Value of programs poorly articulated

To the editor,

I read with interest that the taxpayers will be asked in June to vote to transfer $2.8 million from unallocated funds to capital reserves to help pay for an athletic complex renovation at Kennebunk High School. The total renovation cost is $4.2 million.

We are informed that the poles at Memorial Field, where football and soccer are played have woodpecker damage and the field is in such poor condition that football games have had to be held elsewhere.

Could not the science program have designed a research study for students to document why those woodpeckers damaged all those poles and what counter deterrent measures might have been taken?

It is stated that some of the bleachers are 60 years old and were deemed unsound in 2013. I write as a taxpayer who is more than 20 years older than those non-code compliant bleachers. The 2022 census estimate for Kennebunk states that 32.3 percent of residents are 65 and older. What does RSU 21 offer to the one-third of the population whose taxes provide such huge support for school programs?

The value of these costly athletic programs to support development of healthy young men and women to assume constructive roles in our society and community is poorly articulated by RSU 21.

President Charles W. Eliot of Harvard, in 1905, came out with a vigorous attack on football as a game in which “the weaker man is considered the legitimate prey of the stronger.” Eliot tried unsuccessfully to abolish the game, and allegedly said: “I see little value in learning for the young scholars to kick an inflated pig bladder around a field.”

Would it not be an excellent exercise for the young scholars of RSU 21 to write an essay to the community of taxpayers which articulates the value to them, not only of the athletic program but of the arts and science programs, too? A thank you for past support would not be misplaced. Did the $58.6 million from the taxpayers for renovations in 2015 make the schools safer and more conducive to learning?

We are all for programs that develop a sound mind and a sound body in the youth of today to serve our community and nation tomorrow. It would be a superb learning activity for students themselves to give us taxpayers a clearer picture of what shape these programs take in the classrooms and on the athletic fields of RSU 21, and what is the value in their lives.

To put it simply, I ask the young scholars of RSU 21, why should more of my taxes pay for you to kick an inflated pig bladder around Memorial Field in the lighted stadium with utility poles undamaged by woodpeckers?

Robert F. Lyons

Kennebunk

Yes for track, no to artificial turf

To the editor,

I am impressed with the amount of thought, care, and attention to detail that has gone into the proposal for the RSU 21 athletic complex. I support the urgent need for a new track and bleachers, but I hope that others will join me in asking for better options than to remove a healthy grass field and replace it with artificial turf. I have three main concerns.

1.) Athlete safety: studies about joint injuries and concussions vary, but the common sense test which says that if athletes move faster, change direction faster, and land on a harder surface, then injuries will increase. I appreciate the thoughtful response to my concern about injuries during the open house —  given the choice of a grass field in bad condition or artificial turf, then artificial turf is safer. However, I do not think that our choice must be between bad grass and good artificial turf.

2.) Environmental safety: the artificial turf field will have many small balls of ethylene propylene diene monomer infill to act as a cushion and to keep the artificial blades in correct position. The drainage system along the inside of the new track for the artificial turf field will take shredded bits of these the infill balls to the Mousam River. Again, I appreciate the thoughtful response to my concern during the open house — given the choice of chemical products used for grass versus the challenge of containing the infill balls, ethylene propylene diene monomer infill is preferred by state environmental policy. My hope is that Kennebunk could be a leading force for York County. We could reject the choice of either adding bad chemicals from grass or ethylene propylene diene monomer infill from artificial turf to the Mousam and set a strong environmental example for our neighbors.

3.) Cost: the artificial turf field is expected to last eight to 10 years and will cost $1.6 million or $160,000 per year if construction goes well and if no major repairs are needed. My hope is that we could use less than $160,000 per year to create several safe and environmentally friendly playing fields for our students.

Andrew Freda

Kennebunk

Increased surveillance creates slippery slope

To the editor,

The town has recently been approached for buying and operating surveillance cameras in cooperation with Shoppers Village. At its March 8 meeting the select board decided that town video surveillance cameras in the public realm needed more (public discussion) broadly with an eye toward benefitting the community. An excellent idea that rightly invites community input.

Currently, it appears that there can be voluntary cooperation between businesses and the town police in sharing a business’s video footage in the investigation of crimes. The board’s March 8 discussion added that “. . . no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in public.” In response, one must acknowledge, however, the Maine Legislature’s recent passage of the most stringent law (LD 1585) in the country against almost all uses of facial recognition, AI, including for surveillance. And the IV Amendment of the Constitution states, in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . .” So the custom, if not the right, to be left alone in public is deeply embedded in our democratic values – to ‘be secure in our persons’ from unseen governmental eyes surveilling us.

Our custom is that Kennebunk is a safe place to live, raise a family and retire. The traditional policing in town seems quite adequate – the police in their vehicles see the citizens and the citizens, in turn, see the police – mutual acknowledgement and respect.

The March 8 board discussion also included that “for us to remain safe we have to move forward with what’s happening.” But just because we have the new technology of surveillance cameras does not mean we should use them in real-time connected to the police department. Rather, let the Waterhouse Center and private businesses pay for and operate their own cameras and cooperate with the police if any problems arise. More benign use of surveillance cameras, for example, in biological studies of wildlife seems a more enlightened use of the technology.

If the town were to own and operate cameras in real-time at Shoppers Village why not just also place them on all other parking lots and out onto the town streets and intersections to catch speeders and other scofflaws? But where would the limit be to this potential slippery slope.

There are alternative ways to support a safe community. Beautification – quality-of-life investments in tree plantings, other greenings and public art. One study found this approach to save significantly over otherwise relying on the greater costs of policing, medical services and incarceration alone (New York Times, op/ed, Oct. 10, 2021). It seems that when citizens have an environment they can care about they become their own surveillance agents and behave more responsibly. So why not take the $25,000 the board is considering for Shoppers Village surveillance cameras and put it instead into beautifying its parking lot with trees and other plantings, even a sculpture? And yes, this can be done without losing parking spaces.

Kennebunk is a summer home and tourist town. What message would it send to these and other visitors by being confronted with a proliferation of surveillance cameras on our public parking lots and streets? Likely a chilling effect – ‘this must be a dangerous place or there would not be cameras.’ What effect would this have on the economy and image of the town?

So, indeed, public discussion is absolutely necessary over this issue. Strict controls over any involvement of the town in surveillance of its own citizens needs to be decided by the citizens, ourselves, through ordinance by town meeting vote. It is to be hoped that public safety is considered in a larger quality-of-life approach and that the town does not enter the slippery slope of unnecessarily real-time video surveilling its own citizens.

Anthony Dater

Kennebunk

Copy the Story Link

Comments are not available on this story.