Surely no one has done more for Lexington, both in and out of office, then Doug Lucente. This invariably upbeat, kind, and generous townsperson has few equals. Yet he cannot support the Bloom project. Read the statement he made at the Special Town Meeting of November 3.
-Jim Williams
I say this with genuine respect for Doug’s long service to the town: I cannot remember a moment where someone with such a strong record has been so profoundly wrong on a matter of fiscal responsibility. The numbers are not ambiguous. Construction inflation compounds every year. A delay of even two or three years adds tens of millions to the cost. And the MSBA’s $121 million commitment is a one-time opportunity that disappears if Lexington walks away now. For a Select Board member, whose first charge is to safeguard the long-term financial health of the community, dismissing those realities is not caution. It is a deeply consequential mistake.
The rest of the objections he raised fall into a similar pattern. This project had one of the most transparent and participatory processes Lexington has ever seen. Nineteen concepts were studied, including some of the very alternatives he now claims were ignored. Wetland and engineering concerns are grossly overstated. And calling the unified building a loss of “campus character” ignores both safety requirements and the educational advantages of the modern design.
I respect Doug’s service and value his voice, but on this issue, the facts simply do not support his position. A no vote does not yield a cheaper school. It yields a more expensive one paid entirely by Lexington taxpayers. As stewards of this town’s future, we owe it to residents to be honest about that.
Jeremy Levitan
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 6
Jeremy – give it a rest already. We’ve all heard you and David and Patrick and Olga. We all know where you stand. Why do you feel the need to personally refute everyone that has a different view from you on Facebook, on the Observer and every place else that will give you a platform. That’s not what a Town Meeting Member should do. Have more grace. Don’t make this DE vote about you. Your behavior has lost my vote if you choose to run again for TM in Precinct 6.
Janine,
Thanks for reaching out. I understand the fatigue — this has been a long, intense process for everyone. The reason I responded to Doug’s statement in particular is because he is a Select Board member, and that role carries a very specific responsibility: fiscal stewardship. When a SB member publicly argues for a position that, in my view, puts the town at significant financial risk, I think it is important for someone in Town Meeting to speak up. That is not about ego or trying to “win” an argument. It is about making sure the public understands the budget implications that are squarely within the Select Board’s lane.
More broadly, I’ve been responding because there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation circulating, and as a Town Meeting Member I see it as my duty to help keep the conversation grounded in facts before a major financial vote. I hear your feedback on tone, and I will take it seriously. My goal has never been to make this about me — only to help residents make an informed decision about one of the largest capital choices in Lexington’s history.
Jeremy Levitan
Doug Lucente has served the town long and well, in both civic organizations and in elected office. While I did not agree with Doug on Article 8, I respect the fact that he took a position that he believed was in the best interest of the town. I would rather have a Select Board member who has the guts to take a principled stand, knowing they are going against popular opinion, than someone who always goes along to get along.
Jeremy, yes, maybe there was ‘transparency’ but as Doug had stated he felt the process in coming to the decision lacked ‘open dialogue’. The transparency and the like was fine for you because it was providing you with what you wanted to see/hear. The information was feeding your desired interests which unless you’re cognizant of it becomes confirmation bias. Human nature also has a way of going along to get along with the perceived majority.
There are some expensive extras in the Bloom design that maybe if eliminated would bring the cost down. What if with some design trimmings the cost could go down 250M should we care about losing the 121M from the MSBA? In fact, maybe there are other less affluent communities that would benefit more from this funding.
During most building projects costs go up. Problems arise that were not seen. This is a big price tag for a project that is pretty much in its infancy with some unknowns that have yet to be addressed. This whole scenario reminds me of the saying, Penny wise, pound foolish.