GREENFIELD — Less than a week before the city’s Nov. 4 biennial election, the League of Women Voters of Franklin County hosted a debate in which residents and public officials from both sides of ballot Question 1 faced off, sharing their visions for the Hope Street lot.
The debate, held at the Greenfield Community Television station on Wednesday and broadcast live for remote viewing, was moderated by longtime Ashfield Town Moderator and WHMP radio host Stewart “Buz” Eisenberg, and featured panelists on opposite sides of the debate 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. A “no” vote would uphold City Council’s July vote.
Participating on the debate panel was Franklin County Register of Probate John 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 Community and Economic Development Director Amy Cahillane as those in favor of a “no” vote on the ballot question.
Revenue
When asked to discuss the comparison between the revenue that would come to the city if the lot is returned to use for paid parking or developed into housing and retail, Worgaftik refuted rumors that converting the lot into housing would cost the city $200,000 each year in parking revenue, noting that as the city charges 50 cents per hour for paid parking and offers free parking on nights and weekends, the lot would have to be fully occupied 365 days a year to bring in that much revenue.
“We can’t say for sure what the income would be from the development that would happen there. However, the high rise pays around $170,000 a year to the city, and we can assume that it would be in that range. We just don’t know, because it depends on how many apartments there would be,” Worgaftik said. “What I can tell you is the estimate on the parking lot, bringing in $200,000 a year, is fantasy. If there are 112 units parked in that parking spot at 50 cents an hour, which is what we presently pay, at 10 hours a day, 365 days a year, we end up with $204,000.”
Perry responded that comparing revenue between housing and parking is like comparing “apples and oranges,” arguing that the lot, before it was used to house the temporary fire station, was always used for parking.
“Who cares, really? The bottom line is it doesn’t really matter. It’s apples and oranges. Money is money, but I can tell you that it’s always been a parking lot. It was been a parking lot for who knows how long,” Perry said. “If someone wants to argue the parking lot wasn’t being used, come on, everybody watching at home has used that parking lot over the years to go to court, to go to any of the businesses downtown or when the [YMCA] lot was full. That parking lot was being used.”
Merrigan responded that while he has never personally referenced the $200,000 estimation that Worgaftik spoke of, the city has seen a significant dip in its parking revenue since the COVID-19 pandemic. He added that the parking lot was being used before it was closed in 2021 to make room for the temporary fire station.
“Pre-pandemic, the parking income for the city of Greenfield was $600,000 — now it’s somewhere in the $300,000 range. You have to factor in that the library is now where what we call the fire station lot [used to be], and anybody here can remember that lot on both sides was full,” Merrigan said. “You can remember the parking lot behind the courthouse, it was full. The people that needed to stop at the courthouse to pick up a paper or somebody going in Salvation Army for five minutes, or if somebody had to go into the Department of Mental Health with a child or a family member for service, they could go and park in the lot.”
Merrigan also added that the Olive Street Parking Garage has been “mismanaged,” an issue that Cahillane said should not be solved by withholding developable land for parking, but by improving the garage itself. She added that the long-term benefits of building housing for new Greenfield residents expand beyond the expected tax revenue growth from development on the lot.
“The answer to a challenging or problematic parking garage is not to ignore that it exists and return a second lot a block away to [being a] parking lot. I think the mayor has been very proactive in making changes to the parking garage. She’s listening to citizen concerns around safety, around cleanliness,” Cahillane said. “It’s a little unclear to compare just straight-up parking revenue, which is a very static use of that property. If it’s a parking lot, it will always serve the cars and generate whatever we’re charging per hour, versus a development that could bring in both housing and commercial space. That [results in] not only increased property taxes; that’s dollars that follow students that come in, that can support our schools, that could be commercial space in the first floor that can promote job creation. It opens up a lot more possibilities.”
Strain on resources
When asked to address the concerns about straining city infrastructure and resources if the lot is developed, Cahillane explained that Desorgher has already floated the potential development past the Department of Public Works, Fire Department and School Department, and the entities responded that they did not expect a future development would put unnecessary strain on the city’s services.
“All of those departments felt comfortable that there was not going to be increased strain on any of those facilities,” Cahillane said. “Public water and sewer already exist downtown. It’s not a place where there’s private septic and bringing these additional people in, and should we add housing, or housing and commercial use, it will help spread out the cost for this infrastructure work.”
Worgaftik, noting that Cahillane was better equipped to respond to questions about infrastructure than she was, responded to Perry’s previous comment that amid community input sessions held in the past, the option to return the lot to parking was neglected as a topic. In response to Perry’s claim that “parking was never part of the conversation” and that the meetings were primarily attended by “pro-housing” residents, she explained that Dawn Morin, a resident who has been outspoken in her support for a “yes” vote on the measure, also attended early planning meetings.
