Opinion: In Amherst Town Elections It’s Progressives vs. Neoliberals

16 thoughts on “Opinion: In Amherst Town Elections It’s Progressives vs. Neoliberals”

1. Thank you, Darcy, for this clear and helpful introduction to this critical issue. In North Amherst, we further have to contend with a high-density, high-rise overlay for student housing along North Pleasant Street. The Planning Board will be presenting the idea this Wednesday, October 29th, 6:30-8:30 pm, in the Community Room of the North Amherst library. Here’s the description from the Town Calendar:

   “Presentation by Planning Board: Potential Overlay Zoning for North Amherst Apartment Complexes: Potential Overlay to Allow Increased Density and Building Height for Student Housing: Puffton Village, Brandywine Areas: Presentation of Maps and Concepts; Discussion: Questions and Comments.”

2. Having sat with the other candidates for several forums now, I don’t believe the divide is nearly as stark as you make it out to be. All candidates recognize that we have a fiscal crisis, with costs rising faster than revenues. And we all see the need for more housing supply, to reduce the pressure on housing costs, particularly for low- and moderate-income residents, including town employees.

   I don’t believe any of us supports “unfettered development of student housing in the downtown, village centers, and neighborhoods.” I certainly don’t.

   What I do support is the findings of our Housing Production Plan, which outlines some key goals:
   — Creating more diverse and inclusive housing types for all residents, especially seniors, families, the workforce, AND students;
   — Streamlining housing development by reducing regulatory barriers and enhancing predictability in the approval process; and
   — Promoting higher-density apartments, “missing middle” housing, and mixed-use development.

   I’m worried about Amherst’s fiscal sustainability. If we don’t generate some new sources of revenue, conversations about funding schools and roads and municipal services will be extremely difficult. If we can help solve that problem by also addressing our housing problem, generating more tax revenue at the same time, that seems like a win-win to me.

   There are plenty of good ideas out there that address housing needs while bringing in needed tax revenues. Student housing on University Drive and Olympia Drive, away from residential neighborhoods. Senior housing to allow empty nesters to move out and re-open their homes to young families. Sensible densification of the downtown and village centers, consistent with our Master Plan and guided by design standards. The affordable, owner-occupied housing project on Ball Lane in North Amherst.

   I look forward to working with people on both sides of this supposed divide to solve these interlinked problems together.

   Hey – instead of calling us different names and creating divisions, how about using just one name: “collaborative problem-solvers.”

3. Andy, I think it’s funny the number of times I’ve heard you say we should assume good intentions. You have to worry when someone says that.

   And collaborate? Is that what you are doing on the Charter Review Committee?

   You have personally tried to limit the scope of the Charter Review along with the President of the Council’s husband, Bryan Harvey.
   You have personally disappeared the League of Women Voters official recommendations for Charter Amendments by treating them (and all other recommendations supported by groups or many people) as one recommendation in order to minimize them.

   You have supported not including the 200 public comments gathered in the League of Women Voters survey.
   You absolutely do not support recommendations that would increase “good government” or changes that would improve public participation, transparency, inclusion. Quite the opposite.

   You are entitled to your opinion. But don’t pretend that you are collaborative. You showed as Chair of the Charter Commission, shutting out discussion of Town Meeting oriented alternatives, and on the Charter Review Committee, figuring out a means to be de facto Chair, and shutting out great ideas for improvement of town government, that you are not in fact collaborative and certainly not progressive in the sense we all think about Amherst – at least before the Amherst Forward majority in this government took power.

4. Sounds so good Andy but look where we are now with the things your group has accomplished. Take some credit for the financial condition we are in. I do like transparency and I like groups working together though.

   “ I don’t believe any of us supports “unfettered development of student housing in the downtown, village centers, and neighborhoods.” I certainly don’t.”

   But that’s what has happened under the current leadership.

   “ Streamlining housing development by reducing regulatory barriers and enhancing predictability in the approval process;”

   How are you going to stop LLC’s from gobbling these up without putting some sort of restrictions on the process?

   And how about spending less. We have to do that in our household now. This town needs to learn how to live within their means like the rest of us. The reason you’re worried about funding schools and roads and municipal services is because discussions and funding about those have taken a back seat to fluff projects.

   You make some good points though Andy but we are where we are under the current leadership while the DPW & Fire Departments are still waiting, working in unhealthy conditions.

