Letter: Is Amherst Destined to Become an Extension of the UMass Campus?
Photo: Public Domain Picures. Public Domain
The following letter was sent to the Planning Board, Planning Department and Amherst Town Council on February 3, 2025.
I’m writing because I care deeply about Amherst remaining a livable town for year‑round residents as well as students.
Our housing decisions are increasingly driven by a large, transient student population, while a much smaller year‑round population carries the long‑term costs. Investor‑owned student rentals are steadily replacing homes for families and workers, hollowing out neighborhoods and driving up prices. At the same time, five‑story private student buildings downtown add risk: if demand changes, Amherst could be left with empty or underused buildings that never truly served non‑student residents in the first place.
As you consider implementation steps, I urge you to look closely at the recent Dodson & Flinker work on the future of downtown. While that process was civil and interactive, the group was dominated by UMass and development interests, and underrepresented year‑round residents who are worried about overbuilding and the erosion of a year‑round economy. The minority views in that workgroup reflect a strong, town‑wide concern about overdevelopment and should be taken as seriously as the majority vision.
As you refine the Housing Production Plan and Zoning Priorities List, I urge you to make three things central. First, set an explicit goal to shift more student housing onto the UMass campus through clear targets and timelines. Every on‑campus bed reduces speculative pressure on our neighborhoods. Second, protect and rebuild year‑round neighborhoods by discouraging the conversion of single‑ and two‑family homes into high‑rent student houses and by improving oversight of rentals. Third, right‑size density with strong design standards, so new development actually advances mixed‑income, year‑round housing rather than just more luxury student units.
This is not anti‑student or anti‑growth. It is about balance and long‑term stewardship. Please align the Housing Production Plan and zoning priorities with that balance, so Amherst can remain a real town, not just an off‑campus housing market.
Ira Bryck
Ira Bryck has lived in Amherst since 1993, ran the Family Business Center for 25 years, hosted the “Western Mass. Business Show” on WHMP for seven years, now coaches business leaders, and is a big fan of Amherst’s downtown.
Ira,
I’m so thankful to you for keeping up the drumbeat. Last night, during public comment at the Town Council meeting, a young UMass student representing UMass Sunrise made a strong appeal, asking the town to urge UMass to create more housing for students on the UMass campus – for the benefit of students and for the long term health of the town.
There is a saying that one be careful what one asks for because one might actually get it.
Amherst got what it’s asking for 35-37 years ago, when a combination of Michael Dukakis’s budget mess, changing demographics, and a recession dramatically decreased UMass enrollment. Amherst wound up with the mess that Brittany Manor became and variety of other problems caused by a shortage of UMass students renting apartments.
In 1991, UMass almost required all juniors to live on campus, much as freshman and sophomores were required to do. Had that happened, had there not been federal funding to resettle Cambodian refugees at the time, Brittany Manor would not have been the only complex essentially abandoned by its owner.
Reality is that middle class families are going to buy houses in Belchertown because their mortgage there is less than they pay for rent in Amherst. You can vacate all of the student occupied housing in town, you’re not gonna see the traditional mother, father, child families moving in — not unless rents dropped below sustainability. Not when a two income family can do so much better buying in Belchertown, Holyoke, Deerfield, etc.
And if the rents were to drop to the point where living in Amherst became attractive again, the people owning the units would go bankrupt as their finances are based on the exorbitant rents they can charge students.
And remember that it’s this fall, fall 2026, that the babies not born in 2008 won’t be going to college. And what do people think is going to happen to the existing student housing when there aren’t students to rent it to???
While listening briefly to the Planning Board meeting of Jan. 21, it appears they have voted to NOT deal with student rental housing one way or another. One of the members wanted to have discussion about distance between rentals but apparently not happening. If I have this wrong please forgive me.
Is anyone listening to Ira Bryck who makes a lot of sense?
I’ve heard these arguments a lot, from the same 10-15 people. This NIMBY narrative is being pushed by a very few people in town. They say “we aren’t anti-student” while continually blaming students and the existence of UMASS and, to a lesser degree, Amherst College for all of our housing problems.
Most residents understand that our economy is based on property taxes. Every housing unit that is build in town helps our economy, while every “on-campus bed” has a large negative effect on our economy through the use of resources without contributing to their costs.
I have a number of important questions for Ira, and the other NIMBYs who wish to prevent development of all types of housing in our town.
What is your opinion of “right size density”?
What is the “year-round economy”?
62% of the towns population works in “Educational Services” according to the Housing Production Plan (Table 2.15 – page 54 of the PDF – Source: Massachusetts Department of Economic Research,”Employment and Wages (ES-202),” 2023)
I would say it is education and taxes. The source for our towns income is taxes, and property taxes make up roughly 70% of the FY26 total. The source of the money to pay the property taxes is largely education. Denying that this is a college town whose economy is solely based on the existence of the colleges is ridiculous.
