There is an idea afoot to add an item to the 2025 Town Meeting Warrant. It would be a citizen’s petition proposing to disband the Affordable Housing Trust (AHT).
That sounds harsh. Besides, we New Englanders don’t like conflict. I get it, but maybe avoiding conflict has unintended consequences.
First, it is how we create and maintain the divide in America. One friend told me she and a close friend disagreed on national politics. They still got together socially but by agreement limited the subjects they discussed until there were none and they drifted apart. And the second unintended consequence? The problem is not addressed. So what do we do? What happens if, instead of leaving it at that, we discuss it? Maybe there is merit in both opposing positions. Maybe we can reach consensus and all the while we are addressing the problem. Let’s try.
Support the Affordable Housing Trust
That seems a praiseworthy position. Maybe we recognize the legitimacy of the problem. Maybe we want housing for all in Stockbridge. Maybe the name, Affordable Housing Trust was enough and so, at Town Meeting, we voted yes and established AHT.
We also recognize that to vote to disband it now would send the wrong signal. It could appear that Stockbridge no longer supports affordable housing.
That’s plain silly because we led the way – the first municipality in Berkshire County to reach the state goal and to exceed it.
Opposing AHT
On the other hand, if some want it disbanded, they must feel something is amiss – don’t we want to investigate that? Unanswered is the question: Is the Affordable Housing Trust, as presently constituted, the best way to accomplish affordable housing? Those who suggest the Warrant item believe it may not be the best way for Stockbridge to accomplish the goal because…
They believe too many folks voted to establish the Affordable Housing Trust without understanding exactly how it operates.
They want to redo the vote after voters are fully informed and understand how AHT operates. They believe the present make-up of the AHT is not the state-recommended model and not the most effective makeup.
They are concerned about oversight.
Turning Conflict into Conversation
Okay…
Let’s agree we want both affordable and workforce housing addressed.
Let’s agree that we want it to be addressed in the most effective way.
Let’s acknowledge there are many options to organize and many options for what town office, commission, board, or trust leads the way.
Now with respect and courtesy, let the discussion begin. Not at Town Meeting with a vote hanging in the balance, and the clock ticking, but in a series of open meetings with a focus on options and information.
A Hearty Round of Applause
The members of our AHT are smart and hard working. They are focused, contemplative, and sincerely committed. They deserve our thanks and appreciation for volunteering and working on our behalf.
It is recommended that the members of the AHT be experienced in housing and development. Our AHT members are not. Of the seven, only one has any experience in real estate development. It is recommended that Trust members be lawyers, developers, builders, and government workers who wrote the regulations, awarded the grants, and oversaw the affordable housing projects.
The quality of our Trust members is unimpeachable; the problem is to develop twenty years of knowledge and experience takes twenty years. If we agree there is no substitute for knowledge and experience then it is more practical for the Select Board to appoint lawyers, developers, builders and government overseers with twenty years of experience. Appointees, remember, can come from anywhere, they need not be Stockbridge residents. There may be other ways to fund housing, and we could benefit from considering them. There may be more effective ways than AHT asking CPC for hundreds of thousands of dollars in case of a “real estate emergency”
There may be more direct ways than asking CPC to give money to AHT so AHT can give it to Construct so Construct can award it to renters who cannot pay their rent. This is silliness without being funny.
These people have given their time and talent for two years and got folks mad but no other observable outcome. It is not what they want and not what we want. Let’s get in there – sit down together as friends and figure out the best most effective way forward. We have a common goal. Let’s not ignore the problem. Let’s not undo anything, but let’s leave the door open to reviewing everything.Carole Owens
Executive Editor
