But it's going to be noisy on Grove Avenue when this development gets under way. Most of Grove Avenue's houses are on non-conforming lots. They don't have the 30-foot legal setback from the road. The sidewalk that is probably going to go in will claim front lawns and trees. And there will be a great deal of blasting. George Quinn, who is now retired from the department of public works, was around when the sewer lines went in on Grove Avenue and surrounding streets, and he said the contractor had to call in Warner Brothers to undertake major blasting on Grove Avenue. Ledge was only 2 feet below the street level, and they had to excavate down six to 10 feet to meet code.

I was talking to one of the members of the Yankee Conservation Group the other day and she said that she can't bear it to go out walking in the woods in back of her house anymore. "I see the flags out there and I get so depressed."

The quality of life in existing neighborhoods tends to be sacrificed when new developments go in. They have no legal standing in the fray. They are listened to and ignored, more often than not. Things are decided, most of the time, by lawyers and property owners. Developers tend to get their way because the law is on their side, more often than not, and the neighborhoods don't have any technical and legal assistance.

VISION 2020 and its language were often quoted by people in the neighborhood, who would wonder many times why realpolitik and not philosophy were guiding the city's decision-making when it came to planning and development. But Northampton, when it comes to land use, is not a progressive place. You may have a very personable liberal mayor and a City Council that backs every liberal cause going, but the powerful agencies and boards that make development decisions are marching to a different drummer. The planning board is dominated by "haves," people from the established neighborhoods in the eastern portion of the city. They are loaded with professionals such as lawyers, architects, and engineers. The city welcomes their participation because they bring their expertise, but they also bring their inherent biases. And people stop thinking when experts talk, even when the expert doesn't know what he is talking about.

What are the lessons of Beaver Brook Estates? First of all, the way the land was acquired served to poison the process. Negotiations were held with front people, not the people making the decisions. It's easy to see why people feel discouraged and cynical about their ability to affect the world around them, judging from this little case study. A prominent lawyer/ developer manages to capture a parcel by manipulating an old man in poor health, and skidding the parcel through probate. Then his millionaire brother-in law becomes the developer of record. Then the planning board gets involved, the department of public works gets involved, and yes, the neighbors get involved, and they all push the developer into the arms of an abutter who had no plans on file to develop. The development almost doubles in size, and the forest no longer acts as a buffer between the new and the old neighborhoods.

The developer, smacked around in public, gets angry, takes back his earlier concessions, and he finds the real owner of the land the city was claiming and buys it. The original offer that the developer made to donate a parcel along Beaver Brook to the conservation commission is withdrawn, and his attorney acquires city open space adjoining the development.

The planning board says that it sees its decisions in the Beaver Brook development as setting a precedent in how it deals with the many development plans that will be coming before it and the conservation commission over the coming months.

Well, good luck to us all, and especially good luck to the people who live in the western part of the city. There is an enormous gap between the ideals and goals set forth in their Northampton Vision 2020, adopted by the board in June of l999, and the real life working out of the future as seen in the decisions and plans of the planning board in this one case. The main players were the lawyers and key influentials, most of whom are professionals. The people end up watching the big guys duke it out, or end up fighting among themselves when the interests of one group is favored over another.

In the end, only planning board member Paul Diemand voted against the preliminary plans for Beaver Brook Estates. He told me he thought the neighbors were getting a raw deal. There is a wonderful kind of honor that accrues to public officials who stand up to the prevailing wind and deal-making and vote their convictions.

All praise to those who are not afraid to be on the losing side.