Make your own free website on






Comments by Adams Residents from a Poll

Regarding Development of the Downtown Area and Greylock Glen

(Qualitative Data)










14 August 2000






















Question 7: Would you like to take a minute to say why you support or oppose any of these components?


A total of 142 respondents (62% of the sample) made additional comments here. Of these, 83 (58%) criticized components of the current major development plan (e.g., hotel, houses, golf course); however, several supported other components they believed would improve the Glen (e.g., environmental center and trails).

Thirty-eight (27%) of the comments supported major aspects of the current development plan, although several of these were supportive of the golf course alone.

Fourteen (10%) of the comments expressed mixed feelings or partial support for the plan (but were explicitly opposed to other aspects).

Seven (5%) expressed that they had no opinion.


(1) Opposed to any major development—supportive of preservation (and may also support trails and

educational center)

My children and grandchildren enjoy the Glen, as well as camping at Greylock. If homes are built, and hotels and inns, it will take away from that. But my husband and I enjoy golf.

We don't need more business, we have businesses.

I'm familiar with the Glen. I think it should be kept natural. Why ruin a good thing?

The development is no advantage for us in any way.

Expensive summer homes are more negative than positive.

I like the idea of biking and hiking trails.

I'd like to keep it as much to do with nature as possible.

I spend a lot of time there. I love the peace and quiet.

I don't want to see major development at the Glen; it's too beautiful.

I don't mind some development, but not all these homes for rich folks.

Trails are positive for tourists. Summer houses make no sense. No parking!

Shops should have the jobs. Most of the [current] ideas aren't smart or environmentally conscious.

I don't like the parking lots.

I lived in Williamstown, and saw this happen there with the college. I think it's a bad idea.

There's enough empty homes in Adams, we don't need new ones.

You’ll be able to see the development all over town.

Keep the Glen as is. Have hiking and biking trails for something to do. I love the fresh air.

No hotels, please.

I hate those ideas of expanding; it ruins this place.

Too much wooded land is being taken away. It's taking away the beauty of the area.

The houses won't be filled. Eventually more welfare recipients will be brought in.

If they put a hotel up there, they'll ruin the scenery. A golf course will bring people we don't need. I don't want the traffic. We'll lose the freedom to come and go.

I like bike trails and hiking, but no hotel.

Bring tourism and economic improvement, but also preserve wetlands.

I totally agree with year-round recreation. I'm against the 300 private homes because they would not bring business to Adams, they’d only make money selling homes.

I oppose any development on the Glen, unless it's educational. They would have to level at least half of the Glen just for parking.

It's more useful to us in its natural state. There are not many places left. Specialty Minerals [is in] my backyard, and I don't like it. I like it the way it is. I don't like change, I have memories of the Glen. I don't want it ruined—I’d like the Glen to remain as it is. I do not think it [the project] will benefit the people of Adams.

Clean up the area and leave it alone. A small education center is okay. No need for houses or any other such things.

It should just be preserved. It's so beautiful.

If any development is going to be made, I'd rather have the hiking or bike trail than big businesses. It's fine as it is.

Housing is a big mistake. Have the nicest parcel of land with out-of-staters living there? It's the nicest spot in the whole state. It should be reserved for something special.

Skiing. Nothing major. I know people who lived there and were forced to move.

Putting a hotel and homes would definitely destroy the Glen, and take away the beauty of the area.

I do not want a hotel!

Homes are foolish, stupid. I see no reason for parking for 1000 cars.

Adams doesn't need a hotel or golf courses. Just leave it the way it is.

No city people. Parking brings pollution. Recreation is no harm, and is good for exercise.

[I wouldn’t like the] visibility of the development.

The education center is a good opportunity to teach kids about the history of the mountain.

I would like a new bicycle trail because I like to ride my mountain bike.

The wildlife should be preserved. By creating inns and hotels, you lose the interaction with wildlife.

I like it the way it is. I don't want it to get ruined.

We like to hike and ride bicycles at the Glen.

I don't want to ruin it.

[Regarding environmental education center] I like it a lot.

I want to keep it safe and still natural.

I would not like to see the land ruined.

Keep the Glen—it's beautiful scenery.

We don't really need a golf course.

I’d like more recreational activities having to do with nature.