Does the planning board/town have the power and authority to force UMASS to build housing (or anything else) on its campus?
What goals, targets, and timelines would you propose?
What does it mean to be a “livable” town for students and non-students? Affordability? How will we ever achieve real affordability if we don’t build more diverse housing for everyone (not just apartments that are attractive to students)?
What change in demand will leave apartment buildings empty? And, if they are empty won’t they still pay property taxes? And, won’t that mean the rent will be reduced to meet the market?
Will people ever cease to want to live in Amherst?
Will has there been a mass exodus of families, young professionals, and other non-student populations?
If every student moves out of every single family home, how will that help the economy?
If the concern is really the non-student population bearing the costs, then the cost structure needs to change, not denying the reality that we are a college town that hasn’t built any real amount of housing in the last 30+ years.
Lastly, Ira’s opinion of the Downtown Design Summit is very misleading. It was almost entirely non-student attendees. At the sessions I attended there were only two people there with children, myself being one of them. There were only two grad students there, who were both begging for more affordable off-campus housing, as well as a grocery store or market in town. The rest of the attendees were either retired, or close to retirement. Portraying this event as being “dominated by UMASS and development interests” is flat out false.
Q: I’ve heard these arguments a lot, from the same 10-15 people.
A: over 1,000 people signed the petition calling for a moratorium on building student housing downtown. That’s hardly a handful of vocal malcontents.
Q: What is your opinion of “right size density”?
A: It would be great to study the limits of growth of a town like Amherst. Our water supply struggles to put out fires in off campus housing, we have loosened regulations on building on wetlands (University Drive and other), numerous houses are overpacked and overpriced and under maintained. I think right sized density is lower than the undefined “densification” thrown around in our dated master plan.
Q: What is the “year-round economy”?
A: A town whose stores and restaurants aren’t starved when colleges are on break for 4 months of the year. Where we are not closing elementary schools and have the tiniest senior center around. And more.
Q: Does the planning board/town have the power and authority to force UMASS to build housing (or anything else) on its campus?
A: The town government has the right to have a robust conversation with UMass, to reduce the conflict of interest between town planners and UMass planners (aka same people), and insist on a PILOT payment that is in line with many other universities of its size and stature.
Q: What goals, targets, and timelines would you propose?
A: read the minority report of the upcoming Dodson & Flinker report
Q: What does it mean to be a “livable” town for students and non-students? Affordability? How will we ever achieve real affordability if we don’t build more diverse housing for everyone (not just apartments that are attractive to students)?
A: We could create models of what we want built, real mixed use, not 5 stories with an empty space below; and attract developers to build them. We could redesign the neighborhoods that even the planning board calls student slums, and build communities of tiny houses. We could disallow bylaws that now allow a dozen people and a dozen cars on a half acre in a neighborhood of smaller homes and plots. There’s a ton of excellent ideas that have been presented over the years in the Amherst Indy, and by the 1000 people who signed a petition for a moratorium.
Q: What change in demand will leave apartment buildings empty? And, if they are empty won’t they still pay property taxes? And, won’t that mean the rent will be reduced to meet the market?
A: for instance, this year is 18 years after the 2008 plummeting birth rate, due to recession. This is what UMass Marty Meehan refers to as the “demographic cliff.” Yes, those owners of empty apartments will still have to pay property taxes (what’s your point?) Yes, reduced demand will require reduced prices. I’d consider that a fail to plan/ plan to fail.
Q: Will people ever cease to want to live in Amherst?
A: except for the possible plummeting of student enrollment (for many factors), students will prefer to live close; and families will decide to live elsewhere. My wife and I plan on aging in place (in our house that had 21 college students in it, 2 owners ago) but could have a hard time selling it to the next family, if they are priced out by the call centers that ask to buy my house a couple of times a month (and hang up when I ask probing questions like “who is this?”)
Q: Has there been a mass exodus of families, young professionals, and other non-student populations?
A: yes, there has been – if you have Amherst friends, you may notice many don’t live here anymore, or don’t want to
Q: If every student moves out of every single family home, how will that help the economy?
A: that is nobody’s wish or expectation
Q: If the concern is really the non-student population bearing the costs, then the cost structure needs to change, not denying the reality that we are a college town that hasn’t built any real amount of housing in the last 30+ years.
