Deception at the Polls

I voted early this morning, but the real characters came out of the woodwork for the after-work crowd. I headed up to the city center to check and see what turnout was like.

Interesting to note was a giant sign (probably four times the size of a normal political yard sign) asking for a YES on P, R, S, and T. It indicated that it was paid for by the Shrewsbury Firefighters PAC (I assume Political Action Committee). That must be a pretty small committee.

Why on earth firefighters would care about a tax transfer, repaving a street, or the pool house is beyond me.

Upon getting closer, a Shrewsbury firefighter handed me a "YES on P,R,S,T" flyer. I asked him to explain why I'd vote for them (I was particularly interested in the fire department's side). He pointed me to another man, who happened to be an alderman, Keith Koenigsfeld.

Figuring that them giving me the flyer made the questions 'fair game' even though I had already voted, I asked Keith to please explain them. I said "Let's start with P".

Keith incredulously asked, "Have you BEEN to the poolhouse?".

I said "Yes, for the past six years. The flyer said it would soon represent a danger to residents, and I would like to know why?"

Keith indicated that it needed a new water heater.

After a moment of stunned silence, I said, "But that wouldn't warrant replacing the whole building, right?"

Keith then said that the shingles on the roof needed to be replaced as well.

Interesting, I noted, as the roof doesn't have shingles (it's metal).

He then said that he went on a tour with the building inspector and parks director and the inspector said that it "wouldn't pass inspection" if they needed to do any upgrades. I know the building inspector, Matt Stoll, because he inspected a project at my house, and asked "So I could ask Matt why it wouldn't pass, and he'd know?"

Keith said, well, it wasn't actualling the inspector; it was the building commissioner. I don't know the building commissioner, but I intended to ask him later. I asked if the commissioner was a structural engineer and I'm not sure if Keith answered (we were talking back and forth pretty quickly), but I don't believe I heard a "yes".

At that point I wasn't sounding as neutral as I'd started, so I pressed him, asking why a building needed to be razed because it had a bad water heater. Surely, if the Board unanimously approved the measure, there would have been a full report. Keith said he wouldn't be able to give an answer that satisfied me (he read me like a book...)

I found it odd -- and probably humiliating for Koenigsfeld -- that his own personal fliers had the "VOTE YES" as the first item on them, but other than the water heater, he had no idea why the place needed to be demolished.

If you felt so strongly about the issue to print and hand out fliers, which trumped even your own campaign, shouldn't you have some facts at hand?

My conversation with Keith ended there.

Inside, I met the Parks Director, Marc Bernstein (this was not in the polling place; I took the long way into the lobby of the building). Marc is pretty new to the city; he's a very nice guy. He was not the instigator of the ballot measure, but I asked him if he had any more details on the building's condition anyway.

Compared to the alderman who voted to put it on the ballot, Marc was a fountain of information. He did say that the floor/foundation were uneven, and the north wall had cracks. He mentioned that mud-jacking the floor was possible, but they weren't sure how long it would last.

It is my understanding that piering a foundation is considered a 'permanent' solution. Mud-jacking is not exactly temporary, but not permanent either. It's a medium-term fix. Marc said the mud-jacking solution was something like $40,000.

He also mentioned that the lifeguards didn't have a big enough area. To his credit, he said that he personally asked if they could save the roof because it was in such good condition (!). I couldn't resist mentioning that the alderman had just said the shingles needed to be replaced. Marc was sort of bemused by that one.

In the end, I came away feeling just as bad about all four propositions. If the case for one of the largest single line-items (the poolhouse) was built on such shoddy information, I don't feel better about the others.

If I hadn't been so upset at Koenigsfeld's answers -- or lack thereof -- I would have stayed and asked the firefighter for details about the pumper situation. No hard feelings toward him; I have a feeling that he didn't feel quite as strongly as the aldermen on the issues.