Back in December, I challenged our town leadership to reconsider the Town Hall/Center School project and to reevaluate the timing of such a significant expenditure. With steadily rising unemployment, record numbers of foreclosures, a deepening international recession, along with state aid cuts, local service reductions and threats of municipal job losses; it was becoming ever more clear that the worst was yet to come.
The initial reaction to this request was less than enthusiastic in terms of considering any alternatives to the original project. The responses consisted of a). “…the funds are already there and have been approved by town meeting” and b) the town hall project is “…an investment in our local economy” and “…an economic investment in our tourism”.
Clearly, there may be merit in either of these thought processes, but I would argue as well that there is danger in arguments offered on potentially unstable foundations. It is certainly a fact that on April 30, 2007, the funds for this project ($4,320,000.00) were approved at town meeting. It is also a fact, that said funds were approved at a time when our national economy was significantly more robust than it is today. U.S. unemployment during April of 2007 was 4.5%; today it stands over 7.2%, with many analysts predicting 9 -10% unemployment by years end.
In terms of this project being one which would result in increased tourism, one is unable to find any credible data that suggests that renovations, as planned, to our Town Hall will result in increased revenues from tourism. I am unconvinced that tourists will swarm to Sturbridge at the prospect of gazing upon a renovated Town Hall.
To be clear, I am not and have never suggested abandoning ownership of the Town Hall. I have and will continue to question the value of such a project, as planned, in light of the disastrous national economy.
Thankfully, as more attention was focused on this issue via additional correspondence, letters to the editor, and public input, we have recently learned of possible alternatives being considered. (The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below).
In early January, I challenged that same leadership to initiate a study of our financial management of the Sturbridge landfill/recycling center. This was based upon repeated recommendations by the Finance Committee to undertake such a study in order to quantify the overall return on our investment, as well as available options. Considering that our fiscal 2009 budget for the landfill was approximately $280,000 and that we have an estimated $200,000 shortfall in our landfill cap fund, such a study seems worthy of consideration.
Initially, the reaction to this recommendation was also equally unenthusiastic. In fact, the sole argument offered against such a study was the prevailing fear that any recycling fees which might manifest as a result of such a study, would likely lead to “illegal dumping”. Oddly, no science or statistical data was provided to support such a theory.
In fact, based upon careful review of statewide practices, an abundance of data clearly refutes such a position. It should be noted, that the purpose of such a study is comprehensive in nature and designed to focus on a range of options and/or possibilities, not solely resident based fees, though clearly that is one option.
When one considers that 2500 recycling stickers (individual stickers not households) were issued in Sturbridge last year (approximately 1/4 of our population) and the increasing annual costs of maintaining the landfill/recycling center ($280,000) coupled with the $200,000 shortfall, there appears to be no logical argument against undertaking such a study.
Thankfully, as more attention was focused on this issue via additional correspondence, letters to the editor, and public input, a commitment was recently received to engage a higher level of public discussion on this issue.
Some may recall that several months back there was discussion about the Route 20 power lines being relocated underground. Clearly, there is significant merit in the positive aesthetic value this would have in terms of an important gateway through our community There is no doubt that this worthy item should remain on our “to do” list over the long-term, but its timing was certainly questionable.
To bring forward an issue of such low priority (in terms overall benefit to the community), which would have increased our tax burden solely for the purpose of a power-line “face-lift” would have demonstrated a fundamental lack of economic sensitivity. Fortunately, correspondence from concerned residents and public officials undoubtedly influenced the decision to withdraw this agenda item.
Similarly, a decision reached in October of 2008 to support the installation of artificial turf on four fields at Tantasqua High (at an estimated cost of $2 million dollars) indicated what many perceived to be a leadership failure in terms of understanding the magnitude of the national economy. Though clearly, the proposal has merit and may provide long-term benefit, it is hard argue that such benefit is substantive enough given the current economy to warrant such an expenditure. Fortunately, the proposal was placed on hold when other member communities of the Tantasqua High School District voted not to proceed with the project.
At a time when our nation is witnessing the “…worst year for consumer spending since 1961”, with Americans tightening their belts, spending less and saving more, it is disconcerting that local leaders have been inclined to take an opposite approach.
Undoubtedly, it can be difficult to deliberate on such matters, particularly when faced with the subtle pressures that may manifest from well-intended passionate supporters. Clearly, each of the examples cited thus far provides value to the community in one form or another. Yet, we can ill afford as a community, nor as a nation for that matter, to consider any proposal that comes before us in a vacuum.
Each passing week, more and more Americans, and yes, more and more Sturbridge residents are presented with increasing economic challenges that are significantly altering their lifestyles and their stress levels. Our appointed and elected leaders must demonstrate the courage, pragmatism, and wisdom to approach the difficult challenges ahead in a manner consistent with our long-term best interests.
It is critical that our leadership understands the need to become more proactive, more informed, and much more engaged. The decisions made over the next 3 years will profoundly impact our community and our children for the next 20 years. Those decisions cannot be based upon the political ideologies of a single individual, group, or thought process; they must be based upon pragmatism, objectivity, and intellect.
0 comments:
Post a Comment