On June 11, I received an email from the Progressive Coalition of Amherst, requesting people sign a petition opposing a zoning ordinance proposed by Town Council members Mandi Jo Hanneke and Pat DeAngelis that would allow for more affordable housing in Amherst.

The ordinance would allow for new construction, including duplexes, triplexes and townhouses to help increase affordable housing in town, something that Amherst needs. It was a strange and disconcerting email to receive, in part because while I grew up in Amherst, I currently live in and am registered to vote in Somerville.

It was also a strange email to receive, because the organization did not propose or mention any possible alternatives. Instead they resorted to fear-mongering, saying developers would have full control, which is not true.

There is an ongoing housing crisis in Massachusetts, as 25- to 40-year-olds in the state find themselves leaving because many of them cannot afford to live here. Working for a disability rights organization in Boston, I frequently come into contact with people from a diverse array of communities and neighborhoods who are struggling with rising rents. I myself currently live in Somerville partly because I could not find housing in Amherst that I could afford.

Because of this type of contact with the housing crisis in our state, I find it concerning that an organization supposedly built on progressive values would encourage people to oppose a perfectly reasonable set of ordinances that would allow people to live in Amherst affordably and contribute to the community.

This type of NIMBY-ism is not exclusive to Amherst. Earlier this year, Denver voted down a proposal that would have allowed for a new affordable housing complex to be developed on an abandoned golf course. In New York City, one city council member, who campaigned on so-called “radical love,” single-handedly blocked a 1,000-unit house development that would have been 50% affordable and would have included a civil rights museum. A large truck depot was built on the plot instead.

What these stories seem to have in common is a movement that is built on what people hate rather than what they support. We see what the so-called “Progressive” Coalition of Amherst is against, but what are they for? What are they so afraid of?

Over the past couple of decades, there have been changes in Amherst. These include the reopening of Amherst Cinema, the construction of new child-friendly playgrounds in Groff and Kendrick parks, and the long-awaited reopening of The Drake as a music venue. Each of these contributions has been a net positive and I have yet to hear of someone who thinks they were a bad idea.

So why should it be any different with housing? I have seen so many people leave the area, some of whom would have wanted to raise a family in town, but cannot afford it because of people who seem so opposed to new housing, and for what?

NIMBY-ism often argues that any new housing or upzoning would change the “character” of a neighborhood. That resistance to progress is a recipe for creating a new ghost town. “Character” cannot be measured and quantified in the way that actual displacements can be measured, and for which solutions do exist.

That being said, we need changes like the ones proposed by DeAngelis and Hanneke to keep Amherst a livable community that is inclusive, welcoming and affordable for more than just current residents and homeowners.

Eric Cochrane now lives in Somerville.

]]>