In 2021, the University of Massachusetts Donahue Center, estimated that Franklin County would need another 2,500 housing units of all kinds by 2031. Because Greenfield’s population is approximately 25% of the entire county, the city estimated that Greenfield would need about 600 new units of housing by 2031.
Amy Cahillane, director of the city office of Community and Economic Development, estimates that there are about 200 units in the pipeline. We have 6 years to meet that 2031 goal. The only shovels in the ground right now are for 36 units of supportive housing on Wells Street. We might see a significant portion of those 200 units by 2027.
John Merrigan’s statement in his Aug. 4 column that we are in a “housing hurry” does not line up with the facts [“Housing referendum — How much more subsidized housing can Greenfield afford?]. If we do not build more than these 200 units, we will not have housing for seniors who want to move from large homes to smaller apartments, young adults who want to move out of their parents’ basements, single parent families, or disabled adults who require living accommodations not found in many of our 100-year-old buildings.
The 2024 Greenfield housing study (city website) states that since 2010, 398 units of housing were built in Greenfield; only 35 between 2020 and 2024. Our housing development, affordable or not, has been abysmally slow over the last 15 years. We have not been in much of a “hurry.”
I would like to thank Merrigan for the work he did to get more housing for Greenfield when he was in the state Legislature. That was 23 years ago. A lot has changed in Greenfield since 2002. Our population is older with more folks living on fixed incomes. More than half of renters and homeowners are “cost burdened,” meaning they spend more than 30% of their incomes to keep a roof over their heads. The federal government has determined that people should be spending no more than 30% of their incomes on housing and utilities for a household to have adequate food, clothing, transportation, and other necessities.
What does affordability mean? In Greenfield, a family of four with an income of $95,000 per year is eligible to live in housing that is built with state or federal subsidies. That is affordable housing. The same is true for a single individual with an income of about $67,000. People eligible for subsidized housing teach your children, bandage your leg at the hospital, are emergency responders, and some serve you coffee at Starbucks.
We need more housing for people of all incomes. Most importantly, we need housing for the people who already make Greenfield their home.
We need the property taxes that this housing brings in for city government. And, yes, even those that are affordable and are built by not-for-profit developers pay property taxes.
We need more jobs in Greenfield. Employers come here to build or expand their businesses but cannot find housing for their employees. They go elsewhere. People with higher incomes cannot find housing here either. We have a .1% vacancy rate for both rental and home ownership. A healthy vacancy rate is 5-7%. We need more housing just to meet our own community needs.
The potential Hope Street development across the street from Hope & Olive restaurant will contribute toward solving our housing problem. A parking lot at that spot is not necessary. There is a parking garage around the corner that is never full. Merrigan’s referendum does nothing to solve the real needs of Greenfield. It does not bring in new business. It does not contribute to keeping taxes down.
The City Council voted to allow the mayor to sell the Hope Street lot to a developer for housing. The draft request for proposals does not stipulate that the housing be affordable. Nor does it state how many units must be built. It is an open opportunity for developers, profit making and not-for-profit, to give us their best ideas about what could be built there and how it might look. The city, with public input on both the request for proposals and the review, will decide which idea is the best and most appropriate for Greenfield.
Another parking lot does not bring in new businesses or jobs, pay property taxes or solve the deepening need for housing in Greenfield. We need housing on the Hope Street lot that will enhance the livability of our city and enrich our city’s downtown. Reject this referendum.
Susan Worgaftik is a member of Housing Greenfield.