GilfordGrok

I've been holding off on commenting on this, figuring that I'd let this noodle on its own for a while, but now (BING!) the timer has just gone off.

In the Sun, 11/16/07, there was an article that the Library Trustees are asserting that the land that the taxpayers bought for a previous incantation of a new library should rightly go to them.  Reasoning?  Since the voters approved the purchase of the land for a new library and that the Gilford Friends of the Library had donors that pitched in monies to help that process, 

"...it was appropriate to assign the proceeds from selling the lot to the Friends of the Gilford Public Library" [Robert Kammeraad, Trustee Chair].

I disagree with the logic, at least in part.

Yes, I believe the Selectmen should sell the land as at the present time, there are no long term plans (that I am aware of) that require a build-out of the town's infrastructure.  The only current thoughts are about having the SAU move out of the basement of the Town Hall and move into the Library contingent to the proper heirs assenting to the move.  Please note, however, that money may be needed to grease those skids, and certainly would be needed to rennovate the Library for the SAU's offices.  E.g., more money.

Yes, I agree that the donors should be repaid, as they made a good faith effort to assist - they should not be left dangling in the wind due to the FoGPL deciding that they'd go ahead and supply a new building because the voters voted down the last warrant for a new library.  If the sale happens, the right thing to do would be to return that money.

Which brings us to the meat of the problem - just giving the rest of the proceeds to the FoGPL.  The entire argument is that because the voters authorized the purchase of the land, the voters would want that money to go to them.  

No, I disagree.

As shown in bold above, while the voters did agree to purchase the land, they voted down the attempt of the last publicly funded library that was proposed.  This fact is not mentioned in the article.  Nor was that fact mentioned to me during the Sub-Budget Committee reviewing the Library budget (but the proceeds of the land idea was) nor during the full Budget Committee review (that I can remember - that's why the recording is helpful - let me know if you find otherwise!).

Like it or not, my reasoning is that while the taxpayers bought the land, I disagree that this fact automatically gives the right to the Library Trustees to assume it should be theirs for further funding of the new Library.  And no, I disagree with Bill Seed and his "embarrassed" remark as well, trying to guilt the BudComm into putting back in what the Selectmen removed.

The money used was taxpayer money, not the Trustees' money.  The Trustees stepped in, being unsatisfied with the voters judgement on the new Library, and did it themselves (and should be applauded for that action).  But that still does not change the fact that taxpayer money paid for the land.

How's this? The cost of the land in 2004 was $150K, with $40K from donors and $110K from the taxpayers.  For the sake of argument, given the current real estate climate, let's say it is sold for $150K. 

Give the donors back the money they raised as their money went for something other than the original intention (effectively, surplus land for the Town of Gilford rather than a new library).  What they do with that money afterwards is up to them.  The moral obligation will have been fulfilled.

The other $110K?  Here's a crazy idea - return that to the taxpayers as well!  That was used, at the majority vote of the citizens, for a library that the Town was going to build.  That purpose also became moot when the FoGPL decided to go their own way and do it on their own.

I do not know, off the top of my head, how many taxpayer units there are in Gilford - for the sake of argument, let's say 1,100 (heh - convenient for the math challenged amongst us!).  That means  $100 back, in the form of a check just like the $40K donors, to each taxpayer in Gilford. 

And then let the taxpayer, of their own free will, decide to donate to the FoGPL if they want!  After all, given the reasoning behind giving the donors back their money should also fit for the taxpayers, right? If the moral obligation to the $40K donators must be fulfilled for a purpose not taken, the same argument applies to the taxpayers.

Don't you agree?