Letter to the Editor: Why We Need to Uphold our April 1 Vote

What if we held a town-wide election for a Selectman and, following the election, 200 people signed a petition to undo the results at a Town Meeting? Who would not claim that the democratic process had been subverted? If the loser in the election were to win at the Town Meeting, who would consider that person a duly elected official?

Fortunately, votes for officials can’t be undone in this way, but our April 1 town-wide “no” vote to conveying land to Brightview does not have similar protection. So, a small group of people, backed by town officials, have put the question on the warrant for the May 5 Town Meeting.

Why is this wrong? Over 4,600 people, or nearly one-quarter of the town’s registered voters, voted on April 1. Even though we could wish for a greater turnout, 4,600 is about one quarter of the town’s registered voters and 20 times the number of people who initially voted at the February Town Meeting. Now, some of those who lost in the town-wide vote want to return to the town-meeting forum because it attracts a much smaller group, a group that will include many with a special interest in the outcome of the vote.

I am one of the majority of people who voted against the garage proposal on April 1. I was not convinced by the town’s “pitch” at the February Town Meeting (or at the town’s March “educational forum”) that giving our municipal lot to Brightview was in the town’s best interest. I was disturbed by a sales pitch that focused on public access to a garage while downplaying the attached senior living facility. Even the pictures of the proposed facility showed only a little garage in an unhurried street scene. Where was the expansive five-story building that would be part and parcel of the garage? How can we make adult decisions based on deceptive cartoons? 

After hours of discussion at the February meeting, we learned that, without the addition of town land, the proposed 140-unit facility would shrink to about 90 units. Why wasn’t this significant fact included in the town’s presentation? We had an Option A (about 90 units) as well as an Option B (about 140 units), but the discussion focused exclusively on Option B. So I voted “no” to conveying our land because Option B just seemed too large and imposing in the heart of downtown.

Because of these concerns, I joined others in a petition drive to allow town residents more time to learn about the project and an opportunity to vote in a more democratic town-wide referendum. Both sides had an opportunity to disseminate information on the project, most of which is available in town hall for anyone to verify. The referendum was held on April 1 and the results were clear. The “no” votes outnumbered the “yes” votes in every precinct.

The evening of the vote, several people presented a petition (“overlay petition”) to the town clerk to also bring the assisted-living overlay district to a town-wide vote. The following day, the Daily Item, carried the headline that the garage was “shot down.” Discussion of this vote was rapidly overtaken by discussion of the overlay petition. The Daily Item ran a headline that a group was moving “to kill senior living facility” and an editorial calling the overlay petition “an attack on senior citizens.” Use of such inflammatory language in the context of a debate on downtown development is unfortunate and, frankly, irresponsible.

Those who signed the overlay petition signed it in the same spirit as the first petition – to allow more Wakefield citizens an opportunity to vote on a significant town issue. Instead of seeing the petition as an opportunity for a wider public participation, some saw it as an attempt to undo the entire project and mounted an on-line attack against the petition signers. However, many people opposed to conveying public land to Brightview, including myself, have always been willing to accept a scaled-back facility on private land despite the unfortunate loss of historic houses. But what was most troubling about the entire project was the lack of public participation in significant decisions affecting the very character of our town. Maybe more people should have been aware of the process and participated, but the fact is that until a citizen effort was made to alert the public, very few had any idea of the scope of the proposal.

Now, both questions, Article 1 concerning the zoning of the Fraen property and Article 2 concerning the transfer of town land to Brightview, are on the warrant for the May 5 Town Meeting. No action will be taken on Article 1 because of a delay in forwarding the petition to the Planning Board, but Article 2, the same article that we voted down in a town-wide referendum, will go forward. The only way to ensure that our town-wide vote has meaning is to come to the May 5 Town Meeting and, once again, vote “no” on Article 2. I will be there, and I hope you will too. 

Sincerely, 

Alison Simcox