Letter: Williamstown Planning Board Proposals

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

Has the elected Williamstown Planning Board amassed ANY data before making its radical town meeting proposals?

The architect behind the 1/3 reduction in lot frontage appears to be Chris Winters who is running for re-election to a five-year term. Much damage can be done in five years. What is the source for this reduced frontage plan? A yes vote will create "Williamstown Lite."

If these scary Planning Board proposals pass, they will be with us forever, before the town's new Master Plan is completed and paid for.

Since the Planning Board has no clue whether these proposals will create any affordable housing, the town meeting vote should not use the governor's new majority vote rule for passage and all articles should require a two-thirds vote. It will, however, take a two-thirds vote to repeal them.

Town meeting has long been broken and the Planning Board proposals should be on the ballot at the annual town election. Few citizens attend town meeting compared to annual election voters.


How will these proposals affect property values, assessments, and taxes? It could be weeks, months, or years before anyone knows.

Let's look at an ideal 20-home street in the GR zone. Currently, each has exactly 100 feet of frontage. The two registered voters in the household feel confident that Williamstown Lite will not apply to their street and they vote yes at the town meeting. No new lots will be created. However, more than frontage dimensions were reduced. A neighbor builds an enclosed porch in front of their house which extends to 20 feet from the street. Now, it becomes more difficult to see oncoming traffic when pulling of the driveway. Roads have speeders, blind hills, and curves. Another neighbor builds a two-story garage 10 feet away which enables them to see into our bedroom windows, and it blocks the morning sun that used to wash our windows. Dang! Then, two adjacent houses get sold and a developer razes them and builds three houses all of which are within the new, reduced 10-foot side lot requirements. We turn off our Wi-Fi when not in use; neighbor runs theirs 24/7. Maybe we should have voted against Williamstown Lite. We thought we were immune from any reduction in our quality of life.

Do people who work in Williamstown really want to live in Williamstown? Why? To pay higher taxes and get less housing value?

On Route 2 at 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. watch many Williamstown residents drive daily to North Adams, and many North Adams residents drive to Williamstown to work. Then conduct the following survey of Williams College, Williamstown town employees, and Mount Greylock school district employees: compile a listing of residential ZIP codes of all the employees of each of these three entities. An awakening?

Key U.S. census figures for Williamstown for 2020 and 2010 respectively? Median household income (2015-19) is $83,911. (Mean is higher). Population is 7,513 and was 7,754. Time travelled to work = 15.2 minutes.

Ken Swiatek
Williamstown, Mass.

 

 

 

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Letter: Vote No on 'Jungle' Primaries

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

They don't call them "jungle primaries" for nothing.

Question 3 on the November ballot would trash two-party primary elections and replace them with California-style, chaotic — and extraordinarily costly — "jungle" primaries that would destroy the very political parties that have kept America stable since Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison created them in the 1790s.

Jungle primaries put all candidates, regardless of party, on one ballot with the top two vote-getters facing off in the general election — even if they're from the same party. That would create chaos, but the real issue is money: Jungle primaries give a distinct advantage to candidates backed by corporate money and the super wealthy. In short, jungle primaries move our primaries from the ballot box to big donor meetings long before campaigning even begins.

When something this radical is proposed, you have to look at who's behind it, who's funding it, and ask "why" they are doing it.

Their philosophical guru is Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor who ran for governor in 2022 but couldn't get 15 percent of the Democratic Convention vote to win the party's endorsement.

The money behind this extreme attack on small "d" democratic politics tells us more. With over $5 million in the bank as of Aug. 28, this is a very well-funded campaign — the lion's share of which came from wealthy Boston-area private equity individuals.

Twenty-two private equity executives gave $3.99 million, or 77 percent of all the money from individuals. Current and former Bain Capital executives contributed $1.92 million, and Berkshire Partners executives put up $1.32 million. In short, 22 rich people put up nearly $4 million to change how five million of us vote. Yes, it seems the ultra-wealthy want to destroy the two-party system that has kept our politics stable for 200 years.

View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories