|

Legal and moral obligation to save Ward Park

Opinion-icon-for-website[1]To the Editor:

Honor Our Heritage. Protect Open Space. Renovate Existing Buildings.

We have a legal and moral obligation to save Ward Park in Marlborough.  It honors our forefathers and has served as a public park since 1925.  We have a duty to protect Ward Park so that future generations can enjoy the same health benefits, environmental quality, historical pride, and cultural value as past generations.

Marlborough has underutilized buildings that can be renovated such as the Meeting House on Pleasant Street.  In recent years developers have restored buildings and improved neighborhoods: Renaissance Lofts, Design Pak Lofts, Saint Mary’s Condos, the old fire station/courthouse on Main Street. We do not need a new building on this precious, protected Open Space in Marlborough. We can restore and renovate existing buildings in the city.

Projected costs for a new building are at least $7+ million. What will be the costs if the center is fully staffed as designed?

In addition to environmental and economic considerations, we need to address the overarching social concerns of community representation and environmental justice.  Do we want our youth, seniors, and underserved residents to compete for Open Space and Recreation Land?

We can do better. Let’s form a committee with all stakeholders.  Let’s figure out how to have a senior center and save the park at the same time.

Jen Boudrie, Founder, Green Marlborough

www.SaveWardPark.com, www.GreenMarlborough.org

 

Short URL: http://www.communityadvocate.com/?p=41912

Posted by on Oct 31 2013. Filed under Byline Stories, Letters to the Editor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

1 Comment for “Legal and moral obligation to save Ward Park”

  1. What a load of hooie! Just throwing patriotism, economics, the environment, and economic justice in as buzz words does not an argument make. The author does not support one of these “issues” in her letter. No case has been made for why (a small corner of) Ward Park is not a great site for a new senior center. The author half-heartedly raises the question of staffing costs. Are these costs going to be different in a different location? No! SO why is the question relevant to the discussion of location? It’s not! The cost of acquiring and rehabbing a privately owned site, as the author proposes, would be significantly more expensive and inferior to a new construction building on land already owned by the City. This is just a classic example of NIMBY!

Leave a Reply


8 + = thirteen

Support local businesses!

Recently Commented

  • Richard Ricardi: Thank you for posting the entire listing of all of his awards, while most media only mentioned two....
  • Robbin Miller: Congratulations for women being on the show to talk about sports. It will be nice to hear different...
  • Michael Hyde: What are the reasons why we can’t lower the road somewhat? Plus, what are the stats on how often...
  • Debra Roberts: What about a kids sports talk show? My son is a huge New England sports fan!...
  • Sam Levy: That’s a great initiative taken by Knight’s team. As we all know prostate cancer is nowadays...