Sturbridge voters: time to stand up

Many of you who read the articles and posts I write regarding the Tea party movement, know that I believe that where the tea party movement will make a difference is at the local level. While we all realize there have to be changes made at the national and state levels, it is at the town and city level where we can make the biggest difference in the shortest amount of time.

Here in Sturbridge we are having a town meeting on December 5, and one of the articles where we can make a difference is article 48. This article is looking to change a piece of property the town purchased from in 2004 to be kept as open space. If you read this blog post, there are links and all the information you need to know on the history of the parcel. When this was voted on at town meeting, there were no sports fields allowed which is why many people approved it, they wanted to keep it "au naturel"

Now as you who know me know I am all for turning undeveloped land into tax revenue, within reason. I was pro-Wal-Mart and still am. I am pro-business as well and believe this town is very anti-business. But I am also adamantly opposed to two things:

• Changing something which has already been voted on at a legal town meeting or election.
• Spending more money that I don't have.

Both of these issues are in this article, although not explicitly.

From the post linked to above:

The last cost estimates I heard at a Selectmen’s meeting to build these athletic fields currently tips at $6,000,000. The fields are extravagant, regulation-sized, tournament-type fields at two locations: the Shepard conservation parcel, which is estimated to cost $2,500,000; and the new Town Barn fields are estimated to cost $3,500,000. There have been no public forums or hearings so residents can learn more and become informed instead of being asked on-the-spot at 2012 Town Meeting to pay for these fields. - Carol Childress 

From everything we, the voters in Sturbridge have been told, there were to be no recreation/athletic fields on this property. Had we been tole there "might" be how many would have voted against spending tax dollars we don't have on the purchase of the land?

Folks, this is where the tea party principle of fiscal responsibility comes into play. Do we really need to spend this kind of money on recreation fields? Can we really afford for our already too high taxes to go up? I say no, we can't and I will vote no against article 48 and urge all of you to do so as well.