Both the rental fee charged to the Center on the Common and the town’s willingness to allow nearly $10,000 in back rent and utility costs to pile up, smack of questionable property management or even favoritism—or both (“Center on the Common spirit is strong, finances weak,” Dec. 5). And the suggestion expressed at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on Dec. 2, as reported in the Press, that the town give the old library building to the Center on the Common is ill-considered.
The fact that the Center on the Common is a private, nonprofit organization should be of no consequence in any rental decisions made by the town. Municipalities are not philanthropists; to charge only $100 per month rent (plus the cost of utilities) for the old library, to allow charges to greatly accrue, and to consider donating the building to the Center, suggests otherwise. It further suggests that town officials favor this organization over others, a stance that implies value judgments town officials are in no position to make. Would a pizza shop, an accounting firm—or even a nonprofit that doesn’t provide services to Harvard citizens—get the same deal? I suspect not. And, in fact, I hope not. Such a deal amounts to a taxpayer subsidy.
Worse, the Press article implies that we are subsidizing an organization that regularly serves a small minority of Harvard citizens, at least based on the Center’s relatively few programs and low revenue.
If the town finds that the best location for temporary Town Hall offices is the old library, the selectmen must part ways with the Center when its lease allows such action. In the meantime, town officials must demand that the Center make all past-due payments on a strict schedule.
The Center on the Common may be a good idea, but that’s irrelevant. The town must let it succeed or fail on its own.
Steve Kendall
Slough Road