5. Darcy, I didn’t say assume good intentions, I said collaborate to solve problems. And I really shouldn’t respond to someone who is so eager to twist my record, but for others who may be wondering:

   1) I supported an expansion of the Charter Review Committee’s scope beyond the charge provided for us by the Council. The letter from the Committee to the community, which I voted to approve in December 2024, explains: “The committee won’t limit input only to those changes that can be approved by the Council (with or without ratification by the voters). We are also open to including more expansive recommendations…, in a separate section of our final report.”

   2) Every single recommendation from the League of Women Voters study group was included, individually, in the 170 items the Committee has considered for inclusion. The same goes for every item from a group comment in the Indy in July 2025. Every other suggestion we received was included as well, unless they were duplicates or just comments without actual suggestions.

   3) I am not the “de facto chair” of the Charter Review Committee, and I imagine our actual chair would find that patronizing and insulting. I am only one vote on an eight-member committee. In votes on suggested Charter changes, I have been in the majority on some and the minority on others.

   4) I’m proud of the work the Charter Commission did, nearly a decade ago. The voters elected a group divided between supporters of Town Meeting and supporters of something new. We did our work in a collegial fashion in which everyone was heard, and even those who didn’t vote for the final product saw some of their ideas in it. And the voters approved it with almost 60% support.

6. hi Andy, Curious minds would love to know of several changes you support that would improve town council in ways publicly objected to by many “indy” types. What do you approve of, that will increase transparency, seek more public input, acknowledge the objections of people who think Amherst is way out of balance, even though they deliberately live in a college town. I have to say, as the only audience member at the north Amherst library voting on what changes the committee would approve (where the only public comment made, by me, was “I’m against chicanery,” that many, many, many proposed ideas were voted down without discussion, even after 2-3 people might have voted “strongly support.” I understand you were not the chair, but the chair didn’t seem able to slow that tide, and knew it. It frustrates me that the charter seems purpose-built for 3-D level chess players, more than earnest people with sincere objections or ideas that need development.

7. OK. Let’s fact check Andy Churchill’s assertions.

   CHURCHILL ASSERTION: I didn’t say assume good intentions, I said collaborate to solve problems.

   FACT CHECK: It is true that you didn’t say that in the Indy, but you have said it multiple times. Here’s an example. And as I said, you have to worry about people who say “assume good intentions”.

   CHURCHILL ASSERTION: 1) I supported an expansion of the Charter Review Committee’s scope beyond the charge provided for us by the Council. The letter from the Committee to the community, which I voted to approve in December 2024, explains: “The committee won’t limit input only to those changes that can be approved by the Council (with or without ratification by the voters). We are also open to including more expansive recommendations…, in a separate section of our final report.”

   FACT CHECK: See Andy Churchill’s article explaining how the scope of the Charter Review is minimal, co-authored with Bryan Harvey, husband of the Council President, Lynn Griesemer. https://theamherstcurrent.org/2024/02/15/the-town-charter-is-up-for-review-whats-next/

   CHURCHILL ASSERTION: Every single recommendation from the League of Women Voters study group was included, individually, in the 170 items the Committee has considered for inclusion. The same goes for every item from a group comment in the Indy in July 2025. Every other suggestion we received was included as well, unless they were duplicates or just comments without actual suggestions.

   FACT CHECK: All recommendations were included as if a single individual made them. No additional weight was given to recommendations that had many supporters. That was your idea and you resisted any pushback to change that. Each recommendation of the LWVA, the only group in town dedicated to the mission of advancing good government principles, was treated as if one person made them. And as I said, the 200 comments made in the LWVA survey were not analyzed or counted at all, which you recommended.

   And on the list of recommendations for further consideration, created by you, the proponents’ rationales are not given because at the time you said you didn’t have time to add them before the group voted on them. You did include your opinion on what the recommendations should be on the master list.

   You say you included every suggestion from the public but then, during the retreat (where votes were taken, but not recorded to indicated how members of the committee voted) you removed from further consideration many suggestions (including LWVA recommendations) that dealt with transparency, accountability, and civic participation. Those votes were without deliberation and without any public discussion of what criteria ought to be applied.

   CHURCHILL ASSERTION: 3) I am not the “de facto chair” of the Charter Review Committee, and I imagine our actual chair would find that patronizing and insulting. I am only one vote on an eight-member committee. In votes on suggested Charter changes, I have been in the majority on some and the minority on others.

   FACT CHECK: You are Chair of the Feedback Sub Committee, which was created to make recommendations on the substantive issues of the Charter Review Committee. As Chair, you have had direct access to the Collins Center and have met with them individually. You hold sway with them having been Chair of the Charter Commission and having worked with them on that. Three very strong Amherst Forward-aligned allies have joined you on this committee.

