Opinion: Sudbury Sewataro Purchase Would Be Unwise

The following was submitted as a letter to the editor by Henry P. Sorett. If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, email samantha.mercado@patch.com

I urge the voters of the Town to vote NO and oppose the unwise efforts to pay nearly $11.3M to purchase Camp Sewataro. This would be an unwise purchase. While nearly $11.3M is a huge price for this property, the actual cost to the Town and consequent large tax increase is far greater. If you include the interest cost on the bond, the purchase price is likely to be as much as $23M. Beyond that, because none of the 25 buildings on the site comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, after it takes title, the Town would have to spend a large but as yet unknown amount to bring these into compliance or demolish them. Further, there are five swimming pools on the property, only one of which is appropriate for older children and adult swimming. As we know from our own Town pool, the costs of operating and supervising the pools are substantial. In addition, this property would have to be maintained, mowed and secured to prevent it from becoming a haven for drugs, drinking, a lover’s lane or even occupation by vagrants. The proponents of the sale have not disclosed any of these costs and have not been candid about them.

If the Town buys this property and incurs costs which will certainly be more than $16M for acquisition, all of our property taxes will increase significantly. The debt service alone will exceed $1M in the first year. If that happens, the winners will be the sellers and the owners of the $1M+ properties that abut Sewataro. The losers will be everyone else in Town. Note that the proposed purchase price is more than a million dollars more than the appraised value of this property for building lots, and nearly $6M higher for the intended open space use contemplated by the Town. Recognizing some or all of these problems, Town’s Finance Committee – our financial watchdog –, the Park and Recreation Commission, the Capital Investment Advisory Committee and the Land Acquisition Review Committee and two of the selectmen all oppose this purchase. The tax payers should heed their warning. This purchase would be a financial disaster for the Town.

The sellers have launched an expensive and sophisticated campaign to market this sale. They have posted professionally printed signs, mailed and distributed slick literature, used telephone push poling and packed the second day of Town Meeting. Of course, the sellers have every right to spend substantial sums to advance their views, but this effort should make all of us recognize that they are acting in their own interest and not the Town’s. The voters should be skeptical of this kind of marketing.

The Town has no plan for the use of this land and no one has advanced a sound argument about what should be done if the purchase goes through. There is no prospective camp operator knocking at our door – or event in the mists – who would pay enough rent to support this property. While the sellers and their supporters talk about a park or a camp, there have been no sound or even reasonable proposals. Just pie in the sky ideas.

The Article adopted at Town Meeting says that the purchase shall be for general municipal purposes. This would leave the Selectmen free to do almost anything on this property in the future. Could it be for another 40B development? Should the existing rental houses on the site be turned over to the Housing Authority for low income rentals? We don’t’ know. The absence of a plan should also worry us.

The Town has competing priorities for its capital budget. The Fairbanks building which houses Park & Rec, school offices and the Senior Center is in need to replacement. The Town Pool which is now almost 20 years old requires improvements and new locker rooms. Several of the schools will soon need new roofs. If we become mired in the Sewataro purchase and the costs of operating and maintaining the property, our ability to afford these and other things the Town needs will be impaired.

Please vote NO.

-Henry P. Sorett