GREENSBORO – Dear Greensboro Select Board: I’m writing to offer some observations on the housing project being proposed for the Greensboro Town Hall.
I should begin by saying that my father was born and raised in Hardwick, and I was also raised in Vermont. After vacationing in Vermont for decades, my sister and I bought a home in Greensboro, after it had been on the market for many years. Although it is a second home for our families, we care deeply about the future viability of the town.
I also write, having spent my entire career in the fields of housing and community development. In my position, since 2012, as chief of housing for the City of Boston, I have been in charge of both the disposing of surplus city-owned property and the siting of affordable housing.
I have overseen the disposal of hundreds of municipal-owned properties and sited countless income-restricted developments. So, I believe I have much relevant experience regarding both best practices and missteps to be avoided in a project like the proposed one for the Greensboro Town Hall. I would like to share some of that experience in the hope that it might be useful in confronting what, from my perspective, seems like the totally understandable, even predictable controversy that has come to surround the project.
To begin with, best practices for municipal government: When a proposal for disposing of a municipal-owned property like the town hall is first made, best practices stipulate that all possible redevelopment ideas and uses are discussed with residents before any negotiations with a particular developer or developers take place. If housing emerges from community discussion as a favored option, the preferred type of housing (size, affordability, ownership vs. rental) is outlined and more than one developer is invited to present a proposal. All development proposals and interviews with potential developers are made and conducted in public forums so that residents’ reactions and opinions can be taken into consideration before a developer is selected and a legal relationship created. The transparency thus created is not only a best civic practice in a democracy but is also crucial for securing public buy-in once a developer is chosen and a development proposal accepted.
In a project of this nature there are also best practices for developers, and for municipalities to insist on from developers. The entire development team should be present at any public meeting with the town and residents and provide a formal, comprehensive presentation of the development scheme, including a detailed site plan (which is often the first piece of information produced, shared, and discussed). If the development team is unable to answer questions from residents, it should commit to providing answers to these questions as soon as they are available.
Modifications of the development proposal in response to residents’ concerns are also standard procedure in such community processes. Indeed, a good community process is iterative, not top-down, with compromises proposed, discussed and, when necessary for achieving consensus or as close to consensus as is possible, agreed to by the parties.
By these standards, in my opinion, the process pursued to date by the select board and RuralEdge has fallen far short of best of practices. I believe the approach and conduct of RuralEdge have been especially unsatisfactory.
The town hall, with its lovely town green, is a publicly owned asset. A small group of individuals making the decision to sell the town hall and then entering into a legal relationship with a developer without a thorough public process, as outlined above, is very unusual and very far from a best practice. In fact, in all my years working on affordable housing and community development, I have never witnessed a less transparent, less participatory process.
It has become clear that many Greensboro residents are opposed to selling Greensboro’s signature property, while many others who have thought the idea should be explored, feel strongly that the proposed project is too large and still has too many questions associated with it to move forward. I would respectfully suggest that the level of hostility that the development proposal has engendered in some quarters is a feature, not a bug, of the kind of community process that the select board has followed to date.
Our community in Greensboro is indeed very vulnerable if the lack of affordable housing in town is not effectively and expeditiously addressed. But any community where dissension is allowed to flourish because residents feel that they have not been given a voice in critical deliberations is vulnerable in other ways.
If it were up to me, given how flawed the community process seems to me to have been, I would scrap the current development plan and start over. Short of that, I would ensure that the issues and concerns so many residents have raised are dealt with in a professional, informative and, most importantly, public manner.
I would suggest that the process needs to slow down; all resident voices need to be heard; all opinions on the proposed project need to be addressed; and the select board needs to commit to working with the community on the issues and questions raised before any additional legal steps are taken with RuralEdge.
My own concerns and questions about the project and the process include the following: Why is the town planning to sell the building and the town green? Why isn’t the property being subdivided so that the town can continue to own the green? I cannot imagine any other city or town in the world selling its town or city green.
Why can’t the town also explore a long-term lease of the building instead of a sale? Structured properly, a long-term lease is as easy to finance as a fee simple arrangement, but provides more control over the development by the town. If Greensboro does sell the town hall to RuralEdge and RuralEdge later goes out of business or is no longer a viable, responsive organization, what is the town’s recourse? A lot can happen to an organization over the course of 20, 30 or 50 years.
In my role in Boston, I ensure that the city can approve all subsequent sales or have a right of first refusal. This requirement is common practice and has been critical when a property changes hands and town government needs to protect its investment and future. Greensboro needs the same protection.
RuralEdge has still not presented a site plan, a document that is critical and, as I have noted above, is often the first piece of information a potential developer produces and shares for discussion. Why have they not done so? An example of why we need to see a site plan: If a significant amount of parking will be offered, it could be that our town center will feature a large parking lot. This would forever change the look and feel of the town, as others have observed.
To take another example: The trees that surround the town hall now provide a natural buffer for abutters. Will they be untouched in the proposed scheme? A detailed site plan needs to be presented and the community deserves to review and comment on what is presented. Given that many residents feel that the proposed development is too large, why isn’t RuralEdge considering a smaller development, one that is more compatible to a town this size? Every developer will tell you that it is not financially viable to reduce their development, or that it is inefficient. But it is my experience that the size of every development can be reduced and more often than not, they are reduced in response to community concerns.
There have been many concerns expressed about the town’s water. How does this issue get resolved? Finally, and with all due respect, it seems clear to me on the basis of my professional experience that the select board does not have the skills to oversee the sale of the town hall. The board should not only allow, but welcome other voices into this process; development is always made better by additional eyes and opinions.
I heard that the town is working with an attorney. I would suggest that any attorney hired should understand not only real estate but, in particular, the disposal of publicly owned assets and development of affordable housing. Projects such as these require additional, long-term safeguards for the impacted community.
I want to close by emphasizing that, although I have been critical of the process for this project to date, I hope you will see my comments as constructive as I have meant them to be. I remain hopeful that consensus can be reached on an improved development plan, that will in the end benefit the Town of Greensboro.
Sheila Dillon
Boston, Mass. and Greensboro