Clarification On The Pool Vote, From EiE

Since the motion to approve spending of up to $2.5 million on a new pool at Patton Park was defeated at Town Meeting on Monday night, at least one pundit has suggested that "No" voters are often simply "obstructionists" bent on preventing municipal projects.

We do not believe this to be the case with the pool project.

Others have requested a clarification of exactly where EiE stands on the issue of a new pool.

In an effort to address both those concerns, we are posting the motion made by Jay Burnham, as spokesman for EiE, at Town Meeting followed by our reasons for making the motion.  It is exactly where we stand and what was stated at Town Meeting and can also be viewed on the video from the meeting that is posted on HWcam.org.

The motion:

I MOVE THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION UNDER THIS ARTICLE BE REFERRED BACK TO THE COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND BROUGHT BACK AT A FUTURE TOWN MEETING.

The reasoning:

"If we can agree to wait just five months, until the Annual Town Meeting in April, we will afford ourselves three significant opportunities:

1. Time to initiate better dialogue with our sister town of Wenham as a contributor to the project.  With as many signs as we are seeing in Wenham (Vote YES for the POOL), I am sensing strong grassroots support from the residents of that town.
2. Time to commence private fundraising efforts to help lower the overall costs of the project.  The Patton Park playground is a stunning example of what is possible in that regard.
3. And lastly, the opportunity to fine tune the scope of the project and associated costs.

As the Moderator opens the floor for additional comments and debate, I want to caution that there will be those who may suggest that all this could take place after passage of Article 2-10.  The weakness in such an argument is simply this: Why in the world would anyone, or the Town of Wenham for that matter, consider contributing to a project that has already been fully funded by the taxpayers of Hamilton?  Why would they?  A YES vote on that article would destroy any incentive or need to do so.  Because you will have already decided, here tonight, to pay all the costs…up to $2.5 million if need be.  We can do better than that.

Vote YES…Just not tonight.

Let's build a pool we can all be proud of, at a cost we can also be proud to have forged together… As friends and neighbors, Hamiltonians and Wenhamites, volunteers and private contributors.  As a common community, not as one divided.  I ask for your support on the motion before you and I thank you for your time and consideration."

We sincerely hope this clarifies our position and dispels any notion that voting "No" meant we do not want a new pool.  As we stated above: Vote YES…but at the Annual Town Meeting in April…after we have taken advantage of the three opportunities we described.

Note: Although the motion above was defeated, the main motion was also defeated.  The net effect was essentially that our motion passed. We will now see how the Board of Selectmen respond to this new opportunity.