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.

Beecher vote raises broader questions about town’s future

To the editor,

The upcoming vote on a new Beecher Elementary School has far less to do with quality of education than the quality of representation we are receiving from the one-party political continuum that currently rules town hall. This is really just the opening of a new front on fiscal sanity and the cultural and physical future of Woodbridge.

Where has been the political pushback from town hall on the proposed massive apartment complexes developers intend for our town? How will the town accommodate the hundreds, if not thousands, of new residents? The main accommodation will be through the increased necessity of town services, especially involving education, meaning increased taxes and political power. How has this worked out for our neighbor to the south, where hundreds and hundreds of millions has been spent on new school construction with no increase in student proficiency, but where single party representation reigns inevitable.

This is really just an attempt to wear down any opposition to their ultimate plans, the future development of the Woodbridge Country Club, which they have been pushing for many years, pushing consistently with one bad proposal after another. The potential there is for 1800+ residential units, with the concurrent expansion of town services to address these new residents is an avenue to increased political power through the increase in town employees and the associated costs that come with them. 

Woodbridge residents should very carefully consider the long-term implications of delivering the kind of financial and political power inherent in such a massive project like new school funding, which will almost certainly go over budget. The political entities that are proposing the school are either silent or misguided on these other projects; they have shown their relative incompetence in fiscal matters and also have shown an inability to envision a future for Woodbridge that does not include a massive increase in residents, town employees, and taxation power. 

I advise Woodbridge residents to vote NO to the Beecher project and to stand guard to the quality of life in Woodbridge which is under serious threat by the actions of our representatives.

— Jeffrey Gee

The real cost of Beecher — and the value of taxpayers’ money

To the editor,

Two important considerations in Tuesday's Beecher Road School referendum deserve more attention: the financial value of keeping more money in taxpayers’ pockets and the Town’s egregiously super inflated costs of their Beecher capital maintenance plan.

For families facing rising household expenses, every additional tax dollar is unavailable for groceries, medical bills, home repairs or retirement savings.

For taxpayers who can afford to save or invest, the benefits are greater — but the Town’s plan picks taxpayers’ pockets. Consider $2,000 invested at an illustrative 7% annual return: nearly $4,000 in 10 years and $8,000 in 20. Returns aren't guaranteed, but money retained today can work for taxpayers instead of financing decades of Town debt.

If the town had fully explored a Better Value alternative to its $118.5 million Beecher project, taxpayers would have more money.

Rather than demolishing much of a school with well-functioning systems, a Better Value plan could preserve these facilities and selectively address necessary capital needs over time without unnecessary expenditures, preserving taxpayers' financial flexibility and the opportunity to put their own money to work for their own benefit.

Another reason for skepticism of the Town’s diligence is the Town's repeated projection of a $45–$60 million cost of repairing and maintaining Beecher over 20 years. It is likely actually closer to $25 million after accounting for potential State reimbursement of the Town’s super inflated cost of $38 million from its acknowledged direct cost of $16 million. That's an enormous discrepancy and may appear to some to be a deliberate attempt by the Town to scare taxpayers just before Halloween to support the Town’s ill conceived $118.5 million referendum.

We need to maintain Beecher's academic excellence. A Better Value Plan means making prudent investments when they're actually needed, not wholesale replacement when many components are well-functioning.

A NO vote on this Tuesday's $118.5 million boondoggle rejects the current plan and forces the Town to diligently consider alternatives that Town officials didn’t initially do on their own — this time with greater attention to the financial burden on taxpayers. After all, they're spending other people's money.

— Leonard Bell, MD

The writer was a member of the Woodbridge Board of Finance from 2001-2002 and served on the Amity Board of Education from 2002-2003.

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.