To the Editor:
As a former Wayland School Committee member, I can say with certainty that one-time pandemic relief funds, now gone, contributed to lasting increases in municipal spending. Many communities are now facing the resulting fiscal cliff, but responses vary.
Some towns are considering steep tax increases, while others are making difficult cuts. Lexington Public Schools, for example, is addressing a $4 million FY27 deficit through approximately 225 staff reductions, driven in part by costs that grew during the pandemic.
Article 16 proposes selling town-owned land to generate “new growth” and avoid a future override. This is a short-term fix that prioritizes asset sales over addressing underlying structural imbalances between revenue and spending. The town already approved a debt exclusion last year rather than address the issue.
Relying on land sales is a limited strategy that produces modest revenue while permanently reducing public assets. Is this to become an annual approach, selling the few town owned parcels to close recurring budget gaps?
Wayland would be far better served by a comprehensive opera-tional review (tinyurl.com/operation-review) to identify efficiencies and reduce costs while maintaining services. A prior independent review by the Abrahams Group identified millions in potential savings without service cuts and at a lower cost than the $200,000 now proposed to study a single parcel.
Before a “fire sale” of town-owned land to private developers in an effort to stave off an override, taxpayers deserve a full, independent review of all options.
Vote no on Article 16. Selling Wayland’s land isn’t a plan!
Donna Bouchard
Concord Road