A: if you mean that student housing (2nd largest industry in town) was taxed as a business, instead of a residence, it might help the situation a lot, we agree; also, we’ve built quite bit of housing in the last 30 years – and meeting our town’s obligation to meet affordability quotas better than any surrounding town
Q: Lastly, Ira’s opinion of the Downtown Design Summit is very misleading. It was almost entirely non-student attendees. At the sessions I attended there were only two people there with children, myself being one of them. There were only two grad students there, who were both begging for more affordable off-campus housing, as well as a grocery store or market in town. The rest of the attendees were either retired, or close to retirement. Portraying this event as being “dominated by UMASS and development interests” is flat out false.
A: your claim that my claim is misleading or false is misleading and false. The vast majority of regular attendees (I attended every meeting) were UMass employees, developers, and their people, and Chamber and Bid leadership. Of the 15-20 average attendances, there were 3-4 people who you deride as NIMBY’s – how about less name calling?
PS: see the following quote from the Indy article “State Reps Seek to Equalize Aid to Western Mass, Prioritizing Education, Health, and Climate.”
https://www.amherstindy.org/2026/02/05/state-reps-seek-to-equalize-aid-to-western-mass-prioritizing-education-health-and-climate/
“In a public comment, UMass student Daniel Shapiro, a representative of the Sunrise Movement, an activist and advocacy movement for social and environmental justice, spoke in favor of urging UMass to create more housing for students on campus to remove pressure on the local housing market. He said that UMass has plans to use public-private partnerships to renovate dorms and construct new housing, such as the Fieldstone Apartments on Massachusetts Avenue. Those apartments, he said, cost $1,630 per month, $46 a month more than last year. He concluded, “We are hoping as a movement to get the town to put pressure on our school, because it would give us a further mandate to make sure that our school actually pulls its weight in this community.””
To Jason Dorney, we are not a “vocal minority” of 10-15 people. We are the majority. In 2021, ten residents brought a petition for a zoning amendment putting a temporary moratorium on downtown building until the town completed its zoning reform. More than 1000 people signed the petition. Here are the certified signatures for that petition, which was expanded with an online petition.
https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/56881/8f-PETITION-Zoning-Article-16—Temporary-Moratorium-for-180-days—-Certified-Signature-Pages.
There was overwhelming support for pausing what was being done to create student dorms in the downtown.
At the same time (May 19, 2021), there was a petition opposing the temporary moratorium, brought by the Amherst Chamber of Commerce, which garnered all of 38 signatures, including the usual names we have learned to expect from the developer/Amherst Forward side of things.
I think it’s pretty clear that the small minority in this situation is the moneyed elite in Amherst, representing developer and UMass interests over those of year-round residents . To counter their outsized influence we need very loud voices. I learned during that process that this is one of the few issues that a large majority of residents agree on.
And to your charge of NIMBY ism, it isn’t applicable in a college town. The worry is not home value. It’s fear of major displacement of year-round residents by students, reducing the family character of the neighborhoods and eliminating the vibrancy of our downtown.
NIMBY ?
That is a ridiculous characterization of the people you refer to .
Here in South Sunderland, we directly feel the growth of UMASS. Old homes turned into student housing. New homes built directly for student rentals. A 31 acre recently developed apartment complex. Add in, the proposed North Amherst Beacon apartment complex. Plus, the increased car traffic on Route 116. The sadness of the wildlife killed crossing Route 116. Bottom line: UMASS added 6,000 students since 2005.
The mixed use buildings in downtown Amherst keeps the population within an urban area and reduces sprawl. That is what my experienced urban planner brother in law tells me. For what it is worth.
This comment applies to this discussion plus to the Zoning changes for growth article. 54 years ago, experts at MIT did a study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth Four years ago there was a revisit to it, and the trends are close to the original projections. Humanity *doubled* during the half century, and fossil fuel usage and technologies augmented the deleterious impacts of that growth. Yet politicians and businesses still want more growth…of population, of energy-matter throughput, of profits…without grasping that there are negative impacts to that.
Bryck covers a lot above. Add to that the unseen (by most) deterioration of biodiversity (pollinators and birds are examples), waste sinks, aquifer regeneration, air quality due to increases in vehicles and heating, peace and quiet due to construction, repairs, maintenance, landscaping…
Anthropocentrism is part of all this, but we rely upon nature for our lives. Whole system analysis results in the self-destructiveness of the growth god.
Right now, the housing that is being built is market rate, and right now the market dictates that the extremely high rent for those apartments is what the market is willing to bear. This housing can easily be for anyone who can afford it. If there were to be more housing built, those rents would not be as high. Moratoriums, additional studies, more community input, and a general desire to prevent these projects, and seemingly any new housing projects, are the reason why the market rates are so high.
There has not been enough housing built in the last 30+ years to keep up with demand. If there was, there would not be a housing crisis in town (or throughout the state and nation). There would not be sky high rents and home prices. This is a fact. In the HPP reference Figure 2.16 – it shows that in the last 30 years only 1,932 (10,748 units – 8,816 units) units have been built. In that same time the population increased by 4,035. This is a recipe for a housing crisis.
