I 100% agree with what others have said in that we need specificity in the motion.
The motion needs to clearly lay out that *at least* one of the desired outcomes is the no-frills option (without the features that are currently part of the $25M proposal that were mentioned yesterday by the CCBC like a teaching kitchen or an indoor/outdoor cafe, etc). I fear that if that if this is not explicit in the motion, we will get one $25M option and maybe a $20M option and then be presented with a false choice under pressure from “we need to get this done before inflation hits us again”. I think what you said Dennis is critical and on point and should be included in the motion: the low-cost alternative NEEDS to be developed to “*the level where it can be considered on an equal footing with the two existing proposals when it comes time for the town to vote and chose a preferred approach.”* I also want to call out that options outside of Hartwell should be given a chance. The 8-year old SOTT exercise where 150 folks where given 2 dots each to choose should not be used as the “will of the town”. Thanks all for listening to me! On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:05 PM Dennis Picker <dennis.pick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andy (and all the rest of you!), > I feel we might be getting close. (what a relief it is to be able to write > that) > > Given what I now know, having attended last night's select meeting, I > agree that we need to spend study money in order to get another option, > what I call the no-frills approach, on the table. That money will flesh > out a newly conceived option that is no-frills, addresses the essential > needs, is Hartwell-centric, focused on new construction/renovation at > Hartwell, and flexibly addresses the location of some services at > other locations when that makes sense. The study would allow this new > alternative to be developed to the level where it can be considered on an > equal footing with the two existing proposals when it comes time for the > town to vote and chose a preferred approach. > > I sincerely believe that such a no-frills version would still be worthy of > the label "integrated community center." > > In that sense I would like to vote yes as a path forward. But I am not > there yet. The devil is in the details of the wording of the warrant > article and what gets presented by the CCBC tomorrow regarding how they > intend to proceed if the $325,000 funding is approved. The clarity and > specifics about what the warrant explicitly requires as output of the study > is of vital concern to me. > > I am aware that it may take an amendment from the floor to constructively > sort this out. I am waiting to see what plays out tomorrow. I hope that > the collective "we" can sort enough of this out through this type of dialog > to avoid chaos and confusion tomorrow night if it comes to amendments. > Fingers crossed. > > Dennis Picker > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:30 PM Andy Wang <andyrw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dennis, >> >> I agree that you are not distorting the sentiment of the statement I >> posted before. >> >> However, I think you're probably more correct to question this >> statement: "However, if you are in favor of a combined community center on >> the Hartwell campus, but are concerned about the cost, then I would >> encourage people to support the vote with a YES on Wednesday because this >> is the only way that the project can move forward and further define what >> the costs will be (and potential cost savings...and to be fair, possible >> cost increases) and overall impact. And whatever comes out, the town will >> be back to vote on THAT plan with, hopefully, more information." >> >> I will correct myself in saying that I should have said 'but are >> concerned about cost *and/or scope*' and not just the cost. I still >> believe, that without the funding, some of that reduction in scope can't >> happen without professional services to back them up. Some outreach could >> be done, but the real impact to the building and spaces can't really be >> determined without services. >> >> I've personally gone back and forth about supporting an amendment to put >> more explicit language in the warrant, but given the way it is written, it >> does not seem to fit in. The language is intentionally broad to give the >> committee some latitude in this next phase. I believe this puts more trust >> in the CCBC to look into some of the things you are suggesting in looking >> for some things that might be elsewhere, but given that I'm not going to do >> that work, I'll have to rely on the output of others. I always come back >> to the belief that the committee would like to build a community center, >> and they are going to come to terms with the fact that they are going to >> have to put forward a plan they think will pass a 2/3 vote to bond. This >> vote should not be the hard vote, the next ones (pick proposal & bond) are. >> >> - Andy >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:01 PM Dennis Picker <dennis.pick...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I want to call attention to this outside of the torrent of posts on the >>> main Community Center thread. >>> >>> Andy Wang said, in part (I don't think that my excerpting distorts his >>> meaning): >>> >>> "Now, if you (the royal you, not you specifically, Adam) don't think >>> that there should be a combined community center at Hartwell at all, and I >>> know there are several of folks who don't, then you should vote NO, since I >>> don't think the committee intends to go way back 10+ years to re-hash all >>> those decisions." >>> >>> There is a crucial nuance here. Let's try to not get tangled up in >>> misunderstandings and confusion about what each of us thinks a "combined >>> community center" means when we vote. >>> >>> I support pursuing new construction to meet rec and coa needs at >>> Hartwell with the explicit caveat that this study, if approved, produces a >>> new option (to consider when it comes time to vote on a preferred choice) >>> that is no frills, focused on the essentials and that takes advantage of >>> any favorable opportunities to provide _some_ of the services at other >>> sites in town. Even if some of the services are not at the Hartwell site, >>> it would still be a "combined community center." >>> >>> From the discussion at the Select Board meeting last night, I believe >>> that something along the lines of what I said in the previous paragraph is >>> what the Community Center Building Committee intends to do. I eagerly >>> await seeing exactly what is presented tomorrow. >>> >>> If we incorporate the work to flesh out and cost estimate a version that >>> has "center of gravity and new construction at Hartwell, but some things >>> might be elsewhere" that is NOT re-hashing 10 years of work and decisions. >>> It is finally completing important work that I wish we had done earlier in >>> this saga. >>> >>> Dennis Picker >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
