ZRC King St Comments Volkmann
Carolyn Misch
From:Joel Russell [joelrusl@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday, July 01, 2010 4:31 PM
To:Joel Russell
Cc:jim nash; Carolyn Misch; (tweiner909@comcast.net); Adin Maynard
(adin@mycozyhome.org); Danielle Kahn (djkahn2004@yahoo.com); Dennis Bidwell
(dbidwell@bidwelladvisors.com); Dillon Sussman (dillonsussman@gmail.com); Peter
McLean (pmclean@lefh.net); Stephen Gilson (smgilson@comcast.net)
Subject:Comments on King Street meeting
Dear ZRC members:
I received the following email comments from Frances Volkmann, who attended last night's meeting as a
member of the public but did not speak. As many of you know, she has been a distinguished public servant in
Northampton over the years, having served on the Planning Board and City Council. She currently chairs the
Community Preservation Committee and was one of the moving forces behind the "best practices" committee.
Fran is retired from a long career at Smith College where she was a professor of psychology and served as Dean
of Faculty and Acting President. I consider her one of the best local experts on group decision making
generally, and public process in particular.
Carolyn, can you put this into the public record? My understanding is that it's OK to circulate this under the
revised open meeting law, but that committee members should not respond to each other by email or talk about
it outside of a posted public meeting. We can discuss it in a public meeting, but not elsewhere. Carolyn, is that
understanding correct? - Joel
Here are her comments:
The ZRC’s process seems to be moving in a good direction. I would offer the following comments on
it after observing the ZRC meeting on June 30:
1.As a member of the public, I would not want to have separate discussions of several (or
even two) proposals. I would want a single discussion. The topic should be the rezoning of
King St., not the Chamber’s proposal. I’d like to know the areas in which there is
widespread agreement among those working on the rezoning of King St. Then I’d like to
know the major areas in which there is not agreement, and for those, what the major
options are. I would appreciate being given the opportunity to think about different options
rather than being presented with a done deal (or worse, the text of zoning ordinance
amendments implementing the done deal). I’d like to think that I could contribute to a
decision before it is made rather than simply being asked to rubber stamp it (or oppose it)
after it is finished.
2. The agenda for such a public meeting should 1) review the major kinds of changes that
have been/are being discussed, 2) identify the areas in which those involved (the Chamber,
the ZRC, OPD, etc – maybe even Notre Dame?) are in substantial agreement as to what
should be done, and 3) identify the areas in which there is substantial disagreement, along
with a listing of the two or three major options that are being discussed in each case.
Members of the public should be allowed to weigh in on their preferences, with the clear
1
understanding that their ideas will contribute to the discussion but not dictate the outcome
of the ZRC’s final proposal to the Planning Board.
3.I think committees and boards have a sort of natural urge to find answers or agreement
before the public is allowed to weigh in. That has been particularly true in Northampton.
The idea that you should just write the zoning ordinance and then have a public discussion
about it is a perfect example. It leaves the public in an awkward position – either they have
to agree, i.e. rubber-stamp, what has been done, or disagree without any productive
alternative. All the work we did on good practice showed that if people can be involved
early and informally in a transparent process and with opportunities to discuss alternative
ideas and solutions to a problem, they can be genuinely helpful to the decision-making
bodies, and they also feel involved and listened-to rather than being asked to comment on
what appears from the outside to be a “done deal”. And it should be a real discussion –
none of this “everybody gets to speak for three minutes,” in which very few new ideas and
very little listening or interaction seems to occur. At the END of the process there will be a
formal Public Hearing, but that’s not what is needed now.
4.I really agree with your priority of getting it right rather than just getting it done quickly. I
remember well many times when I have worked hard on a major project and finally gotten it
done, and then having it take forever to reach final fruition. It’s a natural response for
someone who works hard to formulate a proposal to really want to get on with it after so
much hard work. But the process should not be rushed. There is plenty of time – even a
few months won’t matter, given the time-frame of zoning change as a whole. It is much
more important to get it right. The ZRC should not bow to urges to set a final schedule
now. Move as fast as possible, but no faster. The price of moving too fast is too high.
5.On a more detailed note, I’d like to see a drawing of the whole reach of King St., with all of
the present buildings positioned on it, drawn to scale. Then we could superimpose various
street, sidewalk, bikepath, etc widths on it, and see what are the results. One interesting
result would be that widening the street and buffer brings all of the existing buildings closer
to the buffer. We could also draw in ideas for where would be curb-cuts, etc. This kind of
drawing would really help us to visualize the various models being proposed.
6.Finally, I was wondering about design standards. Will they be part of this discussion, or do
they come later?
2