I was very concerned about many of the insinuations, non-sequiturs, and misunderstandings presented in John Merrigan’s Aug. 5 My Turn column in the Recorder. Why would anyone want a pro-blight referendum? Many thoughts have been tossed around since before the city put the temporary fire station on the former Hope Street parking lot, so this has hardly been rushed, and it is not beyond the point of public input now. After much recent discussion, on July 16 the City Council voted 10-1 to declare the lot surplus, and issue a request for proposals (RFP) that would feature housing on this valuable city lot, near to public transportation, and walkable to many downtown amenities.
An RFP is precisely that: it asks developers to get out their pencils and figure out what would work on that lot. It is the city’s job – with input from residents, directly or through their elected representatives – to sketch out the sort of things we might want on that lot, and upon receipt of the proposals, to determine which, if any of them, would be in the best interests of the city.
The RFP is not requiring low income housing. The RFP allows for mixed income, mixed use, or mixed ages. There could be commercial/retail on the first floor. There could be accessible housing, which we sorely need. There could be green space. There could be some parking. It will probably be tall, so that developers can afford to build something there. So let’s see what developers propose rather than use fear tactics to presume it will become the dreaded “subsidized” housing to be filled with who knows what undesirables. And yes, non-profit entities do pay plenty of property taxes. Even if it were all low income – and it is highly questionable that money could be found for such a proposal – a five- or six- story building is going to pay a lot in property taxes. A city parking lot pays none.
A vibrant downtown needs people living in it. This resolution would not bring back a parking lot. The city doesn’t want a parking lot, nor have money to turn it back into a parking lot. The state would not give us money to turn it back into a parking lot, especially since we just did a parking study that said we don’t need more parking. And if the new Armory owners are going to want parking, why is it they have never approached the city to express any such need? And housing in the Armory? Seriously?
No, without this Proposal process to figure out what could be built to enhance the neighborhood and the city, we would continue to have a former parking lot with more and more opportunities for weeds to grow up through the cracks in the pavement. Just like now. Go take a look. That is not what I want to see for this prime location.
Peg Hall lives in Precinct 6 in Greenfield.