The Pennell Institute is an old, dark, and somewhat forbidding red brick building in the town of Gray, Maine, which has been the cause of one controversy or another for years. For the past six years I have seen article upon article discussing this building written in local papers. I have listened to different people express some very strong views as to this building and its fate, helping to ensure emotions run high on any issue surrounding it.
I personally, have never been inside this historic structure. Even if I had wanted to go and look it over to appease my inquisitive nature, I doubt I would have done of my own accord. For, as I stated before, the look and feel of it is not really inviting. This could probably be attributed to the fact that it is in something of disrepair. The grounds are a little unkempt and the windows remain dark even on bright days. Even if I was able to overcome my childish fears associated with monolithic old buildings and ventured to the doors, I do not think I would gain entrance. People do go in and out of the Pennell Building. I have seen pictures to prove that fact, but to date; I have yet to witness the act of a living being going through the doors. Funding for upkeep, most definitely, is the root cause of this state.
Regardless of my personal fears and ideas as to the structure, I have been silent on all the issues and debates surrounding Pennell until now.
Now many may feel that I, of all people, am not qualified to voice an opinion on the recent controversy surrounding the Pennell Institute. They might say that six years is not long enough to garner all of the facts and gather the information needed to cover the long standing controversy surrounding this historic site. Although I may admit to the validity of that argument, as I am going to address the most recent issue, and in that this issue will directly affect me, I need to put forth my take on the situation.
On September 2nd 2008 a report was put on the Gray Town website which goes by the title: Town Office Village Concepts Report. According to this document, the Council is advocating that the Town borrow 2.4 Million Dollars (bond) to renovate the Pennell Institute and to move the Town Office into the renovated building.
On the surface, this idea looks sound in that it utilizes an existing structure, to meet the needs of the community. However, the more I find myself looking at this proposal, the more I am completely and utterly unconvinced that this is the best plan. For starters let’s look at whether or not the community really “needs” to move the town offices at this time.
To advocate for a move of such costly proportions, the Town should establish a well-defined need. For example: the current town office is a hazard to its employees, or that it poses a danger to the community in some way i.e. a fire hazard. To date, I have heard no such arguments put forth to establish a reason for such a move that proves to me that this is necessary. Town business can continue to function, meetings can still be held at Stimpson Hall or Newbegin Gym and as far as I can tell no one is going to die if this bond does not pass. Yet the proposal is on the table all the same. I wonder if the members of the Town Council have been privy to any type of newscast as of late? I am sure that in their eagerness to help the Gray taxpayer they have been unable to get to a television set and see that the nation’s economy is under serious duress. I fault them not, for they are “working hard” after all.
Sarcasm aside, I have no choice but to assume that the council members are feeling the same pressures we all are in our personal finances due to the current economic crisis. That being the case, we can conclude that each and every one of them is taking the same actions in their personal lives to cut costs and unnecessary spending. I am sure that they prioritize their spending and are worried about their own financial future just like you and me.
So I ask: “If the council members can prioritize their personal finances and limit their spending at home, why then can they not apply the same principles to their duties as members of the council?” For, as I have established this proposal has not been justified as needed. This very contradiction in behavior is one of the greatest problems we face not only on the local level but in the state and federal areas of government as well.
Right, I must also point out that some of the logic being used for the financing of this project is not only poorly thought out, but in my opinion, completely inane. Though I am sure some very “hard work” was done to piece it all together, I just can’t get my head around it.
In the Village Concepts Report they propose to “offset” some of the cost with projected sales of unused town property. I read projected sales as property not yet sold but a value has been placed upon it all the same. Sort of like the Blue Book trade in value of a car. If the property is not sold yet, then how do we know such proposed valuations are accurate? With the serious decline of property values these past eight months can we be sure the numbers applied will actually be the same when and if said property is sold? If these properties sell for less than the value applied then the Bond (loan) principle will be all that much larger, so too the interest. Notwithstanding the fact that the fluctuations in the real estate market are trending downward and that the value placed upon these properties may be false, we also must remember that these same properties are not even sold yet. This looks like padding the butcher’s bill to make it more appealing to the voter.
I feel that if the same properties that are deemed “Projected sales” are actually worth what the council says then they should sell said properties first. Thereby accomplishing two things:
I personally, have never been inside this historic structure. Even if I had wanted to go and look it over to appease my inquisitive nature, I doubt I would have done of my own accord. For, as I stated before, the look and feel of it is not really inviting. This could probably be attributed to the fact that it is in something of disrepair. The grounds are a little unkempt and the windows remain dark even on bright days. Even if I was able to overcome my childish fears associated with monolithic old buildings and ventured to the doors, I do not think I would gain entrance. People do go in and out of the Pennell Building. I have seen pictures to prove that fact, but to date; I have yet to witness the act of a living being going through the doors. Funding for upkeep, most definitely, is the root cause of this state.
