Opinion

Letter to the editor: Setting the record straight on the Rockport Community House


Published: July 9, 2009

To the editor:

This letter is in response to Mr. Christopher Lewis' letter of June 23 regarding the plans for Rockport Community House.

It needs to be noted that Mr. Lewis's rationale against the Community House project is replete with misinformation and erroneous data.

First, the renovation of the Community House is a town project that has been under study by the Building Study Committee (BSC) and the Capital Improvement Planning Committee ever since it was inspected as part of the first phase of the Master Building Plan in 1998. The project is not "Michael Racicot's proposal" and does not need to be suspended while a new administrator is hired. In fact, I prepared the initial CPA application myself on behalf of the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Racicot then prepared the current updated application.

The town government of Rockport is very resilient. It is designed for continuity, to function smoothly in the transitions between new boards of selectmen and new town administrators. We have never in the past halted the forward progress of a major capital project after the election of one new selectman. The new Board of Selectmen is operating according to the decision of the 2008 Fall Town Meeting at which design funds were voted.

Second, it should be noted that Mr. Lewis has failed on multiple occasions to attend meetings at which the details and true facts of the project were discussed, and that he does not speak for the Council on Aging.

He was explicitly invited to a BSC meeting with the Council on Aging but did not appear. At a recent meeting of the Community House Users Committee, which includes the Council on Aging, it was noted that Mr. Lewis has not contacted the COA "for ages." Finally, Mr. Lewis did not attend the recent project presentation to the Community Preservation Committee to hear the details of the project as did three members of the Board of Selectmen, Ms. Canavan, Ms. Wilkinson and Mr. Heinze, as well as members of the Council on Aging.

For a truer picture of the project, readers should refer to Jonathan L'Ecuyer's June 10 article in the Gloucester Daily Times for a balanced summary of the project as presented at that CPC meeting.

Third, Mr. Lewis is misrepresenting the results of the Council on Aging 2008 survey of needs for a senior center. There was no 249-54 vote opposing using the Community House. In fact, there was no question at all specifically asking about the Community House.

In Question One, 282 people said they felt a need for a senior center. In Question Two, 111 people said they would use a senior center often and 125 occasionally. Under Question Four, 249 people said they would not mind sharing a building with other groups while only 54 said they would mind.

It appears Mr. Lewis has reversed these numbers to support his position that senior citizens are against using the Community House. All of the other questions dealt with the services and programs provided by the Council on Aging.

Fourth, the Granite Bank building is in reasonable condition, but it does not have accessible toilet rooms, an elevator to the second floor or the kitchen facilities necessary for food services. These considerable expenditures must be added into the calculation to utilize the building as proposed. An actual evaluation of the building will most likely reveal additional work necessary to update the systems and to remove the bank equipment and remodel the space for COA needs.

Finally, the Community House renovation project does not require debt exclusion and therefore would result in no increase of taxes, which is what voters want to avoid. The project can be covered by the Sale of Real Estate Fund and the Community Preservation Fund. There is no other major capital project which the town can pursue at this time which can be financed without an impact on taxes. Voting to accomplish this renovation using Community Preservation funds will allow the town to move forward with its building plan, even during these tough economic times, without burdening the taxpayers.

Because of the size of the Community House project, borrowing against the guaranteed and secure future revenue of the Community Preservation Fund has always been the plan. The cost would be spread over the life of a 20-year bond. There is no proposal to drain all of the existing reserves or to impede funding the other designated community needs under the CPA.

All of the projects Mr. Lewis mentions as desperately needing funding — Thacher Island, Rockport Public Library, Rockport Art Association, the bandstand, and the churches — have already received substantial funding from the Community Preservation Committee. Funds for open space and affordable housing have been and continue to be set aside in Community Preservation reserves for these purposes.

I urge members of the Rockport community to learn more about this important project. The Community House Building Committee plans to hold a public meeting in August to show the designs and to answer your questions about how the building will look after renovation, how it will continue to be used by numerous community groups, how the senior center will be laid out, and how much it will cost.

This vital project, which will provide a benefit to the town for years to come, will be ready for your vote at Fall Town Meeting on Sept. 14.

Jack Campbell

Rockport

Chairman, Building Study Committee

Member, Community House Building Committee

Chairman, Community House Users

Group Advisory Committee