I've become a Soccer dad.For a class project this week, my son had to answer the question: 'what do you want to be when you grow up?' His response: 'an MLS player,' MLS standing for Major League Soccer. [This is on the days when his goal isn't to be a Major League Baseball player.]
For school picture day this week at Cashman, he insisted on wearing his soccer uniform.
With a child so active in their program, I was excited when the Amesbury Soccer Association (ASA) signed a long-term ground lease with the City for space at Woodsom Farm for the purpose of developing new soccer fields for ASA. my wife and I were early and enthusiastic supporters of ASA's fundraising efforts.
So I very much hope that there are new, quality soccer fields in place at Woodsom Farm before my son ages out of ASA's programming.
Given that, why in the world did I not vote in support of the resolution that came up at last night's (9/13) City Council meeting that expressed a commitment from the City Council to use proceeds from the sale of city-owned 'Margaret Rice Park' properties on S. Martin road for the construction of ASA's new soccer fields at Woodsom (I joined Councilor Lavoie in abstaining on the issue).
Why, indeed?
I mean, as my colleagues repeatedly told me last night (amidst the eye rolling and audible sighs), this was 'just a resolution' that had no binding effect (it didn't actually make any appropriation of city $$ for soccer fields). So what's the fuss?
Even though it was only a 'resolution' vote
and not an actual allocation of funds, to me it is important to talk through
and debate a question before putting my name on something (with an affirmative
vote). And the level of discussion and debate that we held as a Council on this issue? Well, on that, the less said, the better ('if you can't say something nice...').
That's why I abstained on the resolution.
Maybe not every resolution is heavy with significance but others are, such as when we resolved to oppose the re-licensing of the Seabrook Nuclear Station a couple of years ago.
To me - in my primary fiduciary duty to the city of Amesbury and its residents - a resolution is meaningful when we are talking about resolving to allocate some unspecified amount of money (but likely in the $5000,00+ range, but who knows - see below) that the City does not have from a source that important roadblocks in its way for a purpose that has not been placed into any larger capital planning process.
Unfortunately, most of my colleagues disagreed and the Council actively avoided any meaningful discussion of this matter.
Here are a few of my concerns.
Unclear status of the properties on S. Martin Road: Decades ago, the city took possession of 3 parcels off S. Martin Road through a tax taking process. In 1999, the City Council voted to transfer custody of the parcels to the Parks and Recreation Commission and declared the properties to be park land, to be set aside for the enjoyment of the citizens of Amesbury. It has been understood since then that based on this 1999 action by the City Council, the land now had a protected 'park land' status under Article 97 of the MA Constitution, a preservation status that can only be reversed by 2/3 of both the State House and Senate in a vote.
However, given some recent interest by developers in this site, the City has dug in to the issue further and the City's legal counsel has offered an opinion that the 1999 vote was not properly phrased - regardless of clear intention - and so the land was never put under this protected 'park land' status. If this were true, it would make it much easier for the City move forward with selling or leasing the property to a private developer.
I'll state up front that I'm not a lawyer but having read the counsel's memo to the City, I'm not yet confident that the properties' statuses are clear. The Mayor's resolution has us promising money from a sale that, at least for this Councilor, has a major legal roadblock still in the way - the question of its protected status based on votes in 1999. So, in my mind, it is very premature to be making promises, when we first have some real issues to sort out - very much putting the cart before the horse.
Value of the properties in question: The resolution identifies a need and identifies a solution. Nowhere, however, does the resolution or any of the documentation give a sense of what the revenue might be from the theoretical sale of the 3 properties. Nor did we get any indication of what the Amesbury Soccer Association's financial needs are for this project.
Would the sale potentially meet the objective (fund fields)? Who knows! Does it matter? Of course it does, otherwise why would we even bother talking about this if the solution wasn't appropriate for the problem? But, again, who knows what the facts are.
Choice of ASA's project to receive the proceeds? Certainly, the ASA's soccer fields project is a prominent non-profit effort being undertaken in Amesbury at present. Maybe you've seen their green and white 'Fields For Kids' yard signs around. So, there's no disputing their need and the worthiness of the project.
But here's a funny thing. The ink on the ASA's ground lease is not too dry yet (25 year lease, signed about 2 years ago) and an important element in that lease with the City was a prohibition on the ASA seeking funds from the City for the building of soccer fields and it set a very aggressive performance schedule for the ASA to get the job done privately. I'm not necessarily opposed to the City taking on the very substantial costs of developing fields for ASA's use but this is a rather abrupt (and expensive) policy reversal on the City's part and this decision to now fund the soccer fields is at the heart of the resolution.
In the meantime, the City has a laundry list of other capital needs at is existing recreational facilities that is busy not funding. How does the insertion of a costly new project fit into the City's overall capital planning, let alone recreational facility planning? Why does the ASA project suddenly pop up as a top priority for the City, when its new lease kept it off the City's plate intentionally and we've got a long list of other unfunded capital needs?
It's just a resolution: Funny thing about that, too. It's not just a resolution, it is a statement of policy and intent on the part of the City Council and represents something of a promissory note that the Council has now created to the ASA (unless our resolution are indeed 'meaningless' and not worth the words in them). Without discussion or documentation. Without analysis or deliberation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
So, that is why I wanted very much to move our debate of this resolution to a later date. And, failing to delay the question, Councilor Lavoie and I at least tried to foster some discussion and debate at the Council meeting (to no avail). So I came out of this particular discussion very frustrated.
And that is why I was compelled to abstain on this resolution, as supportive as I am of its general outcome.
I often feel that Councilor Lavoie and myself (as well as Councilor Einson) live on a different island than our colleagues, one where we do things very deliberately (we've been accused of talking too much) and, maybe, more slowly. But I see that as approach as at the heart of what the public expect me to do as a City Councilor - research, deliberate, debate, and use caution before rushing into anything, even if only 'symbolically' with a 'meaningless' resolution.
Posts
