In Response to the chapter, "Mommy, Can't We Just Make the Cricket Field Option

Mommy, doesn't a book usually have more than one chapter???
Yes, but it is so much easier to write a chapter that reflects one viewpoint; that being, Ben Good and his Cricket Field neighbors are being selfish. The problem is that Cricket Field is valued by more than just a neighborhood and the land is protected by more than just the Park & Rec. It must also be realized that it is not a simple matter of sharing a piece of land. It would require a multi step process for the School Committee to take and destroy Cricket Field; certainly causing quite a delay in building a new school. Open space land deeded for recreation is protected by the EEA Article 97 Land Disposition Policy. To comply with this policy, “municipalities that seek to dispose of any Article 97 land must: obtain a unanimous vote of the municipal Conservation Commission that the Article 97 land is surplus to municipal, conservation, and open space needs; obtain a unanimous vote of the municipal Park Commission if the land proposed for disposition is park land; obtain a two-thirds Town Meeting or City Council vote in support of the disposition; obtain two-thirds vote of the legislature in support of the disposition, as required under the state constitution . . ." http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/article97policy.aspx.

Mommy, doesn't the School Committee usually get what they want??
Yes, but despite the spirit of collaboration; for which, the Boards in our town so often speak, it seems that they are having some difficulty in collaborating now that the parties involved do not agree.

Mommy, didn't our town already have a modular school that could have been used temporarily so that Cricket Field didn't have to be destroyed forever??
Yes, but according to the School Committee, the timing was not right. To explain why I do not agree would require another chapter but I will try to provide a brief summary. Triumph Modular installed and then dismantled a modular complex consisting of 30 temporary classrooms (for 570 students), administrative offices, and 3 multi stall restrooms at the Newman site in 2011/2012.  I still believe that with a broader planning perspective, the 35,620 square feet of swing space used for the Newman renovation could have been utilized for multiple uses. The School Committee has been cognizant of the need for temporary facilities for these renovations for many years. Hillside was included in the facilities Master Plan back in 2006. The MSBA 2010 Needs Survey Report 29 April 2011 listed Hillside with a building condition rating of 3 (1-4 rating) and environment of 2 (1-4 rating), clearly indicated a priority project and reason to have submitted an SOI years ago. To NOW expect residents to sacrifice Cricket Field because of the cost of such swing space is disconcerting.

Mommy, would it be safe to have a school at Cricket Field in the middle of a neighborhood that it so close to so many streets??
Well, that has not been studied yet. My own opinion, I don't think we need a traffic feasibility study to tell us that a school surrounded by three roadways with no buffer zone between the school, the street, and resident's driveways could pose a potential safety hazard like no other; certainly not in the best interest of anyone. To transform a "neighborhood" into a "school zone" to safely  accommodate buses, car lines, and walkers would be a costly challenge; a cost not yet factored in and not MSBA reimbursable. The close proximity to the very busy Webster Street would be an additional concern.

Mommy, didn't somebody already say that Hillside could be built at Hillside??
Yes, but for some reason that doesn't matter.  Within the text of the 179 page PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY, Final Report 6 July 2012; in regard to MADEP monitoring at Hillside, the report states: “This existing condition should not be considered a deterrent from using this site for additions to the existing building or for the construction of a new building. However, there are additional site procedures and building systems that are required for construction on a site that has had soil and ground water contamination. The cost factor for these atypical construction methods and additional building systems has been included in the estimated project cost presented in this report." The prefeasibility study projected cost to build a new school at the Hillside location for 487 students; Option 1A.2b (w/ Mitchell as temp relocation) - $38,416,000. Option 1A.2b (With modulars)- $46,046,000. A new school at Cricket Field, Option 1A.3: - $39,746,000. I realize that this is only a PRE-feasibility study but if the School Committee no longer considers the information reliable, it seems that our town should be looking for a cost return.

Mommy, do you really think the Selectman will make a decision simply to make Ben Good and his neighbors happy??
No, I don't think so. Although I am very aware of the politics at play in our town, I think that our Selectman have a very good "handel" on this situation. As a precinct B Town Meeting Member, I have followed this issue for over a year and support the decision made by the Board of Selectman to remove Cricket Field as an option.  The prefeasibility study clearly states that “this site is under the jurisdiction of the Park and Recreation Commission and would require a multistep process to validate its viability as an option either as temporary swing space or as the location for a new school. Based on all the facts and considering how much time and money our town has already spent in regard to this issue, it doesn't seem to make sense to continue down a path that will lead to more delays, more conflict, and of greatest concern; a growing divide in a community that needs to be working together.  The slogan, "Cricket First=Children Last" is of special concern; in that, it conveys not only a confusing but a very derogatory message to our children. I think we all agree that the Hillside children need a new school. Let us not forget that the Mitchell children also need a new school. The more time spent bickering over Cricket Field will result in No New School for anyone.

Mommy, what will happen to the Hillside school?
The Hillside school will need to be demolished and remediation of the site will be necessary for any future use. Some of the cost possibly MSBA reimbursable for a school built on the existing site, NOT reimbursable for a Cricket Field school.

So, what do you think will be in the next chapter the title above??

1) The School Committee can embark on the multi step process described above to take and destroy Cricket Field to build a new school with the continuation of the message, Cricket First=Children Last. The Hillside school would still need to be demolished and the site would still need to be cleaned up; hence, taxpayers would most likely be hit with a steeper bill to pay LATER (unless our town intends to leave the dilapidated school on the contaminated site). Taxpayers would also have to pay to replace the fields that were destroyed and to reconstruct the roadways around Cricket Field, neither cost  MSBA reimbursable.  Not sure who would be first. Future Cost=Unknown.

                                              OR

2) The Hillside site could be cleaned up NOW to built a new school. The end result: A new school on a cleaned up site and Cricket Field preserved for the residents of Needham. Everyone First. Future Cost for the Hillside Project=$0. Our community will be able to move forward with a positive message for our children; who not only need a new school, but the compassion to understand the importance of maintaining something of value to the many in our community who have signed the petition to SAVE CRICKET FIELD, a lesson that doesn't come with a price tag.