RED GATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

After listening to all the arguments pro and con, I have three questions I would ask voters to consider before going into the polling booth on Monday.

1.      How much open space is enough?

Medfield is one of the most sparsely populated communities in the Boston area.  We have vast amounts of open land, much of it protected in perpetuity.  Whether one uses the 40% quoted by some or adds up the separate parcels, the Red Gate acreage will increase the existing total by only a tiny fraction. In addition to our own natural resources, adjoining communities have miles and miles of well- maintained trails open to all Medfield residents.  For those concerned about preserving the visual image of the community, the proposed seven home development will have no impact.

2.      Is growth really a bad thing?

Boston area executives have complained for years that limited housing and the high cost of ownership have been major challenges in recruiting new talent.  Do we have an obligation to contribute, at least in some small way, to the solution of that problem?  The United States Census of 2010 shows Medfield to have the lowest growth rate in Norfolk County over the previous decade.  In fact, Medfield had a population loss of 2.03 % over that decade, which in part, explains the sharp drop in the number of students in the school system. Will seven additional homes really stress our resources?

3.      Is $1.4 million significant?

Some have trivialized the $1.4 million obligation ($1.9 million with interest), equating it to the  purchase of a bottle of wine, or coffee and bagels.  One can choose to view the number in a vacuum, or in the context of total current and future obligations, including existing debt, planned capital projects and further land acquisition including State Hospital property. A major unresolved debt issue, described in a November 2012 report in the Boston Business Journal, shows Medfield with an unfunded retiree healthcare liability of $39,579,000, or $3,292 per capita.  A July 2013 issue of the Medfield Press contained the following quotes regarding the pension obligation:

§  Kristina Trierweiler, Assistant Town Administrator- “In order to reach the obligation $3.5 million would need to be added to this fund each year and because there are other projects going on, this is just not possible.”

§  Mark Fisher, Selectman, “It’s a boatload of money and we’re not alone.  Every town pretty much is in the same situation.”

§  Gustave Murby, Warrant Committee Chairman- “This year, Medfield put $375,000 into this fund and next year the Warrant Committee hopes to put in more.”    “The Warrant Committee will be working to find ways to increase that annual contribution above the $375,000 we made this year.”

Wouldn’t one of those “ways” be to forego acquisition of the Red Gate property, a transaction that would do little to improve the existing scenic and recreational assets we already enjoy?