Greenfield’s Question 1 on Nov. 4 is about land use. What’s the highest and best use for a small parcel of land on Hope Street? It’s been a parking lot for the past 72 years.
The city published its Hope St. FAQs on its website (which is public space supported by taxpayers) but did not offer the Give Us Back Hope Committee equal space to present the following facts about why a “Yes” vote is best for Hope Street and the city:
- Many voters are confused about what a ”Yes” vote on Question 1 means. The wording on the ballot says: “A YES vote will rescind the City Council measure authorizing the sale.” The City Council voted July 16 to authorize the mayor to sell the Hope Street parcel as surplus, and to “execute all documents necessary to accomplish the same.” It says nothing about using the parcel for housing. As one citizen recently pointed out: “A NO vote on Question 1 does nothing,” because the mayor can do anything she wants with the land. The City Council passed a measure with no details at all, which is why it needs to be repealed.
- The 112-space parking lot on Hope Street is capable of generating at least $200,000 a year in parking fees. A detailed analysis was presented recently at the Greenfield Business Association meeting. In 2021 the city’s comptroller estimated that closing the old library lot and the courthouse lot dropped our parking revenue by at least $200,000.
- The financial worth of Hope Street Parking is from parking fees — much more valuable than its land assessed value.
- Selling off a valuable piece of public property is an example of the “any housing, anywhere” policy adopted by our urban planning board.
- A similarly-sized parcel on Smith Street with 45 units of residential apartments pays $65,510 in property taxes. The 9-story Greenfield Acres on Congress Street produces $172,680 in property taxes, but sits on nearly twice the acreage as Hope Street.
- The city is no longer talking about “affordable” housing on Hope St. It’s now “market rate” housing, defined as “top of the market” housing that 93% of our households could never afford. This was a major “bait and switch” decision by the city, made more than two months after the Council declared the land was surplus.
- The condos proposed at Stone Farm Lane also are targeted to “the missing middle class.”
- One of the developers of Stone Farm Lane, which is located in the middle of our Rocky Mountain Park nature trails, recently admitted: “New construction is difficult to make affordable without public subsidy.”
- It’s apparent that those who are “missing” from the city’s plans are the broad segment of our working households who will never be homeowners, or who struggle to afford rents. I assumed for months that this was the very population we were targeting for help — but then the city suddenly dropped “affordable” housing as a goal.
- The city has provided almost no information about their Hope Street plans. The voters have seen no feasibility report (because none was ever done); no copy of the bid proposal; no details about the size of the apartment building, no plan for reserving parking for the Justice Center, the YMCA, or the Armory; no photo of what style of building they will show developers. We have seen nothing but concrete barriers.
We can build homes, but it’s a lot harder to build homeowners. We have ignored the “wage crisis” that overshadows our “housing crisis.” Five months ago, Governor Maura Healey said: “Homeownership is one of the primary paths to building intergenerational wealth. Increasing access to these important homebuyer programs is crucial to helping families put down roots and strengthen communities.” Like a one-trick pony, we have focused on home production, but we have no plan for stimulating homeownership, or jobs that pay livable wages. Market-rate housing is not a tide that lifts all boats. We need more than entry-level salaries at national retailers. Yet the city wants to rezone industrial land on the French King — after 2 years — back to retail.
Question 1 is not about restoring a parking lot. It’s about restoring confidence in local government. Let’s focus on the needs of the working poor, not the upper middle class. Let’s build a real pathway to homeownership. Let’s encourage more owner-occupied homes in the neighborhood, and land use decisions that stabilize our tax bills. Let’s vote ‘Yes’ on Question 1 to “Give Us Back Hope.” All of us.
Al Norman’s Pushback column is published in the Recorder every first and third Wednesday of the month.