I am shaking my head laughing in disgust. Who do these people think we are? This warrant language is appallingly insulting
Kind Regards, Scott Clary 617-968-5769 Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors On Wed, Jun 4, 2025, 7:32 AM Bijoy Misra <[email protected]> wrote: > I have observed that there are special volunteers who have gained > expertise in writing shrewd political documents. > One becomes a pariah, if you complain. I am so glad that people are > noticing. > I remain confused as to the goal of the well-meaning volunteers. > Not that the project is bad, but there is insecurity of opening all > records to the public or allowing full public hearings > to start a project. > Best regards, > Bijoy Misra > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 8:55 PM David Cuetos <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I return to one of my longstanding frustrations: the lack of impartiality >> and factual rigor on our town’s website when presenting information about >> warrant articles. >> >> Take, for instance, the statement regarding Article 1, which addresses >> the Community Center budget expansion: >> >> “The CCBC has determined that cutting $2.3M out of the project would >> require a complete redesign (estimated cost $1.5M to $2.0M) and a delayed >> timeline, resulting in further escalated costs ($1.5M to $2.0M). With funds >> spent to date approaching $2M, a redesign would add approximately $5M+ of >> unanticipated expenses to the original project budget.” >> >> Let’s break this paragraph down, sentence by sentence: >> >> “cutting $2.3M out of the project would require a complete redesign >> (estimated cost $1.5M to $2.0M)” >> >> This stretches the bounds of plausibility. Anyone familiar with >> construction projects knows that cost-cutting trade-offs are often >> necessary, and rarely do they require paying full architectural fees all >> over again. I’ve never heard of an architect telling a client that reducing >> the scope of a project by 10% necessitates starting from scratch at full >> cost. If the project is over budget, that reflects at least in part a >> failure on the part of the architects to guide the process responsibly. >> >> “and a delayed timeline, resulting in further escalated costs ($1.5M to >> $2.0M)” >> >> Have they never heard of the time value of money? I’d rather see my taxes >> levied two years from now than today. Delaying the project means capital >> remains available for more productive uses. Even if the funds are already >> allocated, they would be earning interest—likely 4–5%. Any escalation >> estimate should be offset by that. Moreover, our record for predicting >> escalation is weak at best. We should avoid baseless speculation. >> >> “With funds spent to date approaching $2M” >> >> This is a textbook example of the sunk cost fallacy. Prior spending is >> irrelevant to the decision at hand. What matters is the incremental cost of >> a redesign compared to the existing plan. Past expenditures should have no >> bearing on that evaluation. >> >> “a redesign would add approximately $5M+ of unanticipated expenses to the >> original project budget” >> >> This is misleading. A redesign, by definition, implies a different >> project. The assumption here is that the baseline cost of the redesign >> would match that of the original plan, which is a false premise. In fact, a >> redesign would probably have a smaller overall budget. Even if there are >> duplicative expenses—like revised architectural drawings—there’s a real >> possibility the town could still save money overall. >> >> In sum, the statement on the town website reveals a mix of >> fear-mongering, misdirection, and a surprising degree of financial >> illiteracy. What this really signals is that the CCBC is unwilling to >> compromise on its original vision and is “holding the town ransom” (*a >> phrase I’m growing fond of*) by grossly exaggerating the cost of >> changing course—just as taxpayers begin to question the wisdom of approving >> an overrun before ground has even been broken. >> >> On the bright side, a “No” vote on the 25th would supersede last year’s >> bonding approval. The CCBC has made it clear they cannot deliver the >> approved project within the allocated budget. Perhaps the CCBC's >> stubborness is a blessing in disguise. >> >> >> David Cuetos >> >> Weston Rd >> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
