GREENFIELD — The week before voters cast their ballots in the city’s Nov. 4 biennial election, the League of Women Voters of Franklin County is hosting two community forums, during which panelists will discuss the Hope Street parking lot ballot question and the School Committee race.
League of Women Voters of Franklin County President Marie Gauthier will moderate a candidates forum Monday, Oct. 27, at the John Zon Community Center, which will include an introduction of ballot candidates for City Council, the Assessor’s Office and School Committee at 6 p.m., followed by a School Committee candidate forum at 7 p.m. This event will be co-sponsored by the Precinct 7 Neighbors Network.
At 4 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 29, the League of Women Voters will host an online forum, moderated by longtime Ashfield Town Moderator and WHMP radio host Stewart “Buz” Eisenberg. It will feature panelists on opposite sides of the debate on ballot Question 1 answering community-submitted questions. A “yes” vote on the ballot question would reverse City Council’s July decision to allow Mayor Ginny Desorgher to sell the 53 Hope St. parking lot and seek a developer to construct housing or a mixed-use building at the site.
Hope Street lot debate
Ever since a group led by Franklin County Register of Probate John Merrigan collected more than 850 signatures to put the question on the Nov. 4 ballot, Question 1 has become a hot-button issue for residents, some of whom have spoken extensively about the issue at City Council meetings or posted lawn signs reflecting their views on the future of the Hope Street parking lot.
The ballot question’s controversy, Gauthier said, is why the League of Women Voters has decided to host a public debate in an effort to inform voters on what both sides have to say.
Gauthier explained the debate panel will consist of Merrigan and Precinct 7 City Councilor William “Wid” Perry, representing those in favor of a “yes” vote on Question 1, along with Housing Greenfield Coordinator Susan Worgaftik and the city’s Community and Economic Development Director Amy Cahillane as those in favor of a “no” vote on the ballot question. A “no” vote would uphold City Council’s July vote.
“We held a meet and greet for Greenfield School Committee candidates back in September, and we had a number of people come up to us during the meet and greet to ask if we were planning on holding a forum, because they felt like they didn’t understand what was going on and what was involved,” Gauthier said. “We’ll have two sets of panelists representing both sides of the equation. They all seem to be prepared to speak to their particular positions, they seem well-informed, and to me, that’s the most important piece.”
Gauthier noted the panelists will be given a set amount of time to respond to questions submitted by residents. She credited Eisenberg as being an experienced and “even-keeled” moderator with the ability to maintain a calm and impartial demeanor during the debate.
Eisenberg, in an interview Tuesday, explained that each panelist will be given five minutes for an opening statement and will be offered a timed rebuttal.
“Greenfield, like every municipality in western Massachusetts, in Massachusetts and maybe in the country, is having a crisis over affordable housing,” Eisenberg said. “It’s an issue deserving of a considered debate, clearly articulating the best argument for each side, so that voters can decide which lever to pull on Nov. 4.”
In a phone interview Tuesday, Worgaftik outlined her longtime involvement with the Hope Street project, explaining she worked with former Mayor Roxann Wedegartner, as well as with Desorgher, to help plan the lot’s future uses.
“We’re talking about a long period of time when I was in discussions with people from the administration of the city, and also talking with councilors about this and about the fact that this seemed to be a perfect spot for there to be housing,” Worgaftik said. “At no time during those discussions with Mayor Wedegartner was there any mention of the possibility of it going back to being a parking lot. … We’ve worked hard to work through the process to make it housing. It’s my belief that that’s what should happen.”
Worgaftik, when asked what she believes has been the largest misconception about the lot that she hopes to clarify, noted that many people who are in support of a “yes” vote on Question 1 have stated that the city could make $200,000 each year in revenue by keeping the lot open for parking.
Explaining that the city charges 50 cents per hour for parking and does not charge for parking overnight or on weekends, Worgaftik said it would be nearly impossible for the lot to generate that much revenue. She said the city would only make $200,000 a year if vehicles were parked in all 112 spaces in the lot for 365 days each year, 12 hours each day.
“There is no way that that can happen,” Worgaftik said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”
Merrigan expressed gratitude that he was invited to participate on the panel, explaining that he hopes to answer the public’s questions about the ballot question in a fair debate in which the other side is given the same opportunity.
“It’ll give us an opportunity to let the people know … why they should be voting ‘yes’ on Question 1,” Merrigan said. “All the details that will come forward during the forum will be of interest to people, whether it’s from my perspective or from the individuals representing the ‘no’ vote’s perspective.”
When asked what he believes has been the most common misconception about the lot, Merrigan said he believes the city has not explored alternatives to housing as a future use for the lot to the extent that it should have.
“There hasn’t been enough input from the public to explore alternatives. I’m not against affordable housing,” Merrigan said. “Nobody can accuse me of being anti-affordable housing. I just think it needs to be done correctly. There needs to be planning and there needs to be public input, and there hasn’t been that. There are other possibilities in the community that we could explore together that would meet this need for housing.”
School Committee forum
All certified School Committee candidates, Gauthier explained, have been invited to the candidates forum Monday to take part in a debate of six to eight community-submitted questions.
The race is divided into two slates of three candidates each, with David Moscaritolo, Michael Terounzo and Melodie Goodwin running as one cooperative campaign and Elizabeth DeNeeve, Adrienne Craig-Williams and Jeffrey Diteman running in the other slate. Each question asked, Gauthier explained, will precede a timed answer for each candidate with no rebuttals.
Gauthier said the League of Women Voters hopes to provide voters a chance to ask questions of the candidates they met at September’s meet and greet.
“We wanted to make sure we provided candidates an opportunity closer to the election time to meet folks and for folks to hear what [the candidates] are all about,” Gauthier said. “We wanted to again have the opportunity for folks to ask questions of those candidates, the things that they are concerned about, and hear what they have to say. Local elections, people don’t always recognize how important they are to their community, so this is another way of getting that word out.”