Once again Fire Chief Comeau is pitching the sub-station project at an estimated $2.3 million. The only thing that has changed for this project is the passage of time. The case for this expenditure seems no more compelling than it was when it was first proposed a number of years ago. He cites studies and some statistics. One could question if the studies were done to support the conclusion, or whether they are truly without bias. One could also question the proper response time. Those on the west side of town likely find their response time not much different than those on the east side. At least not orders of magnitude different.
What is needed are public meetings where the pros and cons can be discussed and those affected by the project or the cost of the project get their say. A project of this magnitude needs to be explained to those who would pay the bill. This is particularly true when one considers the costs now facing taxpayers for the dam removal and river restoration, the waste water treatment plant upgrade, sidewalks and continued work to eliminate inflow and infiltration issues with our sewer system.
Once again those requesting that the townspeople foot the bill for never ending projects must be held to a needs versus desired criteria. Our pockets do have bottoms.
Fortunately, the voters and Selectmen have turned this ill-concieved proposal away every time. First, the proposal is based on a 2006 study that ASSUMED that the most growth would happen west of town along Epping Rd. it didn't. Look at Sterlng Hill and the new Riverwoods developments. More people live in those two projects than in all of the post-2006 development west of 101. Besides, most of the land west of 101 is wetlands or conservation land. Second, the cost does not include the increase in EMTs that will be needed and the overtime associated with all of this. These extra costs are conservatively estimated at $1Million per year. Finally, one of the Chief's reasons for putting a station out there is the new High School (he finally admitted to this last year.) So, has he obtained a committment from SAU! 16 to pay 60% of the cost of the station?
ReplyDeleteWe didn't need the station when he first propossed it and there is less need for it now.
Haven't checked this out, but suspect the school has an installed sprinkler system. If so, isn't that supposed to provide enough protection to allow for the Fire Department to respond?
DeleteMay we continue to have voters who see this for what it is- an excellent example of a boondoggle.
ReplyDeleteWhy should fires be handled by an inept, corrupt municipal government in the first place? Isn't it interesting how the worst "markets" (roads, sidewalks, trash, courts, etc.) are all government run?
ReplyDelete