Broken, the Citizens Advisory Committee absolved themselves of further responsibility and gave permission to MassDevelopment to do whatever they liked on Hospital Hill.
After more than 10 hours of presentations, public statements and deflected questions, on Tuesday, Dec. 9, the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) voted to alter the master plan guiding the development of Northampton's Hospital Hill. In addition to the more than 200 units already approved for the development, MassDevelopment now has permission to add 100 more housing units to the hill. These will be built where there is now a network of fields and woods. State environmental officials still need to approve the change (they have accepted other amendments quickly and without intense review), and the city's Planning Board will need to approve implementation plans.
What those plans are, though, is anyone's guess.
During four of the five meetings the CAC has had since early summer, an entire wall of the room has been dominated by huge site plans Arrowstreet Architects had prepared, showing how the homes and roads might be distributed. It was the focus of some debate. Some felt the design didn't hang together, and they pointed to its lack of consolidated public parks, a distinct memorial for the former hospital, a community building and a commercial center. Others argued it was just a plan, and as such, speculative. It was a way to envision how the extra houses might fit, but it was likely to change based on how future contractors thought they could profit from it.
Incapable of compromising on a plan, the CAC approved the new houses without one.
More than 10 people spoke during the public comment period, raising concerns about traffic, the plan's impact on the surrounding community, and the wisdom of planning a housing development in the current building market. Many of these questions were fielded by Northampton's director of city planning, Wayne Feiden, who is not a member of the CAC, but is the one to whom the committee's chair, Mayor Mary Clare Higgins, often defers on city development matters. During the meeting, several vice-presidents from MassDevelopment sat behind him, talking quietly amongst themselves, and occasionally leaning forward to whisper to Feiden.
When resident Eileen Hirsh asked whether serious consideration had been put into what would happen to the city's already congested intersections, Feiden avoided specifics, but said "more traffic mediation has gone into this project than any other in the city." Further, he argued that growth was inevitable, and if they were to halt development on Hospital Hill, traffic congestion would only crop up elsewhere.
Hirsh also challenged an assertion made by the mayor at a previous meeting. She had apparently said that the city was pursuing the increased development because both the developers and taxpayers wanted it, and she referred to the survey that had been done in support of Northampton's Sustainability Plan. Hirsh said her own review of the survey had found no such question regarding the Hill. Again, Feiden clarified: The survey indicated residents were pro growth and development, and while it did not specify Hospital Hill, it could be inferred.
During both the public hearings, the only resident to endorse MassDevelopment's plan without revision was Jonathan Wright, whose construction company, Wright Builders, is currently working on a string of half-million dollar homes on what is arguably the best-positioned land on the site. Residents abutting the site repeatedly voiced their confusion as to why there was a need to approve more housing before what was already approved had been built. All three committee members who represent neighborhoods around the development raised serious questions about it.
Committee member Jack Hornor asked whether they should hold off a vote until the recently formed amenities sub-committee, assembled to discuss such issues as a community center, playgrounds and parks, had had a chance to report back to the committee. The mayor's response was that there would be time to discuss the subject later, but a community center wasn't a part of the original Request for Proposals the developers had agreed to, so it wasn't relevant for this vote.
After six months of sifting through the big questions, instead of providing answers, negotiating solutions, and amending the plans to address concerns, the mayor deflected them all, winnowing things down until she came to the question she and the developers really cared about: 100 more houses, yes or no?
The only question the mayor had not been able to deflect was the one Hornor had repeatedly asked: half of the already approved homes would be affordable, but how many of the new 100 homes would also be? The dilemma, as member Daniel Yacuzzo pointed out, is that these days it isn't affordable for anyone to buy a house. Since the mayor's own commitment to affordable housing was one of the few objectives the development had met, they couldn't abandon it now.
So the term "workforce affordable" was introduced for the first time, and a half-hearted attempt was made to define it. Beth Murphy of MassDevelopment said there was no official definition and was nervous about submitting to nebulous restrictions. She hoped, maybe, the new bungalow design they were next planning to sell might fit the non-definition, but she did not know. Nevertheless Hornor made a motion that mandated that half of all the new houses must conform to this non-existent standard.
The mayor objected to the word "mandate" in the motion. Referring to the original Request for Proposals, she pointed out that it would be inconsistent for the CAC to mandate anything. Rather it would be better to propose the housing mix as a goal. Hornor quickly relented.
Just prior to the vote, many of the older members of the CAC took the opportunity to point out how trustworthy and reliable MassDevelopment has been, seeming to suggest that leniency was called for. Perhaps it was this paradox of having an oversight board relinquishing its oversight powers that prompted newer members to finally end their silence. Jami Albro-Fisher, representing the South Street neighborhood, asked why they shouldn't wait for a "palatable site design." Michael Rabourn, representing the Northampton Labor Council, made a last-minute motion asking that the developers require contractors to conform to a set of standards, such as apprenticeship programs. It seemed to him this may well be one of the last opportunities the CAC would have to exercise some vision or control over the developers.
The mayor said she was interested in the suggestion, but recommended he withdraw his motion until he had more precise information. Rabourn obliged. Minutes later he and Albro-Fisher voted to approve the extra housing without a plan or restrictions in place. The other two neighborhood representatives voted against adding the housing, and the committee's only lawyer abstained, not wanting to vote for an undefined goal.
Once the vote for housing had been passed, the city's Director of Economic Development, Teri Anderson, piped up just to make certain the committee didn't want to endorse any part of Arrowstreet's plan, even in concept. Hornor replied he was simply too tired, and others nodded in agreement.
Victorious, the mayor thanked the committee and promised she would be "hard-nosed" about following up on the results of MassDevelopment's bungalow scheme and whether it might bring clarity to the term they'd just approved. In her celebratory mood, she also added a new number to the mix: $22 million, the amount in federal and state tax dollars so far being spent on the housing development. She praised MassDevelopment's ability to commandeer these funds.
Possibly, later, the developers will whisper their thanks to her for now being able to do what they want with those funds without public oversight.
