Having the right disposition is always a plus.

Wednesday. Midweek.  Hump Day.  

What is all that for?  Nothing really, just trying to kick start this piece.  

As a note, I think I have been keeping the blogging resolution pretty well.  I do think I am going to adopt a less than everyday approach though.  Not sure what that will be.  Toying with one day off during the week and one on the weekend.  

Anyway, just another attempt at kick starting.  Moving on ...

Let us not forget we are less than one month away from the STM which has been called for February 12th. 

My personal highlight for the event will be the discussion on pot.  Now for me, I am looking at this one for the entertainment value only.  I will not have an part in the script on this one.  

My role is limited to essential budgetary matters and articles affecting the town finances.  Yes, one can argue that the articles affect town finances.  One can argue that for any article.  Historically, and based on past precedent though, the vast majority of zoning articles have been deemed otherwise.  Essentially think degrees of separation I guess.

Anyway ... this is one of those matters where the potential for debate is probably very great (actually two, being the proposed zoning district and regs. and the proposed moratorium).  Of course, there is a fair chance there won't be much debate also.

Special Town Meetings can be funny.  Attendance is usually not what it should be, to put it politely. Although with at least two union contracts to deal with, it might bump the average for these special meetings.

As of right now, we also should see two articles related to the former Rogers/Oxford schools.  One is for further funds to maintain the buildings through the end of the year  (at $5,000.00).  The other seeks funding for costs presumably associated with the disposition of the buildings.  The request is $15,000.00. Info is a bit sketchy at this point. No point in attempting to address the matter as to the larger request until more detailed info is obtained.

I have noted in the past that a year is a very long time over which to try an forecast anything as far as the political landscape goes.  Well two years isn't just adding another year, it is like multiplying by a factor of ten. Three years, kind of like trying to predict what the thaw after the next ice age will be.

Three years ago I would have bet the farm, not only yours either, that this town would be facing a very difficult battle over the amount of funding and pace of the same for the restoration and maintenance of at least one of those buildings. Today, if I had made that bet, I would be scrambling to find enough equity to put a wager down against to offset the initial bet.

Several reasons.  Not the least of which is the new school has opened, and a whole bunch of anti new school people are no longer anti. A number of those people who had children attending the old Wood are converts, at least from what they have told me.  A number of Neckers up in arms over the potential traffic snafu at least have begrudgingly admitted it isn't any worse.

I could go on, but it really would be digressing.  

Put it simply, the buildings have a whole lot of "luster" in the eyes of a whole lot of people.  Don't get me wrong, there are still some who want the town to retain and maintain.  Quite honestly, I said it years ago, the Rogers would be a perfect Town Hall Annex. Of course years ago we had the ability to put together a realistic funding plan for renovation.  

The problem was years ago, i.e. when the first serious study on our elementary schools was done (I want to say around 2000), there was absolutely no realistic political reality which included eliminating Roger's Elementary.  So it, and Oxford for a number of years limped along.  

Now a whole different reality exists.  Many different realities, on the educational front and perspective, the financial front and ability and the political sentiment.

No the battle I think today has changed.  It will not be about we we do with the buildings.  It will focus on what we allow to be done to the buildings. Sell/lease the same with no restrictions.  Sell/lease the same with restrictions.  The only two viable options I can see.

Maybe you have better sight on this than I do.  

As a note, before you slam the request, let's wait for the details.  There absolutely will be cost associated with the disposition of these buildings.  The same will be driven by what that disposition is.  

Whether we have reached a point in time where the money is needed will be a case for the requesting party to make and substantiate.  Way too early to simply write the request off as premature or a waste of money at this point; and, remember you will be spending money.  Legal fees at some point, and yes appraisals will probably be necessary to determine FMV especially if restrictions are place.  RFP prep and advertising. 

No escaping those things if the buildings are to be disposed.  

Anyway, at least the wheel is turning on this one.  Whether it is being pushed in the right direction remains to be seen.