The “no” vote on the override is significant to me because it relates to an apparent long-term trend in Harvard and the Devens question.
One could say town opinion is about evenly balanced for and against the override in that the override was rejected by such a small margin of voters. Hardly a decisive victory for opponents of increasingly greater funding of town operations. The jury remains out and that is good because the question deserves being viewed more long-term than simply “next year.”
The “no” vote on the override is a landmark. It is the first rejected override in memory. I hold this truth self evident: that quality of life in Harvard is directly related to the operations of town government—maintaining roads, education, and other town operations for the welfare of its citizens. The no vote on the override is a portent of a future of declining quality of life in Harvard because citizens do not want to pay more out of their own pockets.
To suggest the override was rejected because citizens did not have adequate choice in what to accept or reject is saying Harvard citizens voted to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The override was to add 1/20th of the amount of the entire budget, and the “no” vote threw the entire budget process back to square one, with only three months to configure and approve a new budget for the new fiscal year. The vote threw out the effort of many concerned and devoted people of disparate views to arrive at a budget consensus. The “no” vote to me was an irresponsible action carried out by people who chose to not attend Town Meeting, in deference to things more important in their personal lives. As such their vote may have been made in casual disregard of any serious thought on the matter, swayed by slogans and greed.
However one may define the ambiguous slogan “preserve Harvard,” which is so diabolically inclusive it takes under its umbrella citizens holding contradictory views, the “no” vote on the override exposes the illogic of those claiming to be against taking back Devens in order to “preserve Harvard.” How to preserve Harvard when the trend over the next decades may be one of declining quality of life? How else to preserve Harvard when citizens do not want to pay more out of their own pockets?
Harry Jacobson
Bolton Road
