Friday, November 20, 2009 • 12:00 AM Comments (7)

Council votes on Green Street Cafe-Smith College impasse

Among the robust commentary offered on issues before the City Council ranging from a Living Wage Resolution to the city's impending purchase of a portion of the Bean Farm property in Florence, numerous city residents spoke during the public comment portion of yesterday's City Council meeting regarding the lingering dispute between Smith College and the Green Street Cafe (full disclosure-including this blogger). Cafe co-owner John Sielski addressed the public body asking for help and for the most part speakers implored the Council to attempt to mediate the situation between the two parties. The speakers included neighborhood and city residents and a Smith College Science and Engineering student who takes classes in Ford Hall.

Later in the meeting, literally at about the eleventh hour, Northampton's City Council voted 5-2 to approve an unexpected motion concerning the impasse between Smith College and the Green Street Cafe. The Council took two readings on the request put forth by outgoing Councilor At-Large Michael Bardsely which asks the city's Community and Economic Development Director Teri Anderson to meet with Smith College officials and report back to the City Council on her findings. Bardsley acknowledged it may be too late for a productive dialog. Ward 6 Councilor Marianne LaBarge offered a friendly amendment to the motion that the Mayor should be included in the request. The amendment was accepted. The amended motion:

Motion: The Northampton City Council strongly urges the Mayor and the Director of the Northampton Community and Economic Development Office to take any and all reasonable actions to assist in resolving the current dispute between Green Street Café and Smith College in a good faith effort to retain a long standing local business. The Director is requested to provide the City Council with an update at it next meeting, December 3^rd, 2009.

Ward 5 Councilor David Murphy and outgoing Ward 3 Councilor Robert Reckman voted against the resolution, each citing the matter as a private one. City Council President Jim Dostal was absent and the Ward 7 seat remains vacant since the passing of Ish Labarge. The balance of Council members voted in favor of the resolution.

I would like to extend my thanks, for what it's worth, to the Council members voting in favor of the resolution. Thus hereafter it cannot be said that they failed to try.

My comments:

I’m here tonight to comment on recent activity concerning the Green Street area of Northampton.

I ask the Council to examine a petition recently submitted to the Mayor’s office regarding the impasse between the Green Street Café and Smith College. The College has moved to evict the Café and the Café has refused to leave. The owners of the Café allege Smith officials are persuading their faculty, staff and students to not frequent the establishment. Smith College has refused an offer from a city resident to pay the Café’s back rent. Clearly the city sanctioned construction of Ford Hall has had a negative impact on the Café’s business. Now apparently more than 3,000 people have signed a petition and these people would like the Mayor to intervene. I implore all of you to examine the signatures and to act on the matter in any way that you can. I understand as elected officials often you involve yourselves in activities outside the scope of your formal responsibilities and I’m asking you to do that now. Please at least attempt to mediate this dispute.

Recently the Planning Board waived parking requirements for a new restaurant on Green Street. This is its right. To my knowledge this new restaurant provides no parking spaces for its patrons as other businesses in the city are required to do. Is it true that some businesses are required to expend financial resources towards parking while others are not? If so is this not somewhat arbitrary? It is the charge of government to provide a level playing field for competitive businesses via the even application of reasonable rules and regulations. In my view the playing field on Green Street appears tilted which indicates in this case that local government has contributed to the problem.

Moreover in attempting to research the timeline of the new restaurant’s permitting processes I could not find the minutes of the Planning Board online. They were not posted on the city website for September and October as of this afternoon. I requested the minutes Monday from their custodian and they have not been forthcoming. As a point of information Mass. Public Records law requires immediate availability to the public of open meeting minutes, even if in draft form.

Finally I ask the Council to consider creating a Council sponsored town/gown subcommittee so that city residents have a place to go to address public and private relationships with nonprofit educational institutions like Smith College and the Clark School for the Deaf. Smith College has established a Community Council which includes city officials and I offer that the city should act likewise.

Comments (7)

▼Post a Comment

Daryl, I was interested in what you had to say last night about the pending Bean Farm. Frankly, I'm confused about what the issues are related to the sale and wonder if you know anything more about the economic pros and cons of each alternative: farm only, fields, and housing and fields. What are the costs and benefits of constructing and operating each of these alternatives, as well as other alternatives not explicitly mentioned so far? I don't understand how the city will make an informed decision without fully analyzing these details ahead of time. Another land use matter has seemed to escape intense scrutiny Duseau's proposed new 20-acre waste transfer station on Route 10, abutting the nature preserve. Do you have any inside poop on this? Why is it that Holyoke is getting a state-of-the art data center and we're attracting more enormous garbage businesses?

