I understand why some of us are hesitant to support the new Lexington High School (LHS). The price tag seems so high, and who among us wants to pay higher property taxes? However, I’m convinced that the current LHS proposal is our most fiscally responsible option: It solves overcrowding and failing infrastructure problems now, before construction costs escalate even more.
I’ve seen alternative proposals for renovation and phased approaches, but these are partial solutions that will cost more money over the long term – with a poorer result for our students and educators. Spending more money (in total, over the long term) for a less desirable solution is not how I want the town to use my hard-earned tax dollars.
Most of us have been focused on construction costs for the new LHS. But we should also consider operating costs over the lifespan of a new facility. The proposed net-zero LEED Gold design will save us money in energy and other operating costs for decades to come. This adds to our fiscal responsibility in choosing this design.
My child graduated LHS years ago. I’m not concerned about the quality of the facility for my own family. I am, however, concerned about protecting Lexington’s property values and tax base, which are strongly tied to our reputation for excellent schools. Maintaining that reputation with a desirable new LHS will help protect our standard of living.
As I approach retirement, I worry about the impact of taxes on my ability to stay in our beloved community. But rejecting the current LHS proposal and delaying the project will result in even higher costs at a point in my life when I can least afford them. This leads me to support the current proposal as our most cost-effective option.
Please join me in voting YES for a new LHS on Dec. 8.
We all have our reasons and I respect yours. However, I am respectfully voting no on this particular project. I urge all residents to come out to cast their votes on December 8th.
Valerie:
You cannot know that an alternative design to Bloom “will cost more money over the long term” since the SBC never considered the smart alternative to Bloom recommended by theb Schools’ own 2015 Master Plan.
I will vote NO on Bloom on December 8 because Bloom is not the new High School Lexington needs for these 3 reasons.
(1) Per the SBC’s own chart https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u2umuhbcHG43JgRG0Y19BM1lPVDyW2en/view?usp=sharing, Bloom costs $1,293 per square foot, or 25% MORE than the new Belmont High School.
(2) Sized for today’s LHS enrollment, Bloom is too small since Lexington’s population may increase by 48% in just 10 years due to 5,750 new MBTA dwellings.
(3) And the SBC never considered the on-campus, box-based, phased design recommended by the Schools’ own 2015 Master Plan.
For all these reasons, I will vote NO on December 8, to get the SBC to finally design and cost-estimate that more reasonable design, which can be funded by the MSBA.
I’ll also be voting NO on December 8. I live in a house that my parents first bought in early 1962. When I bought the house from the estate, around 2004, my property taxes were around $5000 annually, give or take a G. Inflation adjusted, that was close to identical to what my parents had been paying when they bought the house in ’62. Since then, my taxes have roughly tripled.
Thank you for this thoughtful perspective as someone approaching retirement. You’ve nailed the key point. Partial solutions like renovation or phased construction cost more in the long run while delivering less. That’s false economy, not fiscal responsibility.
Your focus on operating costs is crucial. The net-zero LEED Gold design delivers decades of energy savings that add up significantly over a 75-year investment.
And you’re absolutely right that delay only pushes higher costs onto our future selves, compounded by construction inflation and lost state funding.
For those concerned about retirement affordability, voting YES on December 8 is actually the more predictable, manageable path.
I’ll be joining you in voting YES.