If only residents and businesses were given a level playing fieldDate: 5/15/2015 I know what it’s like to come before a city council and try to stop something that I think will negatively impact a neighborhood.
In the 1990s I was president of the Maple High Six Corners Neighborhood Council for five years and I, along with my fellow board members, appeared several times to speak against special permits or zoning changes.
At the time we had more than our fair share of auto-related businesses that posed problems in our working class urban neighborhood.
If I remember correctly, we never won. There were several instances in which councilors suggested we should reach a compromise, but in these cases the issue could only be resolved with a “yes” or “no” answer.
And for the businesses it was always a “yes.”
The only time I can recall when the neighborhood came out on top was a fight against a liquor license at a proposed restaurant and the late Michael Rodgers, who was serving on the Board of License Commissioners, came up with a way to make the issue go away. I always appreciated his efforts.
Through my own experiences, I felt for the efforts made by neighbors near a business in Chicopee that was seeking a zone change in order to build a new building to improve the business.
Perhaps I’m cynical, but most of the time when a business seeks something from a body such as a city council they will get what they want. In this recent case, the Planning Board in Chicopee had approved the zone change, so the question wasn’t about legality of use. It was whose priorities were more important and, as usual, the business’s plans were deemed more vital to the city than the peace of mind of homeowners.
Now I know my observations may not be viewed well by members of the Chicopee City Council. I have no doubt in my mind that a number of them truly thought long and hard about this issue and that voting against a well-organized neighborhood group did cause them legitimate concern.
The bottom line, though, it was deemed better for the affairs of the city to help out this business than to address the concerns of the residents.
Behind it are several harsh political truths. Businesses pay a high tax rate in most cities therefore they have more clout. Many businesses are linked commercially with other businesses and the fear is something that affects one will make an impact on others.
There is far less concern of residents moving away from their homes than a business electing to leave because it did not get its way. Let’s say that 10 residents decided to sell their homes and move because of this decision do you honestly think anyone would worry? The assumption is there would be 10 new owners who would move in.
And here is the harshest reality of them all in a case such as this one: the likelihood of their vote negatively affecting them at the next election is slender. It takes a hugely unpopular decision – matched with some grassroots political efforts – to get voters to remember and be motivated.
In this case the business owner and his representative stressed at several meetings that this new building would actually address current quality of life issues brought up by the neighbors. Let’s hope this is true.
Let’s also hope that if for some reason it isn’t, the councilors would work to seek a correction of the situation.
I’m not anti-business at all. I just want to see government more effectively balance the needs of residents with the requirements of business.
Agree? Disagree? Drop me a line at news@thereminder.com or at 280 N. Main St., East Longmeadow, MA 01028. As always, this column represents the opinion of its author and not the publishers or advertisers of this newspaper.
|
