This Week’s Letters to the Editor

Editor’s Note: The Letters to the Editor section in the Woodbridge Town Chronicle is a place where community voices can be shared and heard. In the print newspapers of years past, letters to the editor were often the liveliest section, where readers spoke directly to one another, the broader community, and its leaders. To submit a letter for consideration please refer to the submission guidelines.

The best investment for Woodbridge

To the editor,

We are writing to express our support for the October 13 Beecher Road School building referendum. We moved to Woodbridge almost 30 years ago primarily for its schools.  Although our sons attended Beecher between 1997-2007, we understand the value of, and need for, a good school system is shared by all town residents, always.

We have seen the condition of the school and know there are terrible issues with space, structure, safety, and accessibility today. These will only get worse with time. 

As fiscal conservatives, we believe in financially prudent town planning and management. As retirees, we understand the impact of higher taxes. We know the best investment in Beecher is the one that will last the longest. Instead of trying to patch a failing building, let’s use the same money wisely. Let’s not miss out on this rare opportunity to get $63million from the state to build the school we need right now; one that will last for decades.

Our kids went to Beecher, a school paid for by folks who faced these same, difficult decisions back in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s; a school with improvements paid for by a generation before we moved here. Our family enjoyed the benefits of a school paid for by others, not by us. They made the investment for the future – they knew it was the right thing to do.

Now, it’s our turn to “return the favor” and pay it forward by investing in the future. We feel that we owe it to this town and to generations of kids to come.

Our adult sons feel the same way about this issue. Asked if we should be spending some of our savings this way, “Absolutely! Please, you have to!” one said. “It’s the Social Contract! It’s not about your money, it’s what we owe to each other.” We trust him; he’s a lot smarter than we are — he went to Beecher.  

We want to invest in our town’s future.

— Judith and Roger Hess

Mr. Hess is a Steering Committee member of the Woodbridge for Educational Excellence referendum political action committee.

Rushed referendum on $118.5 million is too much, too fast

To the editor,

There’s rich irony in the rush for hasty approval of the costliest bond issuance in Woodbridge history — $118.5 million next week — to pay for an unnecessary new elementary school.

Ordinarily, civic leaders are to guard against rash, reckless decisions leading to extreme debt, a jeopardized credit rating, and excessive tax rates. However, on October 13, it’ll be up to voters to thwart Town Hall’s majority and instead, instill a measured approach to infrastructure needs and financing in Woodbridge.

The Cardozo team likely even suppressed October 13 participation: with only 19 days’ notice, absentee referendum voting became unusually, exceptionally difficult.

Opponents of the $118.5 million proposal overwhelmingly support public education, yet reject the overreach, timing, lack of due process, and absence of alternatives that characterize the October 13 referendum.

No one denies the someday need for a new school, but to condemn an entire building, parts of which retain a useful life of 20-25 years, seems evidence of an impetuous, throw-away culture. Targeted projects to address specific needs would define a Town living within its means.

Borrowed money for significant improvements previously made to the school, overwhelmingly approved in 2014, must be repaid until 2036. It would be counterintuitive at best, and objectively preposterous, to repay millions of dollars for upgrades already hauled to a landfill.

What’s more, economic pressure on Woodbridge families likely hasn’t peaked considering rash, reckless decisions by the federal government, ongoing global instability, and imminent winter heating bills. On October 13, it’ll be ill-advised to intentionally add significantly to local property tax bills.

Town Hall’s majority wants approval of this massive, $118.5 million expenditure without a concrete plan to pay for it. State reimbursement is estimated, grand list growth is speculative, and potential economic expansion in the commercial district is limited.

A democratic process demands discussion of alternatives among an informed electorate, but the Cardozo team’s ‘take it or leave it’ plan ignores that. Its vital role is also to ensure fiscal stability, but a staggering, $118.5 million proposal doesn’t meet that standard either. I urge voters to vote no October 13.

— Laurence Grotheer

The writer is a former member of the Board of Finance (2006-2010), and a former member of the Board of Selectmen (2010-2015).

Editor’s Note: Letters reflect the perspectives of their authors. They are published to foster dialogue about issues of local concern, including questions of governance, transparency, and accountability, as well as topics such as highlighting upcoming or past events from community groups. To submit a letter for consideration please refer to the submission guidelines.