Regardless of my personal fears and ideas as to the structure, I have been silent on all the issues and debates surrounding Pennell until now.
Now many may feel that I, of all people, am not qualified to voice an opinion on the recent controversy surrounding the Pennell Institute. They might say that six years is not long enough to garner all of the facts and gather the information needed to cover the long standing controversy surrounding this historic site. Although I may admit to the validity of that argument, as I am going to address the most recent issue, and in that this issue will directly affect me, I need to put forth my take on the situation.
On September 2nd 2008 a report was put on the Gray Town website which goes by the title: Town Office Village Concepts Report. According to this document, the Council is advocating that the Town borrow 2.4 Million Dollars (bond) to renovate the Pennell Institute and to move the Town Office into the renovated building.
On the surface, this idea looks sound in that it utilizes an existing structure, to meet the needs of the community. However, the more I find myself looking at this proposal, the more I am completely and utterly unconvinced that this is the best plan. For starters let’s look at whether or not the community really “needs” to move the town offices at this time.
To advocate for a move of such costly proportions, the Town should establish a well-defined need. For example: the current town office is a hazard to its employees, or that it poses a danger to the community in some way i.e. a fire hazard. To date, I have heard no such arguments put forth to establish a reason for such a move that proves to me that this is necessary. Town business can continue to function, meetings can still be held at Stimpson Hall or Newbegin Gym and as far as I can tell no one is going to die if this bond does not pass. Yet the proposal is on the table all the same. I wonder if the members of the Town Council have been privy to any type of newscast as of late? I am sure that in their eagerness to help the Gray taxpayer they have been unable to get to a television set and see that the nation’s economy is under serious duress. I fault them not, for they are “working hard” after all.
Sarcasm aside, I have no choice but to assume that the council members are feeling the same pressures we all are in our personal finances due to the current economic crisis. That being the case, we can conclude that each and every one of them is taking the same actions in their personal lives to cut costs and unnecessary spending. I am sure that they prioritize their spending and are worried about their own financial future just like you and me.
So I ask: “If the council members can prioritize their personal finances and limit their spending at home, why then can they not apply the same principles to their duties as members of the council?” For, as I have established this proposal has not been justified as needed. This very contradiction in behavior is one of the greatest problems we face not only on the local level but in the state and federal areas of government as well.
Right, I must also point out that some of the logic being used for the financing of this project is not only poorly thought out, but in my opinion, completely inane. Though I am sure some very “hard work” was done to piece it all together, I just can’t get my head around it.
In the Village Concepts Report they propose to “offset” some of the cost with projected sales of unused town property. I read projected sales as property not yet sold but a value has been placed upon it all the same. Sort of like the Blue Book trade in value of a car. If the property is not sold yet, then how do we know such proposed valuations are accurate? With the serious decline of property values these past eight months can we be sure the numbers applied will actually be the same when and if said property is sold? If these properties sell for less than the value applied then the Bond (loan) principle will be all that much larger, so too the interest. Notwithstanding the fact that the fluctuations in the real estate market are trending downward and that the value placed upon these properties may be false, we also must remember that these same properties are not even sold yet. This looks like padding the butcher’s bill to make it more appealing to the voter.
I feel that if the same properties that are deemed “Projected sales” are actually worth what the council says then they should sell said properties first. Thereby accomplishing two things:
1. Gaining actual proceeds from the sale which will cut maintenance costs
permanently ( not to mention tax revenue from the new purchaser)
2. Applying
said sales proceeds to the project as cash, which, if all the other math pans
out, would reduce the bond (loan) principle and consequently the interest.
By using projected sales the council in essence, is “counting their chickens before they hatch”. Which we all learned in our youth, is something one should not do.
Basically, what I am saying is that the Citizens of Gray should reject the Proposed Pennell bond issue as the Council has failed to meet even the most basic of criteria in their proposal. They have not taken into account the current economic climate in which the taxpayers are forced to make do with the resources at hand. They have not established a definitive need for the borrowing package ( need being those things one must have to continue on) and they have failed to properly deal with current town assets in that they are using projected sales as an actual dollar figure.
There is so much more……
My next piece will deal with what it means to have a majority and how it applies to the Pennell Institute aptly titled The Pennell Institute: part Duh!
Slainte’
Blighter
No comments:
Post a Comment