Great Barrington’s May 6 annual Town Meeting Warrant seeks the town’s approval of a number of very reasonable requests with perhaps only one article subject to significant debate. And for the town’s May 14 election, none of the candidates are opposed. Nothing contemptible and nothing contestable — where is the fun in that? Can’t we all not get along just a little bit?
Of note is Article 24, which seeks approval for the town to transfer a minor strip of land (1,070 square feet) from the roadway at Elm Court to facilitate the construction of the W.E.B. Du Bois Center for Freedom and Democracy, formerly known as the Clinton Church Restoration. The center’s official name is nearly as long as the strip of land to be conveyed. The land, a sidewalk to nowhere, has neither value nor significance to the town but is the linchpin to the redesign and restoration of the historically significant property (on the National Register of Historic Places). The W.E.B. Du Bois Center for Freedom and Democracy will greatly enhance our community and the Berkshires. That is an easy trade to make. Here is a rendering of the Center for Freedom (the strip is the top right portion of the property):
Another easy “yes” is Article 23, General Electric’s effort to transfer the title of 149 acres in Housatonic to the town. Abutting the river, GE had considered the parcel as a potential PCB-disposal site, which prospective use quickly dissolved (unlike PCBs) with the Rest of River settlement. The parties to the mediated settlement agreed to place the disposal site in Lee, thereby making the parcel an excess asset. Bordered by railroad tracks on one side and the river on the other, it will take some creative thinking to optimize the site’s potential, but what to do with a free 149 acre parcel at a beautiful spot on the Housatonic is a fun problem to need to consider. The town should willingly vote to accept these acres as its own.
If there is going to be any serious debate at Town Meeting, it is likely to occur in connection with consideration of Article 13. This article requests the town approve an expenditure of $150,000 for the planning-and-design phase for improvements to the ramshackle Ramsdell Library. To proponents of the article, $150,000 is the modest downpayment required by the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioner for the town to be considered for a construction grant in the neighborhood of $3 million, or approximately 60 percent of the renovation costs. While it is hard to disagree with the renovation of this nearly 120-year-old Beaux Arts building listed on the National Register of Historic Places, there is a well reasoned opposing view.
Since at least 2019, the town has been wrestling with what to do with the library. The Article 13 proponents argue it is critically important for Housatonic residents to have local access to a library and hold the view that it is appropriate to invest in the renovation because Housatonic has been an underserved community. It has also been noted that the library is the last Housatonic public building suitable for community gatherings, and that if the building is not used as a library, its deed provides for the building to be returned to the Ramsdell family (it being unknown, however, if the Ramsdells would want to exercise their rights to a 120-year-old building in need of some serious care).
Opponents of Article 13 argue that the town has limited resources yet must resolve a lengthy list of critical needs. Given our challenging financial times, opponents posit the question whether it would be injudicious to expend our tax dollars to renovate one library and then continue to operate two in a town with fewer than 7,000 residents. They have asked, and will undoubtedly ask again at Town Meeting, how many libraries is too many libraries when there are so many other pressing needs?
No triteness intended when I say that there are good arguments and good people on both sides. The proponents will be heard to stress that the town should not leave perhaps $3 million in library renovation funding on the table, while the opponents will stress that that the $2 million that must come from the town is just a downpayment on the ongoing costs to maintain a renovated second library.
If I maintained a list of needs vs. wants to determine how the town should direct its tax dollars, a second library would not make the “needs” side of the ledger. My personal list of town “needs” is long, including housing, housing, housing, more housing, Housatonic Water Works, high school replacement, youth programs, retaining and attracting good teachers (and principals!), bridges, roads … you get the idea. Fixing the library with Great Barrington tax dollars when we already have an exceptionally good one doesn’t make the cut, but improving Housatonic absolutely makes the list.
The W.E.B. Du Bois sculpture in front of the Mason Public Library is being funded entirely by donations. My opinion regarding improvement of the Ramsdell Library would shift favorably if the town’s $2 million contribution is made up solely of private funds. Partial private funding for this public good makes sense, as would provision of $150,000 in seed money as long as the remaining funds are private. And let’s also consider other ways to improve Housatonic with public funds (perhaps incorporating its newly acquired 149 acre parcel in the plans) without considering renovation of the Ramsdell Library as the only option.
The town should approve Article 18, which provides, among other things, a definition for “coliving residential development.” The proposed modern definition of “coliving residential development” does not currently exist in the town’s Zoning Bylaws but should. “Coliving” is not, as I assumed, synonymous with “congregant”; rather, “co-living” is the housing equivalent of a WeWork “co-working” office space with necessary tweaks. “Co-living” developments typically have shared spaces (e.g., kitchens, living rooms, backyard); flexible-term living arrangements; shared amenities (e.g., cleaning services, internet); and cost efficiencies for utilities and perhaps groceries. Co-living developments seek to create a community as part of the shared living experience, which is not necessarily part of a congregant house. Expanding our Zoning Bylaws to permit for “col-iving residential developments” expands our town’s opportunity to provide another form of housing. Have I mentioned that the town needs more housing?
The Town Meeting Warrant presents two citizen’s petitions, each fairly innocuous and due approval. Article 26 asks the town to require the Great Barrington Police Department to follow best practices in the (hopefully unlikely) event that someone files a police report regarding library books and the like. A bit of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted here, but hard to argue with mandating best practices, following the law, and using common sense.
Article 27 seeks to rezone two parcels, at 33 Silver Street and 35 Silver Street, to permit a multiunit dwelling across the street from the 66-unit Beech Tree Apartments. Looking at the Zoning Map, it is odd that these parcels and the Beech Tree Apartments are not similarly zoned. In any event, the Silver Street properties are perfectly situated for a multiunit dwelling—residents can walk to the markets and downtown. The owners of these parcels are requesting the properties be rezoned Mixed Use Transitional (MXD), which permits a mix of both residential and retail use. However, because the owners are only seeking a residential use, they have committed to record deed restrictions prohibiting commercial uses. Article 27 makes sense for the town and properties’ neighbors by permitting additional housing without adding commercial activities in a residential neighborhood. Article 27 is worth your vote.
Looking forward to seeing all of you on Monday night. We should be meeting on a Saturday morning, of course (according to a very scientific recent Survey Monkey internet poll, 81.82 percent of you think so), but we can have that debate another day.
Survey Monkey Question
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: Should the town make a $150,000 downpayment on plans to improve the Ramsdell Library in order to access a $3 million grant from the state with a requirement that the town spend an additional $2 million of its own?
Survey Monkey Results
In a recent column, I asked, “Should Section 20 of the Comprehensive Permit Act be amended to utilize assessor’s data to calculate ten percent of all dwellings in a city or town rather than solely primary dwellings?” As of publication, 86.96 percent of respondents said “yes.”
Correction: Originally, this piece ran with this sentence “However, because the owners are only seeking a residential use, they have committed to record deed restrictions prohibiting non-commercial uses.” It was the intent of the author to write “Committed to record deed restrictions prohibiting commercial uses.”