Leave the town the way it is. I love the view.

Homes are no good—no foreigners.

I don't want to ruin the Glen for houses for city people.

Homes take away from scenery and property.

I am familiar with the Glen and want it kept natural.

All you need is a tent. Bikes are cool.

Keep it natural. More trails would be nice.

Keep it for hiking and golf.

We don't need to subsidize second homes.

I want it kept pretty low key.

Keep it as natural as possible.

They would ruin the area and wildlife.


A bicycle trail only if it’s not paved.

[The Glen] is ecological, educational, unique.

I'd like to hunt there more often.

The area could not support expansion.

Limit development.

It's fine the way it is.

Keep the area as natural as possible.

It should remain natural habitat.

I oppose it; it will ruin the environment.

Leave it alone!

I would support the bike trail if you can ride dirt bikes up there.

Avoid over-development.

Too many people and structures take away from the beauty.

Use it for recreational purposes.

More people should be attracted to the Glen for natural reasons.

The Glen is great as is!

A good trail system would be great to hike; more camping.

There's no need for hotel, golf, homes, or parking.

No gambling. I like the quiet!

[Regarding the development plan] It’s stupid.

(2) Supportive of one or more major development component(s)

I like the new houses because it would make Adams into something better.

We need homes; parking would be nice (but none down on the street).

If you have the inn, you're supplying jobs.

The proposal is a wonderful idea, bringing new businesses and people. It would also be a good use of the land.

A golf course might be good. I like to golf and it would be easier, so I wouldn't have to travel to Pittsfield.

A golf course would be an excellent idea.

More jobs and money, more people. Develop the community.

I love to golf.

I support all [the components].

Any new thing is good.

I support any business that promotes tourism and revenue.

It's good for the town.

I support it totally—should have a while ago.

It will excite the town. It's a change.

Anything that is good for Adams, I like.

It's for the middle class to afford.

It will bring in money to the town.

It's good for the community.

It will improve Adams, bring more business.

I'd like to see it [the development] come to pass.

We need something here.

Our town needs this.

Maybe our taxes will go down.

It will bring business to Adams.

Tax base improvement.

Revenue is needed, and for the economy, more business is needed.

[It will bring] an economic boost and recreational opportunities.

[It will bring] job opportunities, increased tourist revenue.

[It will bring] more tax revenue, and increase tourism.

[It will bring] increased revenue.

Overdevelopment [will bring] more revenue.

Tourism, revenue.

Revenue and jobs.

It's vital for the growth of Adams and North Adams.

I support of all of it; the area needs it.

I'm for development, because it's a nice place to be.

[It will bring] money for education and roadways.

As long as it brings life to Adams, it’s good.

(3) Undecided (supportive of golf course, but opposed to other major development)

Golf will have more positive than negative effects. Homes will have more negative than positive effects.

No cars. There should be education to learn about the environment. Golf brings tourists. No homes.

Preserve the wildlife, which a golf course would not affect. 300 homes will negatively affect the school system.

The inn with a restaurant might be nice.

I support these [all but golf course and homes] because Northern Berkshire County needs better economics. It would help people, more jobs would be open, and local businesses would make more money due to tourism.

There's nothing in the area to properly utilize this land. Create a tram system from bottom to top to create more jobs and attract tourists. Horseback riding and stables at the Glen, family events, and a botanical garden [would be good].

The elderly can't survive forever; something else has to come in.

Geez, I don't know why I'm for the Glen [development].

Tourist attractions [would be good].

I like the Glen, but more business we need.

[Regarding homes] I think there are tax issues to worry about.

Increase tourism, but avoid over-development.

I’d like a smaller volume of parking, but some is needed.

We don't need private homes, but a hotel will create jobs.

(4) No opinion (or unclear)

I don't really care what happens.

I don't spend much time at the Glen, so I'm not in an appropriate position to say.

It doesn't matter what happens up there.

I'm not familiar with the Glen; I drive by on the way to work.

I won't see anything there in my lifetime.

I have no conclusion about buildings.

I don't care about any of them.


Question 9: Do you have suggestions of your own for how the Glen should be used?


A total of 125 respondents (55% of the sample) made additional comments here. Of these, 97 (78%) criticized components of the current major development plan (e.g., hotel, houses, golf course); however, several supported other components they believed would improve the Glen (e.g., environmental center and trails).

