The Valley News editorial of May 28, “Not in Norwich,” repeated, yet again, the old canard that affluent Norwich is selfish and disingenuous when it comes to “affordable” housing. However, there were several stunning omissions that change the entire story.
The editorial did not report that the Norwich Planning Commission, in public sessions, has said it wants to “significantly impact” a putative 5,000 housing unit deficit in the Upper Valley. The Planning Commission has decided that Norwich, a town of some 3,400, has an obligation to reduce this deficit to a significant degree. Furthermore, the commission said in its February presentation to the public that small, incremental, integrated “affordable” housing projects were not a good alternative to the massive developments that they were proposing because these didn’t provide a significant impact on the 5,000-unit deficit.
The commission has ignored several constructive plans and suggestions in favor of its megadevelopment zoning proposal. Is it any wonder that residents are angry? The May 28 editorial ignored these facts and made light of the opposition, ignoring the true reasons for opposing this development.
Instead of developing a new Town Plan (the current one expired in December 2016), the commission worked for more than a year developing the enormous rezoning plan that would create a high-density mixed-use commercial corridor along Route 5, changing the zoning of some 350 acres, many of which already have private homes on them. This plan, permitting eight units per acre, could potentially add hundreds of new houses to the town, 25 percent of which would be “affordable.” At an average of 2.5 people per house, that could mean a population increase of 1,000 or more in a town whose current population is about 3,400! This isn’t responsible incremental growth, and this is what people are objecting to. And the plan has an obligatory commercial development component. Even if one subtracts areas that are unbuildable, we would still be left with an overwhelming number of new houses and a huge population increase that would change the town of Norwich irrevocably. It would not restore some golden age of 40 years ago. Reason dictates that adding this number of houses in a high-density commercial mixed-use strip exceeds acceptable change anywhere, not just in Norwich. Suggest adding this many houses, people and commercial space to Thetford or Lyme or as a satellite community to Hanover or Lebanon and you would get the same response.
This isn’t Norwich vs. “affordable” housing. This discussion should be about the appropriateness of size and scale, not about the desirability of “affordable” housing and diversity. Norwich has always supported this as evidenced by the Star Lake project, the 24 units of senior housing in town, and the change of zoning to facilitate about 28 affordable housing units at the former ABC Dairy.
Environmental concerns are perfectly valid and must be considered. Under certain circumstances, it is quite possible that the proposed development would be exempt from Vermont’s land-transfer tax and that Act 250 might not apply. This would permit serious environmental damage while generating large profits for land speculators and builders.
The siren’s song of growth has caused miserable sprawl throughout much of New England, including parts of Vermont. Do we really want to sacrifice Norwich’s (or any other town’s) greenbelt and replace it with a development like so many others that have irrevocably damaged other small towns? It would be such a shame to lose Norwich’s core downtown and core village center and its very essence of small-town Vermont to mega commercial and residential development outside the core center.
Many studies show that residential development in rural communities around the country costs municipalities more in services than it pays in taxes, while working lands and open space pay more than they require in services. One such study, using the methodology developed by the American Farmland Trust, was completed for Norwich based on the town’s 2007 grand list and actual Fiscal Year 2007 budget. Another study was done by the Vermont Land Trust showing much the same. In addition, the negative effects of the commercial development that the planning commission wants to promote are also highlighted in a Vermont Trust study and the Norwich Town Plan.
Those who call for change the loudest should realize that Norwich and every other town in the region has been changing over the decades and continues to change. They cannot stop demographic reality, turn the clock back 20 or 30 years and recreate a long-gone social environment. Even extreme proposals that have the potential to double a town’s size won’t restore yesterday. Trying to resurrect a changed demographic is not positive change, it’s regressive (and impossible). It is also wrong to equate a changing town with a gated town. Find a community anywhere that doesn’t have some sort of “gate” in place. Not everyone is envious of Norwich and most live elsewhere by choice.
It is time to stop name-calling and finger-pointing at Norwich whenever the question of “affordable” housing or income inequality arises. Norwich is not responsible for any housing shortage, real or imagined. Housing in Norwich is not cheap, but it isn’t cheap in Hanover, Lyme, Thetford or many other communities. Norwich is not located conveniently to where the jobs are, such as Dartmouth, Centerra or the medical campus. Traffic in and out of Norwich must cross the Ledyard Bridge. One must question the wisdom and environmental impact of adding another several hundred cars to that corridor.
The world, including the Upper Valley, has changed and blaming Norwich or trying to reverse social change with large developments will not reverse progress or bring back yesterday.
Francis J. Manasek lives in Norwich.