Opinion: Amherst Housing Watch: Who’s Who in This Election

Downtown Amherst is at a crossroads. Residents just pushed petitions for a 1-year moratorium on new multi-unit buildings downtown basically saying, “UMass, house your 5,000 extra students on campus first, and stop investors from snapping up our family homes.”

Here’s the vibe from councilors:

• The Protectors : They talk families, long-term residents, and community schools. If you care about keeping Amherst livable for year-round residents, these are the voices to watch.
  
• The Procedurals : Neutral, calm, referring petitions to boards and committees. They’re less about taking sides and more about “rules first.” Good if you value process, but not bold moves.
  
• The Developers’ Friends? : Support downtown growth and new builds, less worried about investor LLCs. They see the market as the answer, not petitions.

💡 Quick Take: Amherst’s housing future is a tug-of-war between families, students, and investors. Watch who frames the conversation as community-first vs. market-first your key to knowing which councilors have your neighborhood in mind.

#AmherstMA #LocalElections #HousingCrisis #CollegeTownPolitics #UMass

It’s late October in Amherst, and on social media feeds and in the coffee shops, the topic everyone’s talking about is housing—specifically, who gets to live downtown, and under what rules.

A couple of petitions are making waves—Articles 18 and 19—calling for a one-year moratorium on new multi-unit residential builds downtown. The reasoning? The town wants to make sure UMass Amherst actually houses its 5,000 extra students on campus before developers flood the downtown with yet another apartment building. Layered on top is language aimed at LLC investors snapping up single- and two-family homes, making it nearly impossible for families who actually want to raise kids in Amherst to find a place.

Councilors are reacting in ways that tell you more than their statements alone. Take Jennifer Taub, who frames it almost like a moral mission: protecting the long-term family presence, not shunning students. Her priority is the non-student population, which is steadily shrinking. Other councilors, meanwhile, have kept things procedural: the petitions got referred to the Planning Board, rather than being adopted outright—votes split between “yes,” “no,” and “abstain.” The message? Careful, slow governance, but with a recognition that residents are watching—and they’re serious.

If you’ve ever checked out Princeton University, Amherst’s struggles might feel familiar but milder. There, off-campus rents hit $2,500 a month for a one-bedroom. Investors, often organized as LLCs, dominate the listings, leaving students—and anyone else—scrambling. Amherst hasn’t hit that extreme yet, but the dynamic is eerily similar: investor-owned homes pushing out local residents, students being shuffled into a tight rental market, and the town trying to wrest some control back through zoning and petitions. It’s a cautionary mirror.

It’s hard not to read between the lines during the election cycle. Some councilors are protective of year-round residents, signaling a willingness to challenge developers. Others lean procedural, almost neutral, letting committees and boards run the clock. And a few seem almost implicitly pro-development, nudging the town toward whatever the market dictates. Your takeaway: pay attention to who frames the debate around families vs. students, LLCs vs. community, and long-term strategy vs. procedural caution.

Downtown Amherst is more than streets and storefronts—it’s a tug-of-war between short-term profit, long-term community, and who really counts as a resident.

Rizwana Khan is a resident of Amherst and a member of the town’s Human Rights Commission