Or just plain confusion? It looks like the initial thrust to discredit the results of the article 30 referendum will be obfuscation. Make the claim that it’s useless because it doesn’t indicate a clear path forward.
That misses the point entirely. The numbers are crystal clear with respect to invalidating the mission statement of the Friends of Brewster Hall (Question a), and the pursuit of taxpayer funded restoration (question d-1).
The premise of Article 19 was to do stop-gap repairs until the economy or whatever improved and large a scale project could be undertaken. With a 60% requirement for any large scale project and only 48% favoring restoration, and worse only 19% in favor of public funding, that path seems to be a dead end. In fact, the numbers suggest that we could sell the building by only convincing 5% to go along. That would be easy with BOS backing.
So the question now is how to spend the $200,000 in light of the prospect that the best that can be hoped for is an annual $100,000-$200,000 approval from a slim majority of hold-your-nose-and-go-along-with-it voters for at best a few years.
Maybe new carpets aren’t the best way to spend that money?