My Turn: Housing — Where do you want it?

There appears to be agreement that we need more housing in Greenfield, for Greenfield to thrive! BUT we have not yet agreed on WHERE we want it, and what it will look like. Let’s explore our options. Where do you want it?

Farmland. While developers love building on farmland — it is flat and easy to get to — building on farmland is my least favorite option. We have amazing topsoil here. I will fight for every square foot of farmland to remain farmland, even if it is not being actively farmed on today. Who knows what the future holds! Farms were the backbone of our economy at one point, and still contribute in a big way. In the future, we may need to produce more of our food locally, and farm jobs are good jobs. 

Forest Land. Developers like building on forestland, preferably flat, or gently sloped. Although they will have the expense of removing trees, the land tends to be more reasonably priced. This is my next least favorite, unless the site has been disturbed and is overrun with invasive non-native plants, such where housing is being proposed for Stone Farm Lane. 

In recent years, the importance of natural lands has been recognized as necessary to address the climate crisis. Natural lands draw carbon from our atmosphere and store it in the trees and plants and in the ground. Massachusetts’ recent recognition of the importance of biodiversity reinforces the importance that our land be vegetated with plants native to our area. Trees are also the key to our water cycle! Remember back to elementary school? Water evaporates from the trees, rises up, cools into clouds and it rains. Evaporation also has a cooling effect, which will help cool our poor overheating planet. Trees also purify our water and clean our air.

One additional downside of both forestland and farmland is that it is rarely has access to Greenfield water and sewer, so the developer will likely have to pay for drilling a well and building a septic system, or Greenfield will have to extend its existing system, which is expensive. This brings us to developed land.

Developed land served by Greenfield’s water and sewer system. This is my most favorite place to put housing, and developers like it because it is connected to water and sewer. But it is hard to find! The fact that there are so few vacant lots has already led to zoning changes such as allowing buildings to be taller in our urbanized area, and in our more suburban/rural areas we can now build a second building, an auxiliary dwelling unit (ADU), on larger lots. I suspect only 3-8 new ADUs will be built in the next 10 years, but we need HUNDREDS! 

Three years ago when the fire station was given a green light to move to Hope Street, the city started exploring what the best use of this space would be after the Fire Station moved on. A parking study was done which found that at any one moment we use only 50% of our available parking. A housing feasibility study was done which came out positively. 

Greenfield residents also met and explored the options. 

Greenfield residents also met and explored the options. Many expressed interest in more housing being built at that location. In general, people saw housing near downtown as increasing downtown vitality. While many think Greenfield will not grow, I already see climate refugees moving here from Boston and New York, or California. Looking to the future housing in or near downtown will enable more people, including climate refugees, to live more lightly on the earth by walking, and biking, and using public transit to get around. This is exactly the vision our 2014 master plan, Sustainable Greenfield, painted.

Following these explorations, the city requested that the Hope Street lot be declared ‘surplus property’ so it could be sold and developed as housing, and the City Council agreed. That decision has been contested. 

Ballot Question 1 offers us an opportunity to weigh in again. I am enthusiastically voting “No” on Question 1! This will open the door again for the city to move forward with looking for a developer interested in building housing on Hope Street. But remember, we will have an opportunity to have input into what is actually built, how much greenspace there will be and more, as proposals come to the city and go through the review process. 

Please join me in enthusiastically voting “No” on Question 1.

Nancy Hazard is a member of Sustainable Greenfield Implementation Committee (SGIC), Greening Greenfield, and retired director of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA). Opinions expressed are her own. She invites feedback at NancyHazard30@gmail.com.