Why do the Finance Committee and Capital Planning and Investment Committee oppose Article 14 in the town warrant, which would borrow $876,134 to fix the roof, gutters, and brickwork of the old library, despite numerous prior studies and Select Board votes supporting the repairs? They want to see “a comprehensive list of all necessary repairs and costs for the building, and what alternative options exist for this historical, yet excess, town asset.”
An obvious answer is that it will cost money, which is, of course, correct, but crucially incomplete, in my view. Close reading of their comments reveals a conflicting vision of the very nature of historical preservation. On the one hand, the building is historically important and an acknowledged, though “excess,” gem of Harvard’s historical Common. But Harvard also has a decades-long tradition of deferred maintenance and underfunded repair, and this is the history that will actually be preserved.
For example, Bromfield House and Hildreth House—both recently in the news—have suffered from this chronic penny-wise, pound-foolish approach. Only a few years ago, the Town Hall underwent an inadequate, though ultimately not inexpensive, renovation. Not only is there insufficient office space and no air conditioning on the second floor, but the sound system for the large meeting room—installed by a company founded, and still partly owned, by a then-member of the Select Board—is useless for public meetings, so we must rent one. Most dramatically, the mold problem at the elementary school was first ignored, then addressed with ineffective ad hoc measures. Now, of course, a massive new school is rising, at a cost of over $54,000,000.
Rain and snow, freezes and thaws will not wait for a “comprehensive list of all necessary repairs.” As time passes, damage goes inexorably on, the list grows, and costs increase dramatically. Deferring the necessary fixes will allow the building to crumble into further disrepair, forcing an eventual fire sale or tear-down. Article 14 thus presents a stark choice between preserving an irreplaceable town asset and preserving our disgraceful history of shortsighted penny-pinching. Please vote “yes.”
Billy Salter
Elm Street
