Letter: Reappoint Karin Winter to the Planning Board

10 thoughts on “Letter: Reappoint Karin Winter to the Planning Board”

1. I agree. Karin brings beneficial diversity to an important town committee.

2. Yes, Karin can be counted on to be thoughtful and reasonable

3. Apparently that is not enough–nor is spending hours and hours reading PB packets, taking extra time to work on the PB’s Housing Subcommittee and always, always having thoughtful comments for the PB to consider on project applications. I worked with Karin for 3 years and she helped improve building projects and our town. Her perspective from having lived in Germany was so valuable. Karin would zoom into PB meetings even when that meant being up in the middle of the night. I am deeply sorry that she was not re-appointed and truly cannot understand why.

4. During my own tenure on the Planning Board, from 2007 to 2010, I spent hours upon hours reading board materials — which at the time often contained last-minute and substantial changes right before meetings — , put in additional hours on the Zoning and Master Plan Subcommittees, attended site visits, and, if I’m remembering correctly, had 100% attendance. I also made sure that I was thoroughly familiar with the contents of the Zoning Bylaw. And I asked questions — a lot of them. My feeling was that projects and bylaws should make sense, follow the rules, and be, as Article I of the Zoning Bylaw states, to promote the “general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Amherst.” I tried to be objective, analytical, and to consider both the short- and long-term consequences to not only the parties directly involved, but to the Town as a whole. I didn’t disagree often with my colleagues, but when I did, I was able to articulate clearly why I did, and at times was joined in my opinion by some of them. I also prepared careful minority reports to present to Town Meeting, detailing why I was not in favor of certain bylaws that were presented; Town Meeting agreed with me approximately 50% of the time.

   If willing, most Planning Board members are reappointed to a second term. I was willing, but the then Town Manager had other ideas. I was characterized as not being “collegial and collaborative,” and he refused to appoint me to a second term. I suppose some might think I was a disagreeable sort, but the problem was much more likely that I disagreed with things that others wanted to become reality, and that I was able to present cogent and convincing arguments as to why such things should not happen.

   Everyone has ideas and projects that they would like to see happen, but that doesn’t mean that the cost to make such things reality will be worth it, and the long-term consequences and effects such things will have on residents need to be considered objectively and dispassionately. A failure to do both these things is a failure to heed the responsibilities of governing. Dissent in Amherst seems to be taken more and more as some sort of personal affront to an individual or group, and is not only not welcomed, but in some cases parties have sought to eliminate it all together. Certainly it would be nice if we could all just get along, but that usually means that some will benefit while others definitely will not. The joke used to be “Amherst, where only the ‘h’ is silent.” It seems that little “h” has more company now than in the past.

5. Denise, nothing has changed in fifteen years…only it’s worse because there is no Town Meeting to balance city hall. Committees are stacked to promote what 7 of the 13 think is the only path—legal or not. Worse, the bar to undo council action is so high, there is essentially no meaningful appeal process. There is no thought of unintended consequences. So many things are wrong with the Charter but I see little hope of any amendments that give any power back to the people being approved by this council.

6. The article linked below, and the Amherst Indy comments above, suggest the Amherst Town Council is stacking the Planning Board with new members who are not impartial.
   https://www.gazettenet.com/Amherst-Planning-Board-incumbent-loses-position-over-concerns-for-in-fill-development-62107631
   Article 29 of the Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts State Constitution of 1780 states “It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.” Case law applies that provision to “quasi-judicial” administrative decision-makers who include members of the Amherst Planning Board voting on a zoning permit. Whether this argument can be invoked to invalidate a Planning Board decision in a particular case depends on how individual Planning Board members vote. Lack of impartiality must be shown to affect the outcome of the Planning Board decision. This may require research into any application for appointment submitted by each Planning Board member who may vote in favor of a particular project, and review of written minutes or online video records of Town Council meetings where the application of each current member was considered. The key issue is whether each current member of the Planning Board was chosen by the Town Council because s/he would fulfill the constitutional obligation to be impartial or because they would be biased in favor of real estate development. Of course Amherst needs housing, but that need cannot override a constitutional mandate.

7. This Council came in with an understanding among the majority that it would steamroll its development agenda. That has meant affirmatively silencing dissenters. It absolutely stacks council committees like the planning board and zoning board of appeals and the non voting members of the finance committee. One only need look at the history of the board appointments.

8. Karin Winter has been a hardworking, thoughtful, creative member of the Planning Board. She carefully researched all projects and brought a well-informed perspective to the discussions. It will be a loss for the Town of Amherst (and bad politics) to not reappoint such a knowledgeable and competent Planning Board member.

9. Darcy,
   Look to the Historical Commission for the best example of committee stacking. Members should have understood that their sworn oath required them uphold the National standards for historic preservation but due to vacancies and a recusal this did not happen. Many residents and Council members are unaware of Amherst history and could care less! But thanks to Hetty Startup’s many contributions to The Indy, we might be able to open some eyes…hopefully.

   Monday night’s Council discussion sounded just like DC: only put people on boards and commissions who agree with the outcome/mandate that 7/13 proclaim as policy.

10. Yep, Hilda, exactly what many of us feared, but expected, would happen, and the reason why some of those now in power fought to eliminate Town Meeting. I could never understand how over 200 town meeting members (from all walks of life, experiences, and expertise) could be less representative of residents than 13 town councilors (the majority of whom had backing from the PAC formed expressly to do that) as opponents of town meeting charged.

    The hubris from many councilors in the “majority” seems on par with the misguided “rightness” on display in Washington, DC. A parallel could also be drawn between the fact that the town is freezing or eliminating positions (e.g., those related to our children’s education) or under-funding basic services (e.g., road and sidewalk repair) while we find money to redo the “North Common” (a relatively new term to long-time residents) and a 45m+ library renovation for a year-round population of less than 30,000 in a town with 5 (count them, 5) libraries. And don’t get me started on conflicts of interest.

    What is so interesting is how looong it takes the TC to get to issues most important to residents, how late TC meetings (many more than those of Town Meeting) last, how many TC fingers are in every pie (though some in the majority chastise others for not trusting the decisions of boards and committees while their thumbs are on the scales of those same committees), how fewer residents know (or apparently pay attention to or trust) what local government is doing or why and how close to the vest key players in town government are in allowing residents the truth.

    There was a time when town meeting members talked with friends and neighbors about issues, even in everyday interactions. Now, more and more, it seems that that town-wide neighborhood of communication has been replaced with political cliques, what one has to glean from Zoom meetings or its minutes not promptly available, or, though in-depth and accurate, the accounts on the Amherst Indy too many residents don’t “bother” to read.

    It often strikes me just how much knowledge, imagination and variety of perspective we have lost with the elimination of Town Meeting. Perhaps that was the point. I call the question.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.