   Julian Hynes is a great Chair, but the committee is dominated by the Amherst Forward contingent. Julian is often a lone voice, despite huge community support for many of his positions. I hope he issues a minority report.

   CHURCHILL ASSERTION: 4) I’m proud of the work the Charter Commission did, nearly a decade ago. The voters elected a group divided between supporters of Town Meeting and supporters of something new. We did our work in a collegial fashion in which everyone was heard, and even those who didn’t vote for the final product saw some of their ideas in it. And the voters approved it with almost 60% support.

   FACT CHECK: As per the Charter Commission minority report, we see that the Commission “refused to consider improving the Town Meeting form of government” https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41989/Minority-Statement?bidId=

   NOTE: As former Chair of the Charter Commission, you should not be on a Charter Review Committee at all. Yes, the former Commission members should be consulted about why they decided what they did, but no former member should have a vote in reviewing the Charter. You are on the Charter Review Committee because Council President Lynn Griesemer appointed the committee that recommended you, on which she sits, she took over the task of all things Charter Review, she created the first draft of the charge and she recommended and got the requirement for a member of the Charter Commission to be on the Charter Review committee. And all of this has moved the review in support of the status quo. Griesemer’s husband, Bryan Harvey, was the chair of the 2002 Charter Commission, so she’s been at this for a while, much during her 30 years of working in UMass administration.

8. Darcy,
   You have misstated my position. I am not for “market-based solutions and unfettered development of student housing in the downtown, village centers, and neighborhoods” as the only means of development in town. My position is that we need diverse housing options for everyone. This includes seniors, people with disabilities, those with income restrictions, people wanting to downsize, first time home buyers, students, etc. It also includes diverse housing types. Row homes (town homes) without HOAs or the requirements that they be built as part of cluster communities, duplexes, triplexes, 4 pack apartments, 8 pack apartments, courtyard cottages, eco-neighborhoods, Community Land Trust homes, Co-housing, subsidized housing, and other options are all necessary to fill-in where we can and make the most of the limited buildable space we have in town. If a private land owner wants to build on their land, I support that. If the town owns land and wants to put together an RFP for a non-profit developer or a mix of private/public money to develop a site, I also support that. We need more housing in our town for everyone, including students. Any solution will need to include private developers and public/non-profit developers. One thing is for certain, there will be no relief from home prices or property taxes if we do not build new housing. I would love to speak with you directly to discuss this further, but I felt compelled to correct the divisive label that was put on me. In all of my statements, I make it clear that I support diverse housing options.

9. Darcy, you are right. I do try to assume good intentions. The alternative is to see conspiracies everywhere.

   We could go back and forth on your assertions and my corrections forever, but this will be my last attempt. I feel it’s important because people need to know that, however long it’s taken, the charter review process has been thoughtful and conscientious.

   Yes, I co-wrote a column back in February 2024 exploring what state law says about how a charter can be changed. And the Charter Review Committee’s scope from the Town Council was based on that state law, which says there are some changes that can be made by a simple Council vote, others that would require a Special Act of the legislature, and still others that would require a new, elected Charter Commission to be formed. For example, state law requires a new Charter Commission for any changes that relate to the size of the Council, the election process, or whether we have a Manager or a Mayor. That said, the Charter Review Committee went beyond the narrow scope given to us, as I said before, and I supported that.

   All ideas that have come in have been considered. We haven’t given greater weight based on the number of times we’ve heard them because we don’t have a scientific sample of the community, so whether a suggestion has been submitted once or 10 times doesn’t really represent the level of public support. If only one person submitted a good idea, we considered it. Also, I didn’t make the decision not to include the comments from the LWV survey. The Feedback Subcommittee reviewed them and determined that the overall findings of the LWV study covered them. Many were simply opinions about our form of government, not concrete suggestions; many others were blank.

   And “I” didn’t remove any suggestions during the Committee’s voting – the Committee did. Everyone reviewed the current charter and all the suggestions beforehand, then came to the voting process ready to cast their votes. We discussed votes that were close or confusing, and on several occasions I changed my mind.

   However, If anyone thinks we’ve missed a suggestion for improving things, we are just publishing our initial report, to get feedback on the work to date from the public. The Committee plans to receive and consider additional suggestions in this next phase.

   Regarding contact with our consultants, apart from initially reaching out to the Collins Center at the request of the Committee, I don’t believe I ever met with them individually. Julian as chair and Erika and I as subcommittee chairs were all invited to each meeting-planning session with them, and I believe at least two of us were at each meeting.

