Letters

The outcome of the school district proposition vote on May 16 could leave the community less understanding and capable of its shared future. There are cause and enough blame to pass around, but the question today is whether to purchase the Marsden lots.

I believe history will regard the vote not of lasting importance but as a disruptive event because district success is not tied to the purchase, though its financial challenges and taxpayer burdens will be magnified if it does.

The vote is a study in better community building, as places for work, school, and commercial life. Currently, social and economic transformations leave many feeling vulnerable. Public resources like the Community Preservation Fund appear to support some interests while overlooking opportunities for greater good. There are disputes over who should live here and how. Now, the May vote could permit the district to ignore village zoning, land use, and board oversight. How would residents of North Haven or Noyac feel if the roles were reversed?

Working for a better place includes expecting our leaders and ourselves to be good stewards of common interests and respectful of private opportunities by government, civic, school, and religious institutions. Leadership entails responsible planning, foresight, and candor. We like to encourage valid competing interests to be treated respectfully and seek win-win outcomes. These ideas are valued here but need reinforcement. Such is the case with the Marsden proposition.

Though each has her rationale, it is unhelpful to conclude the decision before us is a “no-brainer” unless we prefer to stop thinking critically and let tribe or emotion take over. Doing so will compound our community’s challenges and impoverish our spirit.

Would a Marsden purchase advance or hurt community? Is the district’s approach a teaching moment for how we do our business? For me, these are the central factors on how to vote.

Note the district’s recent call for an overall facilities assessment to help determine the use of the property. Curious pronouncement. Was no assessment in place prior to authorizing expenditures to design the athletic field and parking lot scheme?

Superintendent Nichols states the choice of the controversial athletic field was only to align with Southampton Community Preservation Fund requirements, suggesting the intoxicating lure of six million public dollars resulted in a scheme they didn’t really want but one they were willing for the taxpayers to pay for.

The district now contends the added tax burden due to the loss of CPF money is minimal. If true, the pursuit of Community Preservation Funds never made sense. The reasoning, the leadership, the forthrightness of the district are in freefall. We hear about the importance of our kids’ future. I am more worried about the adults.

Rob Calvert

Sag Harbor