Kids First Monadnock!

By: Pete Majoy, Richmond, NH

Churchill said that “We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” Had he lived in the Monadnock Region, my guess is that he would have looked in the eye of each and every purportedly over taxed troll and reminded them that time and tide have run out on their fiscal excuse for inaction regarding Monadnock Regional High School and Junior High/Middle School.

Materialism runs two parallel courses. On the one hand, many of the “haves” guard their precious wealth with disdain for the public sphere, the oft referred to “commons” like our public schools, our parks, our forests, lakes, streams and ponds, and anything that smacks of taxation to protect, upgrade and improve this fundamental treasure trove which we all share in common…or should. They snort the over used and many socially dysfunctional tenets of “fiscal conservatism”, i.e., the selfish “penny wise and a pound foolish” withdrawal from social responsibility while investing in only themselves, private enterprise, and the stock market.

On the other hand, many of the “have-nots”, often those who “have” but pose as “have-nots”, define the needs which the “commons” require be met as unfair trespassing on their skinny wallets. Both groups are “takers” or what Churchill refers to as those who “get”. There is no vision here, no capacity to see the big picture, no real care for the future, just an implosion of selfishness masked as fiscal responsibility and purported concern for the real “have nots” whom, in principal, they don’t support in the first place. Ultimately, both monied tribes refuse to “make a life by what we give.”

Yes, the property tax is distorted, unfair, and unjust. In its actual monetary attack on residents, like everything else, it is less taxing on the rich and more taxing on the poor. Playing the “fiscal conservative” card gives the appearance of protecting all rungs of the economic ladder from unfair demands on income….or so it is supposed to appear that way, but such is not the case. Often, they attack the “welfare state” but turn a blind eye at “corporate welfare”, those tax benefits which never “trickle down” significantly past the upper crusters.

Had the “giving” mentality won the day ten years ago over the “taking” paroxysms of fear, a new school could have been built for far less than it will cost to build this year. Make no mistake about it, a new MRHS Senior/Junior High/Middle school complex must, repeat, must, be built. Every year that we delay investing in this centerpiece of our culture and our commons, we up the ante necessary for its construction. This is a tale of fiscal barbarism, denial, and total absence of the necessary vision required for our towns to remain vibrant, proud, and responsible. True fiscal conservatism would stop the shenanigans and invest immediately in a new school and by doing so stave off any further necessary cost to town residents.

This is what one School Board member termed a “watershed year.” For sure it is the year of the proverbial “crossroads” and “fork in the road”. Much hangs in the balance:

1. voter support for the school budget will immediately move MRHS in the direction of re-accreditation
2. in turn, it will move voters closer to approval of the cost for a new high school/junior high/middle school complex
3. both of these, part of what is needed externally for re-accreditation, will have immediate economic dividends
1. purchases and sales of houses will begin to climb out of the economic slump that has gripped that market
2. the growing negative perception of the future of the Monadnock Schools will cease, and families will not hesitate to move here simply because our towns have been voluntarily extricated from a destructive fiscal conservancy to a wisdom based fiscal conservancy that plans for the future
3. all of this has positive effects on local businesses

Those residents who cannot afford an increase in their property tax, and they are in the minority but should, nevertheless, be respected, must not use their need as an excuse for opposing a long overdue new school. Why? The towns that send their sons and daughters to MRHS must not be shortchanged by the nearsightedness created by economic struggle or that struggle will multiply itself geometrically as the region falls deeper into economic stagnation which will effect them disproportionately. Those local tax payer groups formed to oppose the school budget are not serving anyone’s wallet or purse. They are using the economic pain a segment of residents experience to spread pain over a larger segment of the population. In effect, all they are doing is spreading economic fatalism for all.

This does not mean that a hard hearted survival-of-the-fittest approach to elderly property owners on fixed incomes or younger property owners with families struggling to make mortgage and tax payments must be adopted. Every legal and good neighbor policy must be used to address this. For example, in addition to the tax relief forms available at the Town Office, there could/should be a neighborly attempt to collect funds for struggling folk to help offset any increase in property tax directly caused by the construction of the new educational complex. In addition, the complex itself should be envisioned as a structure that houses services to the elderly. Perhaps there would be a doctor’s office where local MD’s have revolving office hours closer to their elderly patients as well as to students. There should be a day care center. A small police station can house one or two local officers for whom the school would be their beat. Why not a small restaurant and gift shop? In other words, the new school complex would truly be a richer meeting place for the entire local community.

What, then, should the new educational complex be? First and foremost, it must be a green/sustainable school. Our energy dependence on oil, our dependence on both oil/coal based electricity and heat must shift very quickly. While the up front cost for a green and sustainable school is a bit more expensive, the yearly monetary savings generated by such a school will quickly pay for the increased cost and from that point on save the tax payer a significant amount of money simply because of very large reductions in energy costs. In Hinesburg, Vermont, NRG Systems built a brand new manufacturing and office facility of 46,000 square feet according to state of the art green building standards. The up front cost was $13.81 per square foot, approximately 8.21% more expensive than not building green. It is expected that the extra costs will be paid for within 5 years because of the energy savings (www.nrgsystems.com/press/index.php?tid=226).

Furthermore, a school built according to green principles will have the following per square foot financial benefits:

• $9/sq.ft. in energy use
• $1/sq.ft. in emissions
• $1 sq./ft. in water and wastewater
• $49/sq.ft. in increased earnings
• $3/sq.ft. in Asthma reduction
• $5/sq.ft. in cold and flu reduction
• $4/sq.ft. in teacher retention
• $2/sq.ft. in employment impact

The total benefit is $74/sq.ft. When measured against the $3/sq.ft average increase in cost for building green schools, the net financial benefit is $71/sq.foot (www.cape-e.com/spotlight/index.cfm?Page=1&NewsID=34196). Even if one measured this benefit against the larger sq/ft cost for the new NRG facility mentioned above, the net fiscal benefit would still be huge.

There must be a long range vision that combines fiscal wisdom with the building of a brand new green/sustainable school. The time has arrived where both are eminently compatible. To move in any other direction is to shift into reverse. Such a shift could only spell the swift decay of our small towns and impose on the region a sad and lamentable heritage for all who live here, especially our youth. We can do the right thing. We can come together and “make a life by what we give” to our youngsters and to all folk who really care about the future of our towns, or we can retreat into a form of denial that we are responsible for the decay of our schools and the consequent decay of our towns.