By Rhonda Swain
In the last few weeks, Lincolnites have engaged in a lively discussion on LincolnTalk about the pros and cons of building a new community center. Some voices urge a “no” vote at the November 30 Special Town Meeting to stop the town from spending $325,000 to hire an owner’s representative and an architect to flesh out the existing community center schematic designs.
To me, the idea of halting the project at this point fails to honor many aspects of the kind of democracy on which Lincoln prides itself.
- First, it would simply discard the decade of hard work that resulted in the designs we have in hand today, effectively saying “Everything has changed, so the work of the past is invalid.” This seems short-sighted. The benefits of a community center have been well-documented and long promised to the residents of Lincoln. It seems unlikely that things have changed so much that we need a hard stop at this point.
- Second, it doesn’t give the current Community Center Building Committee a chance to work with professionals to come up with complete proposals on which the town can vote. Approving the expenditure to hire professionals to develop more complete designs doesn’t commit the Town to any design. Property taxes will NOT increase because of this vote. There will be another chance to vote on the final project, with much better information on costs, trade-offs against other town priorities, and property tax impacts.
- Finally, shutting the project down now does not give private fundraising a chance to tap into the generosity of Lincoln’s residents who may well be willing to make a significant contribution to the cost of the community center project in order to reduce the town’s portion of the cost and the consequent burden on property taxpayers.
I strongly urge everyone to come out to the Special Town Meeting on November 30 and vote in favor of moving the community center project to the next phase. In this way, we can give residents a chance to get a fair look at what a community center will provide and what it will cost.
Call the Lincoln COA&HS at 781-259-8811 if you need a ride to the Town Meeting.
“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.
A well reasoned set of points, Rhonda. Thank you for sharing this perspective.
Rachel Drew
Rhonda,
Thank you for your commentary.
However, there are a number of statements you have made that beg further discussion.
1) The implication is that the ONLY vote that will take place is an up or down on pursuing the project. Last night’s discussion clearly indicated there is a desire to have a vote that might be conditioned with a budget cap, that a vote might be conditioned with a renewed exploration of scope, that a delay might be requested to allow more time to bring the community up speed.
The committee itself acknowledged the population has changed since the early days of planning and intensive community engagement and that many were in the dark and experiencing sticker shock.
2) Even if there is a “No” vote, the matter can be revisited.
This has happened many times before.
A “no” vote DOES NOT KILL THE PROJECT NOR DISCARD ALL THE WORK THAT HAS GONE BEFORE.
3) The idea of private fundraising has been thrown out in multiple meetings.
When has private fundraising for a town project EVER raised anything close to the $10 million gap that exists between the 2018 estimate of costs that we were all familiar with and today’s price tag?
We need some indication, some large pledge (over $1 million) before we can begin to consider private funding as a lifeline.
There are multiple iterations of votes that would not shut the project down, and they should be considered.
I find it distressing for anyone to assert that anything other than a straight up, unqualified “Yes” vote means we “would simply discard the decade of hard work that resulted in the designs we have in hand today, effectively saying Everything has changed, so the work of the past is invalid.”
This is simply not true.
We need to celebrate all the work that has gone before and build on it, but with some caveats.
We need a pause to make sure there is a path that will ensure the best possible outcome that does not break the bank, make the tax burden so onerous that it drives peole away, keeps people out and further reduces our economic diversity.
So, a highly qualified “yes” would work.
If that cannot be accomplished, a “no” to pause to give time to reframe, and another vote at a later time, perhaps Town Meeting.
Let us bring more people into the conversation, let us do more traditional outreach to ensure an inclusive process.
Let’s find a way to move forward, but in a more temperate way, and not a simple up or down vote.
Sara Mattes