Twenty-five (20%) of the comments supported major aspects of the current development plan, although several of these were supportive of the golf course alone.

Three (2%) of the comments expressed mixed feelings or partial support for the plan (but were explicitly opposed to other aspects).


(1) Opposed to any major development—supportive of preservation (and may also support trails and

educational center)

Leave it alone. There should be environmental education—something to do with nature.

If they're going to change it at all, make more hunting spots and resources.

Anything, as long as it helps give stuff to the kids.

No bike trail—kids are dangerous.

There should be something planned all the time.

Outdoor stuff is great for residents and tourists. Housing won't do much good for the economics of Adams.

It should be kept in a natural state. Whatever they do, they should maintain as low an impact as possible on the environment. It was nice when I used to go there. I can't picture it with hotels, inns, or shops up there.

Give all the state money to downtown, then I won't have to go to Pittsfield.

Don't take away the beauty.

Do something, but not what they propose.

Small development. You have to lose a little wildlife to get development.

We don't need another golf course.

It's the highest point in Massachusetts; make it the star on the Christmas tree and let it shine for what it is.

Let it go, leave it alone, there’s enough.

There are low-priced camping huts off the east side that are totally inaccessible to cars.

They should make it a lot more multi-use. They’re so small-scoped. Everyone should get to use all of it.

It’s been this way for the past 200 years. Not all this stuff. Yes to bike trails and porta-potties. We need easier trails for old people. Open up trails—but don’t build anything drastic.

Use it for environmental or educational use only. Development would be a waste.

Recreational uses primarily; keep it like it is or make it educational, like the White Mountains.

Leave it alone and enjoy it the way it is. An environmental education center [would be good].

Something beneficial to the town other than housing.

Environmentally-friendly small cottages.

It should be open to the general public without restrictions.

Leave it the way it is, honey. Sometimes things should be left alone.

Leave it alone; keep the swimming.

I’m for nature walks.

The Glen is fine the way it is.

I think that the Glen should remain the same.

It should be something decent and good. Full-scale gambling scares the daylights out of me.

[Regarding the idea of no development] I like it a lot!

Leave it alone! It’s such a beautiful spot.

It’s okay the way it is.

Leave it!

Leave it alone!

Lots of family activities and nature walks [would be good].

Have activities for families.

Campgrounds [would be good].

A preserve [would be good].

An outdoor center, rock climbing, hang-gliding [would be good].

I used to live in North Adams. I moved here because it’s more quiet. I don’t want to move again. I hope everyone makes the right decision. A recreational area for children [would be good].

It should be to enjoy nature and wildlife.

Leave it as is.

Do not over-develop, like that conference center.

Just leave it the way it is.

It should be used for hiking and picnicking.

I just think they should leave it alone. It’s fine the way it is.

Leave it like it is.

Leave it alone.

Leave it.

[Regarding the idea of no development] That would be the smartest thing to do.

Leave it alone.

It should be an educational center for everyone.

Leave it alone.

Recreation, golf, cross-country skiing [would be good].

Ski trails and tourism in winter [would be good].

More hunting [would be good].

Children’s camp [would be good].

Camp sites [would be good]. Expand the natural part of the park.

Keep it natural; put in more trails for hikers and bikers.

The best bet would be to leave it alone.

Leave it.

I like it the way it is.

More hikes [would be good].

Keep it the way it is.

It would be nice if it was well-controlled with things to do.

Skiing [would be good].

Stay the way it is.

It should be geared to kids; recreation for kids; motorcycles.

Keep it a little the way it is (with some shops).

More hiking [would be good] and things people can do.

Outdoor movies [would be good].

Center on recreational aspects.

Hiking trails [would be good].

Use it for environmental purposes.

Hiking and summer camps [would be good].

There should be only hiking and biking—recreation.

Leave it the way it is.

Recreation [would be good].

Environmental uses [would be good].

I’d like a volleyball pit.

Use it as an educational tool for environmental issues.

[Focus on] natural beauty over commercialization.

Concerts [would be good].

It should be a tourist attraction. Avoid over-development.

There should be a ski trail on the mountain.

It should be a recreational center for people to enjoy; that would draw in tourists.

