Soulmates

Note: Publishing late because when the bulk of the post was written the proposed RFP and consultant's report weren't online. Had some time free up, went to check and the same are online.  Just a tweak or two to the post based on a very quick read, like two minutes.  Yes that was more than enough for the point made below.  See also below for a link to the documents..

The "soul of the town". That's how the former Rogers school was described.  If accurate, this town is in a whole lot more trouble than ever imagined.

One comment by one audience member clearly highlighted that point.  At least that speaker was being totally honest.

Two buildings.  Both donated by our benefactor.  Separated by just a few years in existence. Both providing an interesting perspective if you think about it about attitudes then and now.  

No group representing a building which is the true "soul" of this town would stand silent to comments dismissing out of hand its soulmate in the North. No true soul would rely on feeble excuses as to why its mate is allowed to be shuffled into the corner.  Pushed aside so it can languish and simply hope and pray that the same zeal and adore will be devoted to it once its sister is given the more prominent attention some feel it deserves.

I can tell you right now, I for one am not going to forget the representations made by some about the soulmate of the Rogers school.

You sit through meetings like last night and are simply awed by the instances of deja vu.

How many meetings and how many more months will pass before the process is figured out?

I am not talking about RFP vs. auction. If any one person involved in this process had determined the necessary procedure that must be followed, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Believe it or not, I don't mind being wrong about something.  After all to err is human, and being reminded of one's humanity is not a bad thing once in a while.

Truth be told, there are times where perhaps one baits a hook, just to see if you can get a nibble, just to make sure there is actually some knowledge out there by people who should actually have it.

If one has perused the law, one knows what one needs to do. One should also know exactly what one can and cannot do. If you have the wherewithal to put together an RFP you certainly have it to figure out what you have to do to use it.  But I digress ...

Since we are dealing with former schools, it might be appropriate to use the saying "knowledge is power". The one bit of knowledge every single person involved in this mess absolutely needs to possess is the knowledge that the provisions of c. 30B apply.  Knowing that, the disposition of the properties should have been a much easier process. Indeed much of the "auction" controversy wouldn't exist.

Now that aside, and it being a foregone conclusion that we are going to use an RFP, we discovered that the ad hoc committee formed to determine a recommendation for these buildings has submitted a recommended RFP. All well and good, and we will all have a chance to determine whether the RFP submitted is all well and good. 

Actually, we will have a bit more time than most people think. Actually both the consultant's report and the proposed RFP are online. So start checking now.  Most glaring problem in about a 30 second review for the RFP - a promissory note to secure performance. Seriously?  Oh could be this was intend just a a point of "beginning", however notes aren't worth the paper they are printed on if there isn't collateral to back them up.
But hey, we got a whole lot more time than people think to work out the kinks.

Anyway ... 

Here is my one true wish for the Rogers' building, that those seeking the saving of the building get exactly what they wish, and as quickly as legally possible.

A charter school is often bandied about.  There would be nothing quick or easy about having that happen.  If you think it would, than you ought to take a look at what you have to do to establish a charter school. 

Quick as possible is the key folks.  We have had to significant rain events this month.  If you have a leaky roof, when it rains well water seeps it.  When it rains hard, more water seeps in than as save the normal little rain fall.  when you get over 2 inches of rain in one event, not to mention more than 7 inches, well you best be praying the rain somehow miraculously misses your building.  If it doesn't, best have the mop up crews in the building. 

My realistic guess: if these buildings aren't dealt with in finality by this time next year, the town is going to end up having to take a wrecking ball to them, well at least one.

The 800 pound gorilla is what do you do if you don't receive a responsible proposal? Note the word responsible.  Have we not all seen and learned from the problems with excepting "sole" proposals?

Anyway ... another digression I think.

Now a private school of some level, well heck, not an issues. So long as run by a not for profit. No issue relative to zoning for not for profit educational corporation facilities.  Sec. 3 of chapter 40A says so. Well zoning issues as to use.  Other little matters such as picky little things like parking and set backs and stuff, well that still is regulated.

So assume you can get some type of elementary school back in there, not much of a problem right? The neighbors lived with that before, they can live with again. Some type of adult education even.  It should not matter. Still a school right?

What's the big deal about the extra cars for the students? Carve out some of that playground if you have to.

The problem with that, if that is financially feasible for any individual or entity, we are talking about somone or some group with a whole bunch of money to burn.

By the way, nor proposal should be accepted on mere promises.  Substantial bond and prove of ability, up front.

At this point I pretty much don't care what gets done.  Just do it right and get it done.

I would be remiss to nit mention the other little matter that essentially started off yesterday's meeting.  Lamp posts for town hall.

If this proposal actually qualifies for CPC funding, I will be dumbfounded.  I don't mean whether it gets approved by the town's CPC. Use the word "old" and that too often seems enough.  I mean actually meets the legal requirements.

For this particular proposal we have the legal requirements under the CPA legislation the "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" are to be followed. 

Standard No. 3

Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. (Emphasis supplied)

Now if some person wants to put together a proposal, with detailed costs, complete in nature and submit it as an article for the general fund to pay, well go right ahead. Let town meeting decide it it wants to delete the general fund for that purpose

Putting in two, four eight or how many historical looking lamp posts and using CPC money to gussy up the area to your view of what it should look like is not apparently to be undertaken.

Delaying the implementation of a Town Meeting vote to accommodate an issue which in fact was actually raised at town meeting as a basis for a motion for IP is just not something that should be allowed.  

Remember the mantra used last night about meetings, discussions etc. in formulating a decision.  It was no secret going into town meeting that someone was not happy about not "expanding" the sidewalk project to include conjectural features.  If the rationale is well I personally didn't know, I will multiply that I by 20 as a basis for delaying other matters addressed last night, and get you those 20 people who personally don't know what the heck is going on.

As far as the historically accurate, how about the standard No. 4:

Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 

How about this little historical argument - the existing "ugly" polls there could be historically significant.  I love "could be" arguments.  Remember the could be the reasons for another restoration project.  

As an side, I love that one.  Could be Mark Twain or HHR himself sat at the table.  Probably not to be used as a stand with a glass top for a display of model boats or whatever.  Still could be however.

But again I digress.

Don't liken the ugly green.  Fine, paint them black.  The tree is a problem, trim it. Like every other one in town. Underground wiring perhaps, eliminating the wires to the front of the building?  Not totally historically accurate. Want historically accurate, eliminate the lights all together.  Put the curb cuts back to where the same were originally. Spend the thousands to rewire to hide everything in the back of the building.  

These could be the last standing such poles anywhere.  They could be pieces of historical value exhibiting a vintage example of street lighting.  Could be, right?

Simple fact of the matter is not all history is as pretty as we would like it to be.   

Why take a look at the two schools. Tells you something about prevailing attitudes, then and now to be honest. At least one speaker in the group last night was honest.  At least one person got up and noted all he cared about was what was going to happen with the old Rogers school.

Ridiculous you say.  Possibly. Maybe nothing more than pure conjecture.

And conjecturing about what was and what should be is probably a good point to stop.

Be safe.