Like many others, when we first learned of the proposal to establish a “community “park at site of the former Rockport Elementary School (RES), we thought that it might be a good idea.  However, after attending two open meetings where representatives of the Lesher Family Foundation (LFF) and Viewshed (the Yarmouth-based landscape design firm that the Leshers have selected to design and oversee construction of the park) presented their plans for the project, we are now firmly opposed to Article 3.  We offer the following three reasons to vote not on Article 3. 

1: Rockport does not need another park.

Opportunities to enjoy the natural beauty of the town and participate in outdoor recreational activities are abundant in and around Rockport.  We have Marine Park, Walker Park, Cramer Park, Goodridge Park, Village Green, Mary Lea Park, and the Glen Cove Rest Area.  There are also several nonprofit parks, farms, open spaces and trails that are open to the public.  These include Merryspring Nature Park, Aldermere Farm, Vesper Hill Children’s Chapel, Beauchamp Point Scenic Byway, The Ledges, Harkness Preserve, Beech Hill Preserve, The Sides Preserve, Georges River Highland Path and the Ragged Mountain Trail.  Beyond the named parks and spaces, Rockport itself is a place of astounding natural beauty for all to enjoy.

If there is a problem, it is not that we need another park, but rather that the town has been unable to invest sufficiently in infrastructure and maintenance of the parks we already have.  Instead of building a new park, the Leshers and LFF should consider creating an endowment to improve and maintain our existing parks and outdoor spaces.  

2: The town cannot afford to maintain the park envisioned by the Leshers.

The LFF proposal for the RES site includes “imaginative playgrounds,” “interactive water play,” “accessible walking paths … with exercise stations,” “flexible program space,” “living landscapes,” and a “community field house,” – it sounds like a giant theme park.  It is difficult to imagine that this is a $3 million project, or that Rockport taxpayers will not ultimately have to contribute to its costs.  The Leshers and the LFF have proposed that a “conservancy” should be established to manage park operations and maintenance, and they have pledged to help raise funds for an endowment that will support the ongoing costs of park operations and maintenance.  The Leshers and the LFF have not, however, offered to fund the entire endowment, and in a statement that is posted on the Town of Rockport website, they specifically write: “In the unforeseeable event there is a budget shortfall, LFF commits to providing funds to cover basic park maintenance for the first five (5) years”.  Any costs exceeding “basic park maintenance for the first 5 years” that are not covered by the endowment – if it can be raised – will be the responsibility of the residents and taxpayers of Rockport.  

At the May 25 town meeting, representatives of LFF and Viewshed refused to provide estimates for the annual cost of park operations and maintenance.  When it was suggested that those costs would likely be at least $10,000 per month, none of them suggested that the estimate was too high.  A monthly cost of ~$10,000 would translate to $120,000 per year, which is approximately 50% more than the town currently spends on all its parks, would require an endowment of at least $3,000,000.  It is unrealistic to expect a town with less than 3500 residents and total annual tax revenue of less than $18,000,000 to fund a $3,000,000+ endowment.  With so many needs in our town, why should we, the residents and taxpayers of Rockport, be asked to fund a $3+ million endowment to support the operations and maintenance of one park?  

3: Rockport DOES need housing that the people who work here can afford.

At the May 25 meeting, select board member Denise Munger stated that residents were “horrified” at the thought of workforce housing at the RES site.  We don’t understand what is so horrible about developing housing that members of the local workforce can afford to live in, and we suspect that most of those who were “horrified” nevertheless want to enjoy high-quality healthcare, well-staffed restaurants and stores, clean houses, beautiful gardens and many other services that are only available if those who provide them can afford to live here.  We are not horrified at the thought of housing for nurses, restaurant workers, or other full-time, hard-working residents of our community.  What bothers us is the increasing number of homes that are occupied for only a few months of the summer and vacant for the rest of the year.  We’d like to see the town develop a plan that helps to create a more vibrant, year-round community.  

We also heard that developing housing at the RES site is “simply not economically feasible”.  Apparently, no developer who could make such a project profitable has been identified.  Aside from the obvious observation that other communities have found ways to develop affordable workforce housing, maybe the model being considered is the wrong one?  What if, instead of viewing this as an opportunity for a developer to make money building new homes or apartments, the town focused on raising funds to build housing that could be rented to qualified full-time residents.  We see this as an opportunity for Rockport to strengthen its community and build for the future.  

Scott Gazelle and Judy Bonzi live in Rockport