[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.
The following letter is from Michael Weishan.]
To the Editor:
I have lived here since 1992. As a single taxpayer with no children in the school system, I have supported the renovations of Woodward (twice, including a complete rebuilding); extensive renovations to Finn; the construction of Trottier, and huge renovations to Algonquin, which I will be entering for the very first time EVER this Saturday.
I have done this because I believe that an educated citizenry is essential to the functioning of our democracy— and that an educated citizenry begins with supporting our schools.
I should also add that I have worked in construction, designing and budgeting multi-million-dollar projects, for over 40 years. So, let’s say I am comfortable with architectural plans and operations.
Given this experience, I am not voting yes for a new Neary, nor will I endorse a 2 1/2 prop override—and nor should you.
As a disinterested outsider looking in, I have been appalled at the level of misinformation and misrepresentation that advocates, Neary Committee members, School Board members and others have presented to the ratepayers in an attempt to sway our votes.
I am particularly distressed that there was never any real consideration given to a renovation option. It received exactly 7 minutes of air-time at the public meeting. Renovation costs (without any actual any plans) were guessed at 63M, and somehow everyone forgot to mention there was state money available. But surprise! “The estimate prepared by our OPM shows our estimated state reimbursement at $14.8M based on the August 2024 cost estimate of $63M project cost for base repairs.” Email: (J Malinowski to Weishan, 5/8/25)
By my count, that yields an outlay of about 38M for the taxpayers, yet this option was never really considered. Why? Several reasons were given, among them:
- “Many of the educational spaces are not accessible for those in wheelchairs or otherwise mobility challenged. For example, the existing music room is accessed by steps leading to tiered seating. The bathrooms throughout the building don’t meet current accessibility codes for things like grab bars and door clearances. Similarly, there are accessibility issues around the site, such as at sidewalks and on the playground. Accessibility upgrades would be required for a renovation of this extent.” ((op.cit.))
I ask you: is this not the entire point of a renovation?
- “The geometry of the existing building doesn’t meet the needs of some aspects of the Educational Plan. There are currently two gyms that are undersized instead of one larger, properly sized space. The gyms are separated by a structural bearing wall so can’t be joined together without major structural modifications.” (op.cit.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but our children have been well educated in Southborough for three centuries without “aligned gymnasiums” or “learning neighborhoods,” or other highly suspect aspects of this pie-in-the-sky educational plan. Any genuine objections could easily have been solved in a thoughtful renovation, yet this option was tossed aside by the promoters’ desire to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the best.
Again, I want to salute Mr. Malinowski and others for their work here. They are genuinely looking to achieve the highest and best for our children. What I think they have failed to realize is that the building of this perfect trophy-school is neither in the “highest and best interests” of our children nor in the greater interest of Southborough as a whole. We don’t need the “best possible building;” we need the best possible OUTCOME for all our residents, which includes equal considerations for our seniors, our lower-income residents, and others, including businesses who might be looking to settle—or stay— in Southborough.
We simply cannot support a 25% increase in taxes over the next three years—which is what this project will entail—even if its unrealistic low-ball budget somehow survives this era of tariff increases that are sure to drive our costs skyward almost immediately.
Finally: I want to close with the point that troubles me most. There has been ZERO discussion of the carbon cost of demolishing an entire building, land-filling it, then building a new one: “We did not perform a detailed carbon assessment specifically. Given the other considerations associated with the building (age of systems, building layout constraints, etc.), the team did not run a detailed assessment of the embodied carbon of the existing building vs. the proposed new construction.” (op.cit.)
That is simply not acceptable, and a terrible example for our children, who will inherit the results of our poor decisions.
Friends: if you are truly looking to aid, equip and inform the next generation, let’s start right now: table this motion indefinitely, take a step back, and look to fully and objectively vet renovation options. Southborough will be better for it.
Michael Weishan
189 Cordaville Road
