Catching up on the Hope Street lot discussions
I spent a bit of time yesterday watching the last couple of meetings of the Greenfield City Council, wherein they discussed and voted on 1) whether to rescind their vote authorizing the Mayor to put the former Hope Street parking lot property up for sale/RFP and 2) the wording of the question that about the same, which will appear on this November’s ballot following the Council’s vote not to rescind.
Unsurprisingly, there was a fair amount of confusion about how the citizens petition process actually works. I say “unsurprisingly” because, despite multiple attempts to revise the language in sections 7-7 and 7-8 of the city charter over the last five years, it remains *super* unclear and confusing.
The end result of these several meetings is that we will now have a question on the November ballot as to whether or not to overturn the Council’s vote to declare the Hope Street lot surplus property and put it out for proposals from developers. It’s an off-year local election with only local legislative seats (School Committee, City Council, etc.) up for grabs; turnout for these entirely local, non-mayoral elections tends to be quite low, so the outcomes of the ballot question will likely come down to which side can drum up the most enthusiasm. Right now—given the success of the citizens petition—I’d say the money is on the people who want to overturn the council’s vote.
On the one hand, it is kind of surprising that the debate around this issue has gotten so heated and personal. It’s a fairly mundane procedural question of what to do with a piece of property that has been sitting vacant and unused for more than a year.
On the other hand, this kerfuffle has managed to activate and aggravate a bunch of existing sore spots around town.
You’ve got the people who feel like the City Council is capricious and disconnected from the needs of the “real” residents of Greenfield. Somewhat adjacent but connected are the people who are still upset that we have a mayor and a city council and think things were better when we had a select board and maybe a town manager, or think we should just have a town meeting form of government, where everything is decided via direct votes by the residents who happen to show up at the town meeting.
Since the question is about a piece of property that used to be a parking lot, it has also angried up the blood of the crowd that thinks—despite all evidence—that 1) Greenfield does not have enough parking and 2) all parking should be free. Never mind that there is no guarantee that rescinding the Council vote would return the lot to its former status, or that to do so would require the city to spend half a million dollars to repair it.
There seems to also be a nontrivial number of people suffering residual upset because the reason this lot is now up for grabs is that it was the site of the temporary fire station. There still remain quite a few hurt feelings around town from the series of fights several years ago about tearing down the old fire station and building a new library and fire station, so now those feelings are coming out again.
And then there are a whole range of people concerned about “development.” These concerns run the gamut from “It will change the character of downtown” to “It will overburden our infrastructure” to a whole bunch of arguments about whether or not Greenfield needs more housing and if so, how much and of what sort. I think there are a variety of ways to interpret these arguments and while I am sure there are at least a few people with retrograde opinions about what “character” of downtown ought to be, I will say that for the most part, most of these positions seem to be sincerely held by the people making them.
As I said, my guess right now is that the petitioners will prevail at the November election and the City Council’s vote will be overturned. I say that because they have done a bunch of work to get people activated about this topic, and there is not that much time between now and the election. That could change if the people who want to see the lot developed are able to quickly pull together a coordinate campaign to change the narrative and get voters to turn out.
Unsurprisingly, there was a fair amount of confusion about how the citizens petition process actually works. I say “unsurprisingly” because, despite multiple attempts to revise the language in sections 7-7 and 7-8 of the city charter over the last five years, it remains *super* unclear and confusing.
The end result of these several meetings is that we will now have a question on the November ballot as to whether or not to overturn the Council’s vote to declare the Hope Street lot surplus property and put it out for proposals from developers. It’s an off-year local election with only local legislative seats (School Committee, City Council, etc.) up for grabs; turnout for these entirely local, non-mayoral elections tends to be quite low, so the outcomes of the ballot question will likely come down to which side can drum up the most enthusiasm. Right now—given the success of the citizens petition—I’d say the money is on the people who want to overturn the council’s vote.
On the one hand, it is kind of surprising that the debate around this issue has gotten so heated and personal. It’s a fairly mundane procedural question of what to do with a piece of property that has been sitting vacant and unused for more than a year.
On the other hand, this kerfuffle has managed to activate and aggravate a bunch of existing sore spots around town.
You’ve got the people who feel like the City Council is capricious and disconnected from the needs of the “real” residents of Greenfield. Somewhat adjacent but connected are the people who are still upset that we have a mayor and a city council and think things were better when we had a select board and maybe a town manager, or think we should just have a town meeting form of government, where everything is decided via direct votes by the residents who happen to show up at the town meeting.
Since the question is about a piece of property that used to be a parking lot, it has also angried up the blood of the crowd that thinks—despite all evidence—that 1) Greenfield does not have enough parking and 2) all parking should be free. Never mind that there is no guarantee that rescinding the Council vote would return the lot to its former status, or that to do so would require the city to spend half a million dollars to repair it.
There seems to also be a nontrivial number of people suffering residual upset because the reason this lot is now up for grabs is that it was the site of the temporary fire station. There still remain quite a few hurt feelings around town from the series of fights several years ago about tearing down the old fire station and building a new library and fire station, so now those feelings are coming out again.
And then there are a whole range of people concerned about “development.” These concerns run the gamut from “It will change the character of downtown” to “It will overburden our infrastructure” to a whole bunch of arguments about whether or not Greenfield needs more housing and if so, how much and of what sort. I think there are a variety of ways to interpret these arguments and while I am sure there are at least a few people with retrograde opinions about what “character” of downtown ought to be, I will say that for the most part, most of these positions seem to be sincerely held by the people making them.
As I said, my guess right now is that the petitioners will prevail at the November election and the City Council’s vote will be overturned. I say that because they have done a bunch of work to get people activated about this topic, and there is not that much time between now and the election. That could change if the people who want to see the lot developed are able to quickly pull together a coordinate campaign to change the narrative and get voters to turn out.