I’ve come to realize that a big problem we face is a lack of clear communication. When I advocate for more housing, it appears that people only hear, “we must build more large apartment complexes”. That is not what I advocate for. We need to create an environment, through zoning and planning reform, to allow for all types of housing to be built. We need row homes that can be built at scale to keep costs down so they can be true starter homes. We need duplexes, triplexes, quads, six-packs, cottage court apartments, senior living, subsidized units, mixed use, and yes, even large apartment buildings. We need to allow all these types of homes to be built.
Our towns economy is education and taxes. UMASS, and Amherst College, to a lesser extent, are the economic drivers of the town. There are plenty of examples of small western New England towns, that do not have colleges or universities, struggling to keep their schools open, maintain their infrastructure or provide basic government services.
There are no factories here, there is no business park full of corporate offices, there are no manufacturers here. Why would there be? It is prohibitively expensive to do anything like that here, plus the location doesn’t make sense for shipping. We are surrounded by towns that have much more favorable locations and costs for businesses like this. I’ve heard arguments that there are billion-dollar labs on the UMASS campus and we don’t get anything from them. What could we get from them? What can we tax? How would they contribute to our economic position in ways that they are not already contributing?
We are combining two schools because we have buildings that are falling apart because they have not been maintained, as well as declining enrollment, due to several factors. One of those factors being a reduction in funding from the town, because of a lack of revenue (property taxes). A second being the reduction in affordable family houses, because they haven’t been built to keep up with demand. The mass exodus I’ve seen has been students leaving our local schools. The families still live in town, but they send their kids to charter schools, or choice-in to schools in surrounding towns. This has a massive effect on our schools’ budgets because we must send the money with the student. I know far more people who want to move into Amherst than want to leave. They can’t because they can’t find affordable housing because nothing new has been built, and nothing new is proposed to be built. The folks I know that have left did so reluctantly, and only after trying to find a place to live in town for several years.
A senior center has nothing to do with the economy of the town. That is just a want. The fact that it is “the tiniest senior center around” means nothing.
The only way for us to have a more robust “year-round economy” is to get more people living in the town. More families sending their kids to our schools, more people visiting those restaurants all year long, more property taxes to provide revenue for infrastructure maintenance, to maintain our wonderful trails and open spaces. That requires building much more housing. Having a bunch of businesses downtown, or in a business park, won’t support radical change in our revenues because they will only be paying residential property rates. So why would we not build what we actually need, which is more housing, of all types.
Regarding the reduction of wetland by-laws, that is not true at all. I’m on the Conservation Commission and we are in no way loosening regulations. There are many examples of the Conservation Commission upholding the by-laws and not allowing development that negatively impacts resource areas. What project are you specifically referring to?
So many people sit around and attack the symptoms instead of the problem. Students aren’t the problem. Predatory landlords aren’t even the real problem. The problem is that there has not been enough housing built in this town for the last 30+ years. A rare commodity demands a high price. Ignoring that fact and wish casting is only going to lead to more fiscal problems and a worsening housing market. If you think things are bad now, wait and see how they are after five more years of not allowing for more homes, of all types, to be built.
The 2024 Housing Production Plan states that there are approximately 5,200 single-family homes in Amherst, with about 680 of them used as rental properties. Of these rentals, 137 are owned by LLC real estate investors, often used for student housing. So we know that somewhere between 137 and 680 families have been displaced by student housing. If we protected residential neighborhoods at least from single family homes turning into student housing and turned those that now exist back into family rentals, that would be a lot of lower priced housing opening up. One of the zoning bylaws recently put forward included a provision to define student housing and to limit it to the primary arterial roads in Amherst. That would discourage LLCs and others from purchasing our single family housing stock as student housing.
Darcy,
To say that because 137 single-family homes have are owned by LLCs means that there may be up to 680 families displaced is a stretch. There are many homes that are owned by investors that are rented by families. Even if the 680 number were all student houses, that is only 13% of the total. These kinds of numbers just reinforce the need to build housing for students as well as families.
Are you advocating for removing every student from every single-family home?
Are you advocating for seizing the properties owned by LLCs and forcing them to sell to families?
I understand that there is a desire to define a “student house” but all that says to me is that there is a desire to discriminate against students. The zoning by-laws were incredibly flawed and had no basis in reality.
The only thing that will provide any relief from our housing issues is building more housing, of all types, for all sorts of people, students included.
If you want more families to live in these homes we need to make it easier for people to build the types of housing that is attractive to students. We also need to allow for people to build the types of housing that is needed by families.