Camping grounds for vacationers [would be good].

Leave it alone or just add walking trails.

Use it for recreational purposes; I like the golf course.

Use it for educational purposes, if anything.

More camping [would be good].

It should be a recreational area only.

Leave it alone—maybe a sanctuary.

It should be left alone.

Preserve it as a natural habitat.

Don’t give it away.

[Access is] harder for older people.

(2) Supportive of one or more major development component(s)

A theatre with shows and concerts [would be good].

New employment opportunities are important—depends on the level of jobs that will be available.

Build a casino or leave it the way it is. It needs cleaner swimming.

I’d like an ampitheater, working in conjunction with Tanglewood and Williamstown theater, like classical night at Tanglewood.

I think another golf course wouldn’t hurt.

To help families with jobs and money for schools [would be good].

I’d like an inn with a restaurant.

A golf course would be nice.

A casino [would be good].

There should be entertainment and more jobs—the original plan.

A tourist attraction benefits the town, especially children.

Open industrial companies—big bucks.

Golf’s a good idea—and skiing in winter.

It should have a convention/seminar site and a campground.

A spa, health place, and golf course [would be good].

A civic center for concerts, sports, and a game farm [would be good].

It should be a resort area.

It will bring business to Adams.

Patrol it, keep it clean; follow through with the proposed plan.

A casino [would be good].

Gambling [would be good].

A golf course and ski area [would be good].

It would bring in a better class of people.

It should have a nice golf course.

It should have something like Bascom Lodge.

(3) No opinion (or unclear)

I’m not sure.

I don’t know what the Glen is.

I’m too old to care.


Question 19: Is there anything you’d like to add?


A total of 48 respondents (21% of the sample) made additional comments here. Of these, 20 (42%) stressed keeping the Glen as a nature and recreation area.

Seven (14%) addressed the importance of developing downtown Adams.

Eight (17%) supported major components of the existing plan.

Two (4%) made comments on the tax exemption.

Eleven (23%) wished the researchers good luck on the survey, thanked them for asking their opinion on this issue, expressed frustration with political leaders promoting the existing development plan, or made other comments.


(1) Opposed to any major development

I hope nothing happens there with this development. I like the idea of no development, if local people fix up the Glen. I dislike the idea of no development, if politics are in it.

Leave the Glen the way it is now—it’s beautiful. The Glen should be left alone. Adams residents

won’t really benefit from this. Only the business people will.

They should seriously think over this decision. Adams residents won’t be happy or satisfied with the outcome. No change should occur.

I’m concerned for the animal habitat. I know they’re going to be irresponsible because they don’t care about the animals.

This project will never go through in my lifetime.

Recreational opportunities are the best thing. Property tax reduction will never happen. As to traffic congestion, the bypass will go in. Crime will go up and up.

However the money is distributed, spend it on kids either way. Employment opportunities are not important if it means changing the Glen.

To gain increased tourism, the downtown would need much more. Traffic is very important—we should change the roads. A rise in crime would be devastating. As to a loss of wildlife habitat—I’m not in favor of this at all.

Being new to the area, I’d like to go see the Glen. Since I’ve done this survey I’m curious what it looks like and is. Any time you build something in a community, opportunities open up. I will visit it. I suspect a rise in property taxes is likely, because I don’t trust government. A rise in crime is important because I came from high crime, and don’t need it here; it’s quiet.

In Williamstown, taxes are outrageous, and that will happen here.

They shouldn’t develop the Glen for commercial reasons. The Glen should be left


Development is not the answer to Adams’ economic problems.

I’d as soon see them leave the mountain alone until they can come up with a plan that will benefit the whole town.

They shouldn’t develop it. The tourism around here relies upon the natural beauty of the area.

Leave everything the way it is.

The Glen is a very enjoyable place to visit.

Something to bring life back into Adams is a good idea, but we also need a good recreational area for people who like the outdoors. I hope to see the Glen still be here for my children. I have a Greylock Glen sticker on my Blazer.

Give the Glen money for trails.

I’m interested just in the recreational side of it.

(2) Supportive of developing downtown Adams

Develop the downtown. I hate malls and I like little stores.

We need more industrial companies—American companies—not houses for the city folks!

There will be reduced public access if homes go in. Improve the downtown.