   Regarding the Charter Commission refusing to consider the Town Meeting form of government, you may recall that a majority of the Commission briefly supported a 60-person council, basically a smaller version of Town Meeting. https://amherstbulletin.com/2017/04/22/many-residents-express-concern-about-size-of-proposed-amherst-council-9366565/

   And finally, regarding your assertion that “no former member should have a vote in reviewing the Charter,” I’m not the only former Charter Commission member on the Committee. Meg Gage is too, yet I don’t hear any outrage about that. We have both tried to provide context on what went into the current Charter, which I believe has been helpful.

10. The glaring fact ignored by almost all is that of the 800+ new housing units built in the past decade, the vast majority of units were rented by students– unless the unit was legally kept affordable for low-income renters.With 9,000 students wanting to move into Amherst, the next 800 units will suffer the same fate–largely occupied by students. Single family homes built were extremely large and expensive–see Amherst Hills homes at over $800K. (The days of builders’ $400k spec houses are gone.) Cheaper single family houses (that aren’t so cheap anymore) continue to be bought up by investors that put them into LLCs. First time home buyers, retirees and working families are in a game of musical chairs, with fewer and fewer homes available each year. ADUs or granny flats, expensive to build and now without an owner occupancy requirement,won’t be housing granny. ADUs will be attractive to landlords renting to students who can pay the highest rents. It’s a fantasy to think that Amherst can build its way out of high rents, neighborhoods losing year-round residents and high housing prices. Someone show me a college town that has fixed any of these problems without some kind of restraint on where student housing is located, especially in a college town where 70% of residents are students. “Missing middle” housing is not being built and will not be built unless there is some exclusion of student housing and incentives (increased density, extra heights) are only given to developers building moderately priced housing.

    Amherst is giving away the town to the wealthiest property owners and outside investors (Harrison Street Asset Management with its 29,500 student beds) seeking the highest returns. It doesn’t have to be this way.

11. I’ve lived in Amherst for a decade. Right now, I rent a home on Kendrick Park with two roommates, both UMass PhD students. I work full-time as a city planner, and until this campaign, I was working weekends at a restaurant in Northampton. I’m exactly the kind of person this housing crisis affects, and the political labels don’t reflect my reality or that of most of my neighbors.

    The OpEd claims my opponents “support creating sustainable housing for year-round residents.” Let’s be honest about what that really means. My opponents are progressive in the sense that they welcome everyone into Amherst… so long as they’re a doctor, lawyer, or well-paid professional. Their version of “sustainability” seems designed to preserve only a certain income bracket.

    I fail to see how limiting the development of housing, the one thing we desperately need, helps people like me. I do see how it benefits existing homeowners who are untouched by rising rents and soaring home prices. I see how it protects the “character” of their neighborhoods. But it doesn’t help the young professional, the service worker, or the working family trying to live here.

    As more people are priced out of Massachusetts, we’re asking local leaders for help. Yet many of those leaders aren’t living the same struggles. They’re not interested in solving this problems, they’re only interested in making sure our problems don’t become their problems. When I hear calls to “protect neighborhoods” through zoning, it sounds like they want to use our Zoning Bylaw as a Homeowners Association agreement, where housing has to meet their design standards before it’s allowed.

    We have students in this town. We host the flagship campus of UMass. We could take a kind, pragmatic approach and welcome students, provide the types of housing we they need, house them in appropriate locations, and preserve housing for year-round residents. These aren’t conflicting goals. But they require building more housing, not blocking it.

    We need student housing, we haven’t built any in the last 10 years. Students don’t want studio apartments or 2-bedrooms, but that’s all we’ve been building, especially in the larger buildings. When I served on the Zoning Board of Appeals, I was empaneled for the Barry Roberts development on Fearing and Sunset. There were 2 proposed 4-bedroom apartments. Neighbors came out in force to oppose that level of density, despite it being across the street from a literal dormitory. The developer removed 1 of the 2 4-bedrooms, and still heard opposition to the one apartment that might be attractive to students, across the street from campus.

    We haven’t been building student housing, we’ve been building the “missing middle” and it’s being taken by students, because the demand is so high and the supply is so limited. I’m open to new ideas. If someone can explain how limiting housing supply makes housing more affordable, I’m all ears. So far, I’ve only heard arguments to preserve a status quo that works for a few.

    I want to preserve our residential neighborhoods, and do so in a way that supports students and the towns tax base. I want to do it in a manner that solves the core issue, rather than pushing it off on to the students, and washing me hands and saying “not my problem”

    Folks who own their homes and are not impacted by the increases in housing costs always want to take a “measured approach” There’s no sense of urgency, they worry about rent going up next year. My opponents have already secured their place in Amherst. Now they’re shutting the door behind them, only showing urgency now that housing pressures are reaching their own neighborhoods in the form of student renters next door. That isn’t progressive policy. It’s protectionism, and it’s hurting the rest of us.

