If voters read this article, (which did pass), they would have noted it deals with facilities "...to include buildings use recommendations..." This is clearly a worthwhile study that may well pay for itself if it is found that consolidation could take place rendering some buildings unnecessary. The recreation center building certainly comes to mind. This would save taxpayers the cost of annual maintenance and operating costs (heating and cooling), not to mention the potential for sale of such property thus placing it on the tax rolls. However, there is a piece missing in this plan and that is land.
It would seem the scope of this plan could be increased to inventory all town (make that taxpayer) owned land and its short and long term intended use. This would provide additional transparency into the subject of all the land the Town has amassed over the years. Had this been done prior to this year's elections, it would have disclosed the long term intended use of the land in question for the child daycare center at the pool, tennis courts and playing fields rec center property.
There are those who feel the Town should not own any land save that needed for town administration, DPW, police and fire. That may be an extreme view, but when property is purchased by the Town it is removed from the property tax rolls. While those taxes may not be significant in and of themselves, they must be made up by the rest of us picking up a piece. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Town to only hold what is absolutely needed and in the best interest of town residents. Let's hope the Plan authorized by this article will look at all town owned land and facilities and their intended use. We just might see a citizen's petition to release some for public sale.
Town government cannot possibly direct land use more efficiently than the entrepreneurial discovery process on the market. If land is unused, it's because there is not enough consumer demand to warrant building it up. When the town rulers "invest" in it with people's tax money (i.e., against their will), they are diverting resources from more productive channels. Everyone is worse off.
ReplyDeleteYes, I would find it extremely useful to study the accounting of public owned land.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the need for proper management of town owned property; I congratulate the Citizens Petition Warrant Article for moving decisively for decommissioning the Great Dam. Let us not forget three of five of the Board of Selectmen felt uneasy making this decision. Why was it 3 of 5 BOS could not respond to the voices of the citizens and recommendations by their own advisory board and numerous published studies?
Gilman took a narrow, historic view of the issue. This in spite of the cost to taxpayers of the other alternatives, none of which would have addressed flooding or the toxic river issues. Chartrand tried to have it both ways so as not to offend voters by saying he favored dam removal in the long run, but thought the decision was rushed. Ten years of study a rush to judgment? Really? Quandt had apparently not even read the executive summary and was having daddy pull his strings. The Board of Selectmen are a powerful body and we need folks who will do the work necessary to be able to deliberate and make thoughtful decisions with taxpayers in mind.
ReplyDelete