Monday, December 31, 2007

Comment policy

I welcome your comments here at Franklin Matters. To maintain a respectful dialogue, I've posted the guidelines of the comment policy below.

  • Stay focused. All viewpoints are welcome, but comments should remain on the topic set by the original blog post, discussion question or other type of initial entry.
  • Be respectful. Ad hominem or personal attacks, profanity, and aggressive behavior are prohibited. Instigating arguments in a disrespectful way is also prohibited.
  • Tell the truth. Spreading misleading or false information is prohibited.
  • No spam. Repeated posting of identical or very similar content in a counter-productive manner is prohibited – this includes posts aggressively promoting services or products.

I retain the discretion to determine which comments violate this comment policy.
I reserve the right to remove violations.
I expect all contributors to be respectful.

This comment policy is valid for all discussions hosted on the Franklin Matters website and/or Facebook page.

Thank you for taking the time to review our comment policy. I encourage your participation in a healthy and respectful discussion and look forward to an active exchange of ideas.

This comment policy is valid for all discussions
This comment policy is valid for all discussions

This comment policy was modeled after that for which can be found here

Franklin, MA


  1. My son will be attending Franklin High School in the fall and I will be voting no to a new building.

    I recently toured the High School at an open house and found it to be perfectly fine. In fact it is much nicer than the Franklin Charter School my son has attended for 8 years which was built in 1955.

    The Parmenter School was built in 1951,Davis Thayer was built in 1924, Kennedy and Horace Mann in the sixties, Tri County was built in the 70's.

    All these schools are still going strong and there is no reason the High School which is only forty years old can't do the same for decades to come.

    The tax payers of Franklin have been very generous over the past few years - approving monies for both reasonable updates to existing schools and building new ones.

    Franklin High may need some sprucing up but everything I have read about and seen in person is cosmetic and can be done at a far lower cost than tearing down the school and building a completely new one.

    Of course you would have to want to keep spending down in order to do that. Instead town officials have chosen to take the bait from the state where the incentive is to make the project as expensive as possible.

    Nobody knows what the final cost will be. The Ballot question gives no definite amount of money that we are being asked to approve. It does not say a debt exclussion of $47 Million - it is completley open ended.

    It would be foolish for tax payers to give a blank check to town officials who along with the state have thus far demonstrated every proclivity to spend as much money as possible.

    We have only been presented with one choice and it is by far the most extravagant and expensive one and it could in the end be even more extravagant and expensive than we now know.

    If we give them open ended approval does anyone doubt that they will not go for broke with a once in a lifetime opportunity to throw in as many expensive extras and pet projects as they can possibly tag on. They could throw in an Olympic Pool and Ice Arena if they like.

    I'll be voting no because:

    Spending $100 Million + on a new school to address cosmetic issues with the existing one is extravagant and wasteful.

    The ballot is worded in such a way that it is simply a blank check and gives free reign for even more money to be spent.

    Finally there is the common good to consider. These days many working families and especially our senior citizens are in no position to have taxes increased even more than they already go each year. They simply can't afford to build a fancy new school just because some folks find the existing one to be a little drab.

  2. David's comment was meant for another day and time so I have moved it from here to its own posting

    There are two factual errors in the posting that I take the opportunity to correct here