    I hear this time and time again, that UMass should do more. Maybe they should, but that’s not a policy goal, and it’s not something the Amherst town council has any control over. But it is a very convenient point to make when the actual goal is to do nothing.

12. On the subject of increasing local tax revenues and the false belief that urbanization and more corporate dorms are the answer:

    COLLEGE PILOTS
    In 2024 the towns of Mansfield and Manchester Connecticut received PILOT payments of a total of $24 Million to offset their U Conn tax exempt properties. New London CT received $7 Million. The State of Connecticut (not U Conn) has a very credible financial aid program that reimburses towns for tax exempt colleges, hospitals and other NPOs. The current PILOT agreement with U Mass is $960,000 per year and it is about to expire. Is it being re-negotiated now? Town Councilors should be assigned to this negotiation along with some residents so the “Ask” is coming from taxpayers directly. And Amherst College recently agreed to a $1M contribution.

    CORPORATE DORMS
    How can we claim to be worried about the high cost of college and graduate education and then we create insanely expensive corporate dorms forcing hard working students and families to pay high rents? And if building dorms is this financially viable then why is U Mass not providing housing for its students and – and no…. I am not suggesting corporate dorms on campus – but asking a college to fairly and affordably house its own students. Is this too much to ask? Isn’t living on campus supposed to be a part of the diverse college experience? And not living in a crummy apartment miles from campus? What happened to our walkable community goals?

13. Andy,
    It is good to assume good intentions unless the evidence suggests otherwise.

    For you to assert that “the charter review process has been thoughtful and conscientious” is truly
    outrageous. I think you would have to try pretty hard for the process to have been less democratic and less transparent. Less manipulated. Less honest. It would be far more honest to simply admit the failings and problems.

    The fact you voted for including or excluding proposed amendments to the Charter at a retreat that was not recorded and for which there are no minutes, and where there is no indication of how you, a town council
    candidate, voted on those Charter changes, is a prime example.

    The fact that 10 or 50 or 100 people supported a Charter amendment is highly relevant even if it’s not
    a representative sample of the population. It was your idea, strongly and repeatedly argued, not to
    note which amendments were supported by a large number of commenters.

    You did not support separately considering the LWVA recommendations or noting them in your list of
    recommendations. Why would it not be of interest to hear from the one organization in Amherst
    whose mission is good government? You say a reason not to consider the 200 comments on the
    LWVA survey was because “many were simply opinions about our form of government”. If so, weren’t
    those comments within the scope of the committee’s review? Wouldn’t it be relevant to report how
    many of the LWVA respondents prefer the town meeting form of government?

    Did you compile the list of recommendations that was used for voting at the retreat? Did you include
    any of the rationales provided by the LWVA as proponents for their recommendations? Did you
    provide the list one business day before the voting was to happen? Yes, yes and yes.

    I think you would remember if you met with the Collins Center individually. And you did, in January.
    That was hard to confirm since there are no minutes posted at all of the Charter Review Committee
    meetings.

    I stand by my statement that there should be no former Charter Commission members on the Charter
    Review Committee. The authors of the Charter should not then be the reviewers of how it is doing.

    The fact that you wrote to the Town Council Governance committee to urge them NOT to appoint a
    member to fill the vacancy on the committee when doing so might reverse the balance on the
    committee was undemocratic and blatantly political.

14. Some of these candidates are truly progressive (in housing and beyond) and some advocate for the needs of only a subset of our residents (year-round residents and especially homeowners) in a way I consider not progressive at all.

15. You are all arguing about something that is already lost. UMASS is the elephant in the room and nothing can change that. UMASS increased it’s student population by at least 6000 students since 2005. I am a Sunderland resident we also feel these impacts but not as much as Amherst. Many older students choose to live in Sunderland homes and apartments As Darcy wrote, you have 13 to 15,000 full time residents and 20 to 25,000 students living on campus or off campus in Amherst. Numbers vary. The students have to live somewhere. Seems like you have an eternal issue.

16. Many other college towns have successfully implemented measures that Amherst leadership says would be ineffective or restraint of trade for student landlords. For example, student home licensing in State College, PA https://www.statecollegepa.us/218/Student-Home-License

    To try and control the imbalance is not to be anti-student. Amherst is now 69% students. What is “too much”? 80%? 90% Storrs?*

    * Storrs, CT age breakdown: <10 years =1%; 10-17 years = 2%; 18-24 years = 83% (https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/storrs-tolland-ct/)

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