Less Than Good

 Despite support from a majority of voters at four different town meetings, construction of a new Chatham Center for Active Living failed to win approval. That’s because in order to borrow money to build a modern facility to house the council on aging, a two-thirds vote was required. At each of the town meetings it was on the warrant, going back to 2019, voters failed to muster the necessary margin to fund the project, losing once by just a single vote.

 Technicalities like this exist for a purpose. Large expenditures that require borrowing should require an extra level of scrutiny and voter support. But we can also see the trap this creates. A recalcitrant opposition can easily block something a majority of residents support. In this case, critics found fault with the sites, with the size of the building and other details. The aphorism “The perfect is the enemy of the good” certainly applies here, as each plan was deemed deficient in some aspect and not good enough for our seniors.

 Rejecting the good has brought the town to a point where it is settling for something less than good. Without the necessary support for a new building, officials decided to renovate the existing CFAL, even though there is general agreement that the structure is poorly suited for council on aging functions. And after securing majority support for $5 million for the project at last May’s annual town meeting — drawing the money from free cash to avoid the need for borrowing and the dreaded two-thirds majority requirement — officials announced two weeks ago that cost projections show a possible $2.6 million shortfall. That would put the cost of renovating what will always be an inadequate building above what could have been a brand new, state-of-the-art facility had two-thirds of voters approved the 2019 plan to build the CFAL on Middle Road. The COA would have been happily ensconced in its new home by now.

 The overall economy is largely responsible for the additional costs — which officials hope to reduce by scaling back the renovations and identifying efficiencies — but those who continuously picked at the previous plans with little motivation other than not increasing their taxes must share some blame. As time went on, each iteration of the building was more expensive, until we end up here, with a scramble to cut back on a project that is inadequate to begin with. Chatham should be ashamed of treating its seniors this way, and the entire project should be put on hold and re-evaluated. Will that increase costs? Maybe, but it seems a better strategy than nickel and diming a project that was substandard to begin with.