The only justification is a financial one. By requiring minimum lot sizes for future development in order to protect an Easthampton water supply, fewer homes could be built in the area. Property values and corresponding property tax revenues could possibly decline as a result. However, taking in the region’s trash brings significant dollars to city coffers leaving officials with a difficult choice indeed. So what’s really happening here and what should happen?
A few years ago the city planning department tried to increase lot sizes in the outlying areas of Northampton to preserve open space as a Smart Growth initiative. This is required in order to stimulate infill development: build up downtown to preserve outlying open spaces. Due to basic supply and demand theory, downtown property values increase under this scenario while property values in outlying areas decrease because of limited development options. This exemplifies how private wealth can be shifted around by the setting of public policies. Lot size increases didn’t go over very well then so the measure has now been resurrected as part of another city scheme, landfill expansion. Not unlike how the Educational Use Overlay District was embedded in a Development Agreement between the city and Smith College, the water protection district is attached to landfill expansion. This makes deliberations convoluted, complex, and anything but straightforward. One would have to presume the maker of these arrangements to have the advantage, in this case, city and state government. Who else can understand the nuances but trained personnel?
In July of 2006 I sent a brief public comment to the city’s health agent, Ernest Mathieu.
"Regarding the Glendale Road landfill expansion, it seems as though there should be some funding allocated to traffic/pedestrian safety measures along Glendale Road. Perhaps allocating some percentage of new landfill revenue growth would be appropriate. Currently, the road has no crosswalks, sidewalks, shoulders, or curbing. If these residents are to endure twenty more years of heavy truck traffic they deserve some mitigations."
That was it, not a letter of opposition but rather one of mitigation. That’s at least one thing that should happen in that area. I did not hear back from Mr. Mathieu.
During the time of my note the Gazette ran a series of seven articles on the topic commencing July 3, 2006 and running through August 18, 2006. In one of these articles it was mentioned that zoning changes were to be expected. On July 3 Dan wrote:
"As a condition of the waiver, the state DEP is requiring the city to put in place several mitigation measures should the landfill expansion move forward. They include:
A leakage contingency plan;
Upgrading the environmental monitoring system;
Establishing a remediation financial assistance mechanism;
Creating zoning and non-zoning controls in the Northampton portion of the Maloney Well zone II, and;
Expanding household hazardous waste-collections for municipalities served by the landfill."
It wasn’t in the headline, but this language was reported at least once among these many articles. So what’s the fuss about now almost a year later? One speaker during the council meeting wondered aloud why residents from other parts of the city weren’t speaking up. The answer is NIMBYism of course. Not in my backyard. The city can push through controversial issues because generally those creating controversy are geographically clustered together or represent a special interest. If the entire community didn’t want this landfill expansion it wouldn’t happen because local politicians would soon be out of work. Thus neighborhoods are left to fend for themselves and the "common good" prevails repeatedly.
For instance, most of the people vocal about the landfill expansion live near it. Similarly, most of the people who opposed the Smith College Educational Use Overlay District live near to that area. (In fact here’s some irony, I seem to remember the councilor from the landfill ward, Ward 6, Marianne LaBarge, stating that she had many phone calls from people in her ward urging her to vote for the Education Overlay District in Ward 2 in spite of localized opposition, so she did citing this as the rationale.) Most of the people who opposed Smith’s new Science Center on Green Street live near that area. Most of the people opposing the Interstate 91 Interchange expansion live near that area. Most of the people who opposed the 14 unit townhouse development on Hockanum Road live near that area. Most of the people who oppose Beaver Brook Estates in Leeds live near that area. Most of the people who oppose the Leeds Rail Trail live in that area. Most of the people who oppose Meadowbrook living conditions live in that area. Most of the people who opposed the North Maple Street intersection reconfiguration live in that area. Most of the people who oppose the Round House hotel project live or own property in that area, and on and on. Not until residents with similar interests join their voices together across ward boundaries will unwanted projects fail to proceed. The rule is divide and conquer and individual neighborhoods or groups speaking out will not generally carry the day.
How will this landfill business turn out? Unless broad citywide opposition occurs, it will turn out exactly as city officials have planned. The only obstacle is the council refusing this fall to grant the Department of Public Works a special permit for the expansion. It seems like a foregone conclusion at this point though that the council will vote in the affirmative.
This is why a group of us formed the Paradise City Forum in 2001. Not as an opposition group per se, but as a way to cut through the status quo and give residents another option for networking and community building beyond their neighborhoods. Recently Mike Kirby, Mary Serreze, and Ward 3 resident and City Council President Mike Bardsley did a stellar job pulling together a public forum regarding the Route 91 Interchange expansion, though MassHighway declined to participate. Mike Kirby included some commentary on the interchange on this blog May 16. He indicated to me that a majority of the 50 or so attendees at the forum were from the area to be most heavily impacted by the interchange expansion. This would be along Bridge Street and near the bicycle trail crossing on Damon Road. There was a good representation of bicycle advocates as well. There’s a website set up to oppose the project as planned. For more information visit it at NoExit 19.
Read Fred Contrada’s article on the forum here:
Interstate 91 Interchange 19 public forum
