Notes from the Old Noank Jail

Groton Road Project

by Ed Johnson

Recently, there has been considerable effort by the Groton Town Council to try and deal with the forthcoming expenses involving the reconstruction and resurfacing of Thames Street in Groton City. Thus far, the Thames Street Review Committee has been able to reduce the initial estimates from $10.7 million to approximately $6.4 million. They are still looking at other methods to further reduce the impact on the taxpayers, possibly utilizing some reserve capital, and then actually bonding the project at the lowest possible figure, which makes very good sense.

In my opinion, as a person who drives on Thames Street frequently, there is absolutely no question that this road needs to be completely reconstructed. The present, patchwork downtown area is not only bumpy and uncomfortable but unsafe in some areas. Considering the proximity to the Thames River and the industries and businesses servicing the region, it now needs to be given priority, and I speak as a person who does not live in Groton City. When this project goes to public Referendum in May, 2011, I sincerely hope that the citizens of both the City and the Town will approve it.

Unfortunately when the voters are requested to approve or disapprove the Thames Street construction project in a Referendum in May 2011, they will also be asked to approve $133 million in bonding for Phase II of a school expansion project. I feel it is a mistake to present this school expansion project to voters for approval for the following reasons.

a) I do not favor any expensive large new school building projects. We are not utilizing existing buildings properly from an ecological perspective. The Climate Change Committee has already raised this point.

b) The educational trend nationally is for smaller schools. Groton’s School Superintendent Kadri’s plan flies in the face of this. Large schools do not improve the education of students.

c) As for using existing facilities for younger children to start them earlier, we still have smaller, local buildings which can be used for that purpose.

d) The present choice of using the Claude Chester property for the proposed Phase II large intermediate school is a mistake in itself. There is frequent flooding on Route 117, traffic is already heavy when the existing school is dismissed, traffic on Route 1 and Route 117 will be even worse when Route 95 is closed due to accidents, and there is insufficient space for future playing fields.

e) Consolidation of schools will always increase the need for more bus vehicles, more routes and therefore much more transportation expense. The City of Norwich recognized this many years ago.

f) It has already been pointed out, several times, that we cannot expect as much financial help from the State this year as before. This means that we, the taxpayers, would have to pay much, much more for such a large project.

g) We do not “owe” future generations a big, new school. We “owe” them a quality education with effective teachers and proper personal attention.

h) Neither the School Design Committee nor the Town Council was unanimous in voting to taking the school proposal to the referendum at this time. Some of the reasons involve the above comments. The actual Council vote was only 5 to 4 in favor of finally placing it on the referendum, after lengthy discussion.

In summary, we do need and we should approve the Thames Street project. However, we do not need and should not approve the School Phase II expansion this year; We should work more efficiently with what we have and provide more effective maintenance on existing buildings rather than “letting them go” …figuring that we’ll build a newer school anyway. Those days are over.