Posted by John on 11.20.09 at 5:56

The planning board's decision was in line with the previous zoning for the space, and merely expanded the seating capacity. For all his claims to suffering from the parking situation, Sielski is renting out parking spaces at $400 per month.

Posted by jim_laing on 11.21.09 at 3:48

Good points John. I've been wondering the same and I wish I had more answers. But I offer this over-simplified example. Let's look at the benefits to the city. If 12-22 homes are built for $300K each and each is assessed at $300K the projected property tax revenue for the city is between $455K and $834K at a tax rate of $12.64 per $1,000 of value. Now let's look at one of the costs. Again for simplicity, if each home has one child in the public school system at a cost of about $11,500 per year to educate each one, the costs to the city would range between $138K and $253K per year. This seems like a fiscal winner but to these figures we need to add other costs for infrastructure improvements like water, sewer and roads and anything else you can think of like fire protection, public safety, planning, etc. With each use option or combination would be different costs and benefits accordingly and I support a full accounting of these, as is possible. But costs and benefits often go beyond the financials and one could go on for a long time attempting to quantify every cost and benefit there is. For instance, how does a community measure the utility to its citizens of agricultural land? What is the net present value in dollars of the ability to raise our own food in the future? What is the value of athletic fields beyond what the fee structure would indicate? How about the increased traffic and noise/air pollution for existing neighbors resulting from athletic competition, i.e. games? Etc. Etc. And we must consider the political ramifications as well. In this case of pluralism we can ask, is the agricultural lobby stronger than the recreational one? How about the conservationists? How many voters does each lobbying group bring to the table? Moreover, does political might make right? As far as the transfer station on Route 10 that seems a logical use for the space as Allen & Son ran a similar business there for years. That said I do not look forward to the increased truck traffic in front of my residence should it come to pass. I believe the Holyoke Center is a state backed initiative for a needy community. In addition Duseau has explored creating a trash sorting/transfer station in Hatfield on Plain Road that would utilize rail service as well, for shipping trash out of the area. This is a huge issue for the city as Duseau is the largest tipper at the landfill, bringing in about a quarter of the revenues generated. If the city realized a reduction in business from Duseau the fiscal stability of the existing operation could be in jeopardy. Another interesting point, the proposed site on Route 10 was once an open burning dump for the city and it is likely there are various amounts of hazardous wastes already in the ground capped by asphalt and buildings. I think the Gazette article stated the site is permitted for the proposed uses. It is unclear to me what authority the city has regarding permitting or the disturbing of the ground. We will have to watch this closely.

Posted by Daryl on 11.21.09 at 10:48

Hi Jim, Thanks for writing and I wish you success with your business. In fact I lunched there once and my wife picked up some croissants the other day. As far as the previous zoning, it has been difficult to ascertain how the zoning was applied to Burdicks, the site's previous business. Maybe you can help clarify. Correct me if I'm wrong but according to the Cafe owners Burdicks was not a restaurant in the classic sit-down sense but was classified that way by the Building Department which led to your eatery's approval. It is my understanding that Burdicks previously did not provide parking but that it did not attract a lunch crowd either. As far as the Cafe owners charging $400 monthly for parking spaces this is news to me. It does seem reasonable they would do something to recoup some of the $100 thousand they've spent to provide parking for their customers. If business is down and spaces are available, why not rent them?

Posted by Daryl on 11.21.09 at 11:02

Moreover I forgot to mention, I believe for most restaurants seating capacity is linked to parking capacity at a two seats per one parking space ratio. In lieu of spaces business owners can pay into a city parking fund. If the Planning Board increased the seating capacity of the new eatery without requiring either new spaces or a fee they effectively waived parking requirements.

Posted by Daryl on 11.21.09 at 11:26

although i commend atty callighan for her work on the living wage resolution in northampton, and the good will extended by council members for allowing its passage, the resolution as it is has no enforcement unlike the living wage campaign researched extensively by economists pollin and luce. cities, counties and states have taken such concerns further by taking this campaign to the voters and creating ordinances. activists, unions, advocates support such changes; i hope that our council will be more proactive by making this resolution more enforceable. kudos to atty callighan for taking the first step, bringing awareness to the community, and opening up the debate!

Posted by mary likins on 11.22.09 at 6:06

According to John Sielski, the Cafe used to rent out two parking spaces to the Public Counsel for $400 per year. He said the Cafe inherited the renters and did not want to disrupt the arrangement they were used to. As the renters stopped renting the spaces over the years the Cafe did not replace them.

Posted by Daryl on 11.23.09 at 13:16

Council votes on Green Street Cafe-Smith College impasse

Email This!