various second hand reports of the meeting in order to base their conclusions in part. They will likely start with the opinion of the director of planning, the lone city hall official in attendance who was listened to but not agreed with by a majority of attendees. Will planning board members value the recollections and perceptions of this one man over the opinions expressed by dozens of people in an open forum? Should they? You tell me.
