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 Beecher vote was about trust

To the editor,

We can analyze every aspect of the Beecher plan but the truth is that none of what's in the plan itself explains its 2-to-1 failure. Other towns have approved similar projects by resounding margins, so what’s so different here? To understand why so many people voted no, and why future proposals may face the same fate, we need to look at how our town government operates and why residents have become so unwilling to support anything coming from it.

The word I’m looking for is trust. Despite the words “state reimbursement,” can we really expect residents to entrust millions of their hard-earned tax dollars to a government overseeing such an inflated budget? Residents already pay too much, why pay more until we know our current budget is sustainable?

We've seen town officials constantly hide behind consultants instead of establishing a process that actually listens to the public, all while spending the public's money to reach their conclusions. 

Even though I'm only 19, I've watched some of the same people advocate and campaign on building our town through "development," only to leave once their children were out of the school system. Yet everyone else still here must bear the burden and carry the costs. If we really need this project to give our kids the education they deserve, shouldn’t we make sure this is a town they can come back and contribute to with the great education they received?

The truth is that if increased taxes were on the ballot, the people would soundly reject the town government as unfit to manage the money. Town elections allow politicians to hide behind a party line to conceal their true intentions, but when their ideas come directly to the public, they can’t use the same false promises to justify taking more of our hard-earned money. 

The Beecher vote should be a warning to our town government. You can spend all the money in the world on consultants and studies to convince residents that a project is necessary. But until residents trust the people asking them to pay, none of that will be enough.

— Daniel Mowerman

Not a vote against education, but for better planning and a lower tax impact

To the editor,

Following the recent vote rejecting the $118 million Beecher Road School bonding proposal, it is clear there is a disconnect between project advocates and the majority of voters who said “no.” It is essential to understand that this vote was not a rejection of our students, our teachers, the value of education, or the needs of Beecher Road School. It was a rejection of serious financial risk, uncomfortable unknowns, and a perceived rushed process.

Voters were asked to approve borrowing up to $118 million regardless of whether the state’s estimated reimbursement materializes. Projected state aid is never a guaranteed check, and taxpayers would have been on the hook for any shortfall or budget overrun. Beyond the top-line number, key details remained unclear, such as the future operating and staffing costs for expanded programs, ongoing maintenance for the old building if mothballed, and site work risks like ledge and soil conditions. Without clear figures or a firm cost ceiling, it was easy to recognize that “unexpected issues” would lead to costly supplemental borrowing requests down the road.

This proposal cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Woodbridge faces several other significant bonding requests over the next six years, threatening a compounding debt load while taxpayers are still paying off recent school improvements. Adding tax spike of 10% or higher on top of existing debt service is simply unsustainable for many residents.

Furthermore, current statewide discussions around property tax caps and updates to the Education Cost Sharing formula suggest the legislative landscape is shifting. Waiting for a clearer state policy picture could work to Woodbridge’s advantage, rather than rushing through a massive debt commitment based on the unsubstantiated claim that state money ”won't be there later.“

Finally, the rushed timeline and messaging felt forced. A decision of this magnitude should not have been compressed into a four-month marketing blitz. Expecting residents to digest a 20-year debt commitment in a matter of months was unreasonable.

We all want a school that meets our students' needs, provides academic excellence, and is well-maintained. We also want fiscal discipline, transparency, and a realistic long-term plan.

— Jason Morrill

The voters have spoken. It's time to rethink Town spending

To the editor,

We thank the 2,766 Woodbridge residents who participated in the October 13 referendum, particularly the overwhelming majority who rejected the Town’s $118.5 million Beecher Road School proposal by more than two to one. We also thank everyone who helped inform and mobilize voters.

The message is unmistakable: Woodbridge values excellent schools, responsible spending, transparency, and respect for taxpayers’ ability to pay.

This vote reflected serious concerns about affordability, financial priorities, and a decision-making process that failed to earn public confidence.

Town leadership must now stop, rethink, and only then move forward. Simply repackaging the rejected project at a lower price is not an acceptable path forward.

First, stop expenditures aimed at advancing the rejected Beecher construction proposal. The Town must distinguish spending on a defeated plan from necessary maintenance and immediate repairs to keep Beecher safe and functioning.

Before committing to projects, the Board of Finance must commission an assessment by an independent outside financial expert with no financial stake in the outcome to determine how much debt and other fixed costs Woodbridge can responsibly afford. The assessment must consider existing obligations, future operating expenses, taxes, and residents’ ability to pay.

Only then should officials prioritize competing capital needs and allocate borrowing capacity.

We urge the Town to establish a standing, broadly representative, bipartisan Capital Projects Building Committee to evaluate major projects, distinguish essential needs from desirable improvements, examine alternatives, and recommend which should proceed, when, and at what cost.

Then move forward with projects that address genuine needs, provide the best value, and fit within a responsible financial plan.

For Beecher, that means developing a genuinely new Better Value Plan that preserves educational excellence, makes responsible use of existing facilities, and substantially reduces costs.

Town officials must listen respectfully to residents. Public engagement must be meaningful, not simply an effort to persuade voters to accept decisions already made.

We remain committed to educational excellence and protecting Woodbridge’s financial health.

The voters have spoken —and their voice was unmistakably loud and clear. It’s time for Town leadership to listen and rethink how Woodbridge plans, prioritizes, and pays for its future.

— William Silberberg, M.D.
— Matthew T. Giglietti, CPA

The writers are officers of the Woodbridge Vote No referendum political action committee. Dr. Silberberg served as a member of the Amity Board of Education for eight years. Mr. Giglietti served as Chairman of the Woodbridge Board of Finance for 35 years.

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.