We agree with John Merrigan’s claim in his Aug. 3 My Turn column that “anything anywhere” is not a good housing policy for Greenfield, that’s why the City Council by a vote of 10-1 supported the city’s proposal to be able to sell the Hope Street lot for future housing.
Adding housing to existing neighborhoods near municipal services like the library, as well as restaurants and other businesses is exactly how we create the kind of thriving walkable neighborhoods that we want in our city. It’s why you saw the councilors who chose the Hope Street neighborhood as their home in that majority; we all see development of this lot as adding to the value that we already have. This is hardly building “to the very edge of town, in woodlands, and protected habitats.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Merrigan and the other supporters of keeping the lot to house cars instead of people use the spectre of “public” and “affordable” housing as a scare tactic Federal law already prohibits us from building “public,” i.e. municipally owned housing, even if we wanted to. The median home price in Greenfield as of last April was $399,045. For the median income family in town, which means they earn $53,149 for a family of four, they would need a home valued at roughly $200,000 to not pay more than 30% of their earnings towards housing. These homes simply do not exist right now without new housing.
The city intends to put the property out for proposals that include the possibility of retail on the first floor and housing for a range of income levels. Our constituents overwhelmingly speak about our high property taxes and the lack of attainable housing (which doesn’t mean subsidized housing.) Adding to the tax base is one way that we can lower the tax burden on residents and lessen the housing crunch. Keeping the property as a parking lot will cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare it for parking and additional upkeep costs with little to no revenue, as opposed to money from the sale and tax revenue of a parcel that has a mixed-used building or housing on it.
Greenfield Acres is a 96-unit building assessed at $8.8 million and at our current property tax rate ($20.39/$1,000 of assessed value) it brings our city $180,000/year in revenue. The former Armory in contrast is only assessed at $400,000 bringing in a grand total of less than $9,000/year. New growth on Hope Street sure looks like a win for taxpayers and potential home buyers or renters in comparison.
The alternative is indeed higher tax bills for our current residents; especially devastating for the large part of citizenry that are already burdened by housing costs. The city has been discussing possibilities for this property for years, including several community meetings over the last two. The mayor has promised more meetings before any sale occurs. Our vote in July came after both the Planning Board and Conservation Commission recommended it. The council itself discussed the proposal over several months of public meetings before ultimately voting as a full body. This decision was not hasty nor unfocused.
We look forward to continuing to work on solutions together as Mr. Merrigan has done throughout his career even if we hope for different things for prime property in our downtown. Regardless of your stance on this issue you can email all members of the council at citycouncil@greenfield-ma.gov. We hope (pun intended) to hear from you.
Lora Wondolowski is Greenfield City Council president and John Garrett is vice-president of the council and a Hope Street resident.