Town committee members made judgments on two separate issues, coupling their decisions as the basis for state funding. Residents are closely examining the implications. A vote now would be wise.
Decision 1: A Combined School. Committee members decided to combine the Glenbrook Middle School with the Williams Middle School for a student body of 650-700.
Decision 2: Placement on the WMS Property. Rejecting renovations, Committee members made the decision to demolish the Glenbrook school and build a new combined school on the Williams property.
At Town Meeting on Nov. 12, a “yes” vote to proceed would close Glenbrook, place a combined school on the WMS property, and lock state funding into those decisions. A “no” vote intends to stop placement of a combined school on the WMS property while still funding alternatives. This will substantially challenge the town and the Massachusetts School Building Authority to agree to a new foundation on which to rest funding.
The Williams Property (16.6 acres) — Zoning. Some “no” voters believe the Williams property poses problems unique to its size and location. Focusing on the property issue, they want the protection that town zoning regulations commit us to. Zoning guarantees that project outcomes maintain the quality of life in homes and surrounding areas including the successful management of traffic, health, safety and the environment. At 700 students, “no” voters see an unavoidable reduction in the quality of life and property values disproportionate to other locations. Furthermore, zoning protection will likely demand improvements to infrastructure surrounding the Williams property and those costs have not been estimated (roads, sidewalks, etc.). Therefore, some urge renovation only. And if the property is abandoned in favor of another, compliant redevelopment isn’t as threatening as a combined school.
The Glenbrook Property (21.3 acres) — Loss of neighborhood school, Sale of property. Some “no” voters will be those who would save Glenbrook as a school property (small or combined). Some believe Glenbrook should be the preferred “combination” property because its extra acreage affords more building and parking space, multiple access points, and is better buffered from surrounding houses. “No” voters also want to avoid sale to a property developer for intrusive housing or commercial development. It is noted that redevelopment of the land would permanently eliminate athletic fields when open space at Williams is reduced.
The Educational Issue. Some “no” voters reject a judgment that the quality of education or middle school experience will be improved by doubling the student body. They place confidence in smaller neighborhood schools for this age group. They urge revisiting the possibility of two renovated schools at their current locations, Glenbrook and Williams.
Regardless of the Nov. 12 outcome, committee members’ decisions to combine schools on the Williams property will be further analyzed before the funding vote in November 2025. If a “yes” vote wins the day this November, contested issues and insecurity surrounding costs to the taxpayer may ultimately undermine confidence in a combined middle school on the Williams property.
Sarah Nesbitt
Longmeadow
