The claim that Greenfield would be better off financially with a parking lot on Hope Street is preposterous.
The Vote Yes! proponents estimate that the lot generated $200,000 a year in parking fees before the temporary fire station moved in. Sounds high to me, but even if that’s true, and even if the lot could be used as is, without repairing the damaged concrete (which it can’t), the city would get considerably more bang for its buck if a developer could put a mixed-use residential building on the site.
How much more? Conservatively, 10 to 15 times, according to published studies from similar size cities:
— Dutchess County, New York (Smart Growth America) found that compact, walkable mixed-use centers generate up to 10 times more property and sales tax revenue per acre than low-density or single-use parcels like parking lots.
— Urban3 (Asheville, North Carolina) measured a 13-fold increase in revenue when a downtown parking lot was redeveloped into a six-story residential-over-retail building ($54,000 vs. $717,000 per acre annually).
— A Sonoran Institute multi-city study found that multi-story mixed-use buildings routinely generated 20–40 times more property tax per acre than large surface lots or suburban commercial developments.
That’s just tax revenue. Creating homes for 30 or 40 families within walking distance of downtown could bring immeasurable benefits to our businesses and schools.
I’m voting “No” on Question 1. If you care about Greenfield’s economic health in the future, maybe you should, too.
Phil Elmer, former Greenfield city councilor (2020-2024)
Greenfield