“[Morin] was very clear that she wanted commercial [development] on that lot, and she made that statement several times. To say that there was no one who was had any other interest other than housing at that meeting is inaccurate,” Worgaftik said. “The other question that came up was that there was discussion about parking, but it was related to the fact that the people who had passes from the courthouse were still parking in those spots on the street. … With Mayor [Roxann] Wedegartner, we changed the requirements for parking on Prospect Street and Hope Street, and that made the difference.”
Perry responded to Worgaftik, noting that he did not believe it was fair to paraphrase Morin’s viewpoints, as she was not present at the debate. Perry added that regarding parking infrastructure, it would ultimately be up to the developer to determine what water and sewer connections they find underground.
“The developer is going to tell us what can happen there. No one’s coming in to study it from the developer’s viewpoint, so they may come in and say, ‘Forget it.’ … Who knows what they’re going to find underneath. We’ll find out from the developer down the road,” Perry said. “I’m not sure bringing Dawn Morin into the conversation is a fair thing to do with her not being here to say yea or nay on that. We all know how Dawn feels and what she’s been talking about. She would forego parking for something else, but I don’t think she’s hot to trot about commercial development there as far as housing, because she feels that the downtown area should be represented first.”
Merrigan, on the other hand, explained that since the city is under a consent order from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection to fix its inflow and infiltration issues, he does not believe it would be wise to add any additional water or sewer connections downtown.
“Over the past three years, [the city] has let untreated waste into our riverway to the tune of 2.3 million gallons overflowing from that plant, of untreated sewage. City Council passed a resolution that said ‘fine the polluters.’ Well, let’s fine Greenfield, because we’re one of the worst polluters in western Mass,” Merrigan said, referencing the council’s support of the Climate Change Superfund Bill. “Until we get our infrastructure right, we need to take that time out. We have a lot on the pipeline. Let’s not keep going and going and going to satisfy those that think housing is the answer to all. We have a downtown that needs storefronts, people are moving out. … People in this community are pretty aware of what our downtown is looking like, and if you think it’s good downtown, then God bless you.”
Community input
The four participants were also asked to weigh in on how much community input would be appropriate in crafting the request for proposals (RFP) for the development, and how that community input should be received.
Perry, answering first, argued that the Hope Street lot debate has been driven by community members’ feeling that their voices were not heard. He said that no matter how residents vote on Nov. 4, the community and city will have to rebuild trust.
“We’re having this debate because people feel like they weren’t heard or they’re not being heard. I would like to see plenty of public meetings — everybody’s invited, everybody has a say in what could go in there,” Perry said. “People that talk to me say, ‘This is news to me and I wish I knew this was coming down the pike.’ We’re going to have a trust issue. No matter what happens, there’s going to be a trust issue, because people feel we’ve done this before and here we go again — promises made, stand by us, we know what we’re doing, and then, who knows what’s going to happen down the road. People just want to have a say in the entire process.”
Merrigan responded that he hoped the city would engage the project’s abutters, including the court and local businesses, in the process of drafting an RFP. He added that he does not believe housing on the lot will be as profitable as the city projects it will be.
“I’ve already indicated where I thought the breakdown was, and that was engaging the community, engaging the abutters, engaging the Department of Mental Health, engaging the court staff,” Merrigan said. “This is our community. We need to do what’s right for the community at the end of the day. I just want to make a point about [how] housing doesn’t make money — it costs $8,000 on average to have water, sewer hooked up to the city, when the average tax bill is $1,500. Why do you think we get $20 million in local aid every year from the state? We’re not making money on housing. We need help beyond what we’re bringing in through property taxes. This isn’t a money maker.”
Cahillane, responding to Merrigan, pointed out that the city would have to address its infrastructure needs regardless of whether it chooses to build housing on the lot. She added that the RFP process would involve public input to decide details.
“We’re going to have to pay for infrastructure upgrades anyway. Whether we have 17,000 people living here, 15,000 people living here, or 20,000 people living here, I would like my property tax bill to be divided amongst a few more people when those infrastructure upgrades happen. … Housing is not just a dollars and sums game. These are people, these are families,” she said. “You’re right with this is a trust issue, and I’m only as good as my word and my promises that I make. I said to Councilor [Marianne] Bullock that there will be public input should the RFP process go through and I stand by that. We have had public meetings before this and we will have public meetings again.”
Worgaftik added that she feels the process has never been closed to public input and she does not expect it will be, should the RFP process be put forward.
“This has never been a closed process. This has been a process that has involved residents of the neighborhood, from the community. I fully expect, in the conversations I have had with Amy and with the mayor, that it will continue to be an open process,” Worgaftik said. “If the proposal comes in, and somehow that proposal is decided upon through a public process, then we still have to go through the Planning Board, we still have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals — all of those things are going to be part of the process. There are going to be enormous numbers of ways in which people are going to be able to respond to this.”