2016 study overstated need for a second gymnasium

To The Daily Sun,

I am compelled to write in response to the negativity in this newspaper the past few weeks from Moultonborough. We are all circling the wagon train. One group will win the battle, but we will all lose the war in the end. The error and why we are here in the first place is that the Selectboard did not come to the logical conclusion that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for the community center/recreation complex.

The theme in recent letters is that we have been through this for many years and it’s time for action. In my mind just because we have been at it for many years doesn’t make it a slam dunk or right thing to do. It tells me we didn’t have our act together yet and the proposals were neither compelling nor convincing. Perhaps those of us who have been watching this issue over the years just continue to observe with jaundice eye? Putting aside reserves says to me, well okay it has merit, but let’s work out the details. And yet, we continue to fail.

Yes, the Blue Ribbon Commission was done in 2011, and I served proudly. Yes, we said a site for a future gym was at or adjacent to the school. It is 2019, the demographics have changed and the trend continues. In 2011 we had roughly 100, or 20 percent, more children in our schools, this before we added 3-year-old pre-k students. In 2019 N.H. is a leader in the country with one of the most senior-aged populations, me included! The States of NH, VT and ME just named a special commission to work on issues to support their significant senior population. Obviously this is a big deal! We must acknowledge the demographic and also support it at the local level.

Yes, there was a gym usage study in 2016, having a few dozen more children than today. I was a physical education teacher and had reviewed the study in that context. My take was that scheduling of fall basketball (youngest children especially) and spring weather skewed the utilization results. Yes, the weather. Varsity and JV baseball and softball teams practice indoors IF the weather is not ideal and spill to the MCS gym for space. The gym utilization figures assumed and scheduled all spring teams inside to be safe (pun intended). Well, I played ball all my life and can attest that outdoor youth ball was a matter of course, regardless of weather. It was a fine foundation for me to play college baseball and then professionally for the San Francisco Giants. All that being said, another gym would be an asset and nice to have.

Getting back to the battle and the war. Yes, a gym and recreation are for everyone, but... most seniors want a center and no gym at the Lion’s Club, be it upgraded and expanded as per Warrant Article 25 or even a new building. The lot is ideal, parking can grow, and a slightly larger building still fits nicely in that part of town. Most families (as well as others who want to walk, play pickleball or weekend basketball or run around in a gym) want a center at or adjacent to the school. I am extremely concerned with the traffic in and out at the Taylor site especially, if that is where the one-size-fits-all facility will go. I also personally know significant quantities of seniors who prefer to be kept separate from school-aged children.

Unfortunately the way the Selectboard have framed Warrant Article 6 is a no-win situation. The correct decision to me would be to vote down Article 6 as it is not the proper solution for ALL residents. To pit one group against the other is a terrible position to have put us in.

Agree that we can and should have a victory for everyone. This can be done with a new community/senior center at the Lion’s Club AND a community/recreation Center at the school or Taylor property. Recreation can move to one, and building management and oversite details can be worked out. Residents can use either facility and live in harmony. Traffic on Rte. 25 would be less of an issue with a smaller building there, and more open green space would be retained in the village. Two facilities could be accomplished within the higher priced single solution option, with the small incremental operating cost justified by practicality and community preference.

Amendments to Article 6 do not do the trick. To change the dollar amount will do what? Will build what? It is essentially a blank check. Let’s all take a breath and do this correctly. After all, the new buildings will be here for many years to enjoy.

One giant facility is just not right Moultonborough. The time and discussion has not been wasted. We should use it to propel us to the best solution for all. Don’t cringe here, but I believe we need a cross section of residents to form a commission and get this done and done right within a finite period of time. This summer! I feel we are clearer than ever as to the task at hand. Bring it forward next year with buy-in and not discourse.

I urge us all to consider others and stop polarizing our community with one side must win and the other must lose. Moultonborough is NOT Washington DC and it appears so now. This is a great town. We all chose it and I would argue we did because of its charming rural character, excellent tax rate and good schools. We arrived and found the people to be the icing on the cake! Let’s keep it that way. VOTE NO on Article 6 and VOTE NO on Article 25. Take a breather and do it right. Send a message to the Selectboard to come back next year with a solution that works, that unites us, and that makes us shine.

Don McGillicuddy

Moultonborough