The Vicksburg Square vote should not only convey Harvard’s choice to allow or deny Trinity Financial’s development proposal, but it should be a proxy for Harvard’s disposition intention. If we vote against the Trinity plan, that should signify that we intend to take jurisdiction, and we should shift into high gear toward making that happen. We owe it to the residents already living there, and those yet to come, to eliminate the ambiguity about governance of their neighborhood. Most of the arguments against the proposal have cited the imbalance between tax revenue and service costs, which only matters to Harvard if we have jurisdiction.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that a vote for the proposal is a vote against jurisdiction, but we should understand that, in voting for development, we accept responsibility to govern and provide services if and when jurisdiction returns to Harvard. We should not just be focused on the short-term revenue windfall that comes with the education contract. After disposition, we would be responsible for education of all who live in Harvard, with only the property tax revenue to support the cost.
And speaking of the Devens education contract, it is a very bad idea to extend it beyond our short-term ability to forecast enrollment. To be sure, current forecasts predict declining enrollment, and if that happens, supplementing enrollment with the Devens contract is the perfect way to maintain program and budget growth, without impacting property tax. But what happens if enrollment turns around, empty-nesters continue to leave, and young families with children take their place?
Harvard could be faced with a need to expand classroom space, based on the combination of Harvard enrollment and the committed Devens contract. School Building Assistance regulations only allow local enrollment (not contract or school choice) to be considered in granting assistance payments (typically 50 to 70 percent of building cost), so Harvard could be faced with having to pay 100 percent of expansion cost. The short-term windfall would quickly become a long-term deficit.
Leave the contract alone. Its current provision of annual renewal and two-year notice to cancel is a good balance between budget stability and ability to forecast future Harvard population.
Vote for Trinity’s project, or vote against it. There are strong arguments on both sides. The vote should also signal Harvard’s disposition intention.
