| Most New England towns came into being as a result of self-interested, short term wheeling and dealing. John Pynchon of Springfield, for example, bought the land from which Amherst was carved in 1658 by convincing three sachems (Umpanchla, Quonquont and Chickwalopp) to sell a great swath of territory later to be called Hadley. It seems Pynchon saw a chance to make a profit as a land speculator. Nor should we imagine that these sachems, whatever their particular motivations may have been and however they may have legitimately represented the interests of "...ye Indians of Nolwotogg (Norwottuck) upon ye River of Quinecticott (Connecticut)," were any less prepared to fathom the consequences of their wheeling and dealing than the many who today have entrusted their treasure to the likes of Bernie Madoff. Rather, let us suppose that there was plenty of "moral hazard," so to speak, to share.
Many other towns (Hatfield, Amherst, South Hadley, and Granby) would eventually split off from Hadley for diverse reasons (none of them with any relevance to the problems faced today, after financial crisis, peak oil and looming environmental catastrophe). The settlers of Hadley were people from the puritan colonies of Hartford and Wethersfield, Connecticut who petitioned to start another colony to the north after a religious controversy. In a similar manner, religion subsequently played a role in the founding of Amherst, where the local farmers did not want to pay for their own district minister and for the minister in Hadley as well. In both cases settlers formed towns to protect their short-term interests, and they could not have foreseen the many changes the future would bring. They could not have known that soon after the fateful arrival of Noah Webster, working on his famous dictionary, education would become a prime enterprise for the Town of Amherst. Noah Webster was one of the founders of Amherst College in 1821, and this educational institution was followed by the founding by other individuals of The Massachusetts Agricultural College in 1867 and Hampshire College in 1970.
It is not hard to imagine that events might have developed differently. Nevertheless, it is clear that historic towns and the natural resources they exploited and transformed engendered a legacy of consequences, positive and negative, for all those who have followed-which brings us to the point of this discussion. Towns also find themselves in a web of continually changing relationships with other towns, exchanging their products and services with each other in a dynamic political economy of mutual dependence. While towns may have formed in the context of conflicting interest groups, they eventually settle into a regional structure with other towns with a certain level of cooperation. They come to fulfill diverse regional roles: industrial, agricultural, administrative, military, etc. Each town becomes like an organ in the human body performing some unique function for the whole, and they cannot all be doing the same thing.
There has always been dissonance over what those roles should be-as the larger political economy has evolved-and towns continually work on sustaining themselves in one form or another. Looking at our region, let's note that many other towns (Hatfield, South Hadley, Granby, and Belchertown) eventually split off from Hadley for diverse reasons, and they exist today as a legacy of the past. Yet their intrinsic economic and financial bases at any point are not necessarily appropriate for their long term sustainability. Resources dry up, interests change, and towns cannot go it alone.
Amherst has been a center for farming, industry (hats, bricks, forestry), and education. Town Manager Larry Shaffer, however, said in the closing 250th celebration lecture series that Amherst largely skipped the industrial arc traversed by most towns. We note that this has put pressure on Amherst to find income from taxes other than taxes on current businesses and homes. While there must always be a mix in the economic structure of Amherst, today it specializes in providing educational services to the state and nation. It provides a vibrant and safe social environment for its student population, but it incurs uncompensated financial costs for this. (Consider that more than 25,000 students reside in Amherst with a non-student population of 15,000.) Amherst cannot afford to provide this setting all by itself via business and home property taxes. In the model of relocalization we are formulating, we see that it necessarily invokes regionalization factors, which acknowledge that certain moneys cannot come from within each and every town exclusively. Towns in Amherst's situation should have state and national assistance.
In a sustainable regional economy, some towns should be industrial and some should be agricultural. If we are to avoid the worst consequences of declining world oil production (peak oil) and the profligate and immoral discharge of CO2 from carbon based fuels, society must decide where population is to be concentrated, where there must be open unused land providing species diversity, and where there should be mostly agriculture. We cannot have every town as a potential site for a new shopping mall or a new site for residential real estate development-with each town competing with every other town for new local property tax revenue. That would be a Wall Street heaven but a natural and social disaster and a race to the bottom. Unfortunately constant development and endless growth have been imposed upon all towns, preventing towns from seeing past the reigning political economy, even as civilization (and the towns themselves) cannot continue to exist under such conditions. It's a bad deal all around.
Steven G. Randall, Larry Ely, and Rob Crowner
Pioneer Valley Relocalization Project |
The historical roots of Amherst go back to the 17th century with the founding of Hadley. It would seem odd, therefore, to ask: "Does Amherst exist?" Quite clearly it does. Wind the tape of history back to the beginning, however, to discover that Amherst did not have to come into being as a town. The district of Amherst, for example, split apart from Hadley as a result of a petition to the General Court in Boston, which did not necessarily have to assent. Both Amherst and Hadley were the products of political deals that did not have to occur. Why, then, should any particular town exist? Is the existence of a Town necessary for the sustainable future of its people? These questions must now be contemplated. 