Why can’t they sustain it with the wells that are already drilled instead of running a line from the town? I’m concerned about fire-support priorities.

I think they need to do more for the town without over-developing.

Develop downtown.

A new mall downtown would liven it up.

(3) Supportive of current major development component(s)

It should go forward; we’ll be restricted though. There are good and bad ideas.

Something should be done, but perhaps not everything being proposed. Pros and cons–economic and environmental issues—both need to be weighed.

I’d like to see some kind of development, but I don’t think Adams residents will be able to afford it.

My husband and I are big supporters of the Glen. There should be a special rate for Adams and North Adams citizens.

It’ll be amazing if goes through, but it’s not likely. It has its merits.

A highway would have to be incorporated—a route would have to be fixed. Employment opportunities have to be at least full or part time at a good pay. Bus transportation would have to be later in the day. The airport would have to be incorporated. Trains have to start coming. Improve entrances from both sides of town.

I support the Glen to go through.

They need to figure out how to handle traffic.

(4) Comments on the tax exemption

I disagree about the length of time of the tax exemption. Adams doesn’t really need [the current development plan].

I don’t like the length of years.

(5) Other comments

Not even the town council has asked me what I think.

Don’t take away the golf course in my back yard.

Adams is a nice place to live. Keep our schools up.

Thank you for calling.

Thanks for asking my opinion.

Get rid of Swift.

Good luck.

I hope that the rest of your survey goes well.

The town is small.

I like the Glen.

Get rid of the selectmen and get new ones.


Comments pertaining to other questions

[Question 3: Activities in downtown Adams and suggestions for new development there]

There’s nothing to do in downtown Adams.

No more gas stations.

[Regarding funds to downtown] Keep housing there, fix the interiors. [Regarding funds to the Glen] Make sure nobody makes money except for workers, the local people; nobody should get rich.

I’m sick of the Red Carpet [restaurant].

There’s nothing in town.

We don’t need another pizza shop or bank.

Why bother [going to restaurants]?

What else is there to do down there? There’s nothing down there! [Regarding a hotel] Maybe in the future. [Regarding restaurants] One good dining place. [Regarding shops] Oh lord yes, we need them like we’ve never needed them before! We shop in Pittsfield.

We often have to travel out of town to get certain things.

[Question 6: Rating of various development plans]

No one will go up there; there are too many homes for sale.

We have to have education.

[A golf course] takes too much room. Improve the old one.

I like the inn if they can keep it filled up.

For the younger generation, golf is more positive than negative.




[Question 10: Rating of overall effect]

I don’t want it to happen; I want to bring in business like Mass MOCA. [The homes] would be detrimental to residents. The profits would reach as far as the developers.


[Questions 11-14: Rating of various hopes and concerns]

There will only be service jobs that don’t pay much.

There’s no decent jobs [in this proposal].

Low wages.

[Recreational opportunities] only for wealthy residents!

[Regarding a possible property tax reduction] I’m not that big a dreamer!

[Regarding increased tourism] Ha, ha, ha! No!

More people, more crime.

It doesn’t affect me.

Increased traffic in town means more business, a higher class of people; pay will go up.

Make a road from North Adams or Lanesboro direct.

There’s too much [traffic] already.

[You get] a rise in crime with more people from cities.

[Regarding a possible property tax increase]

(a) It’s inevitable.

(b) The price of living will go up.

(c) Oh, definitely!

(d) Extremely important.

(e) Very important.

(f) Very important!

[Regarding a possible loss of wildlife habitat]

(a) Definitely.

(b) It’s unlikely with a golf course, somewhat likely with housing.

[Regarding possible reduced public access]

(a) We’d have to pay to go up there.

(b) It’s unlikely with a golf course, very likely with housing.

(c) I don’t see how it can be avoided.

[Regarding the golf course tax exemption]

(a) Come on!

(b) I wouldn’t have made them exempt; I would have given them a break.

(c) I’m totally against it.

(d) The developers don’t have to pay taxes, but we do?

[Regarding distribution of funds]

(a) Give it all to downtown because five million dollars wouldn’t do anything for the Glen.

(b) Clean up the face of Park Street. Clean up the Glen.

(c) Give some to the Glen depending upon what they develop on the Glen.