Letter: Not NIMBY, It's Common Sense

Letter to the Editor02:00PM / Thursday, June 09, 2022Print Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

Here in Williamstown those of us opposed to the former Planning Board's complex and radical zoning changes – because they were dumped on us with no time for review their impacts on our neighborhoods, no supporting documents, and while our Comprehensive Plan is still in the works – are already hearing whispers of NIMBY-ism ahead of our June 14 town meeting. So, I address the whisperers.

NIMBY, or "Not In My Backyard," is credited to Lois Gibbs of Niagara Falls, N.Y. It was her rallying cry for neighbors to oppose Hooker Chemical's dumping of toxic waste in nearby Love Canal. Gibbs declared that "people fighting for their own back yard is what democracy is about."

Of course, developers and industry interests cleverly reversed her meaning for their own financial interests, accusing Gibbs of opposing growth and – incredibly – the selfish preservation of home values. Today, accusations of racism and exclusionary zoning have been added to the list.

But here in Williamstown, those opposing the radical zoning changes are not racists, nor do we want exclusionary zoning. We simply ask our fellow residents to wait a year until our $180,000 Comprehensive Town Plan is complete before approving radical changes. Shouldn't zoning implement our Comprehensive Plan, not the other way around?

Soaring real estate prices are a national problem, but that is not to say Williamstown shouldn't try to lower housing costs while also embracing the principles of smart growth and inclusion. Most of the former Planning Board's radical changes, however, are unlikely to accomplish either. They offer no backup studies, no reports from other towns that tried something similar, no information on the impact on our schools, our property taxes, or most critically, housing affordability.

So, I encourage people to turn out on June 14 to turn down these radical zoning amendments to allow our Comprehensive Planning Team and our new Planning Board to do the hard work of developing zoning that has a chance of bringing housing costs down and increasing diversity in Williamstown. It's not NIMBY; it's just common sense.

Lee Harrison
Williamstown, Mass.

Tags: zoning,

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Now's the time...

to harvest value from your home. Click for more details about a HELOC. Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

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 Editor02:05PM / Wednesday, September 30, 2026

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