About Connections: Love it or hate it, history is a map. Those who hate history think it irrelevant; many who love history think it escapism. In truth, history is the clearest road map to how we got here: America in the 21st century.
In 1813 John Hunt offered to sell 3.5 acres to the town of Stockbridge at $70 per acre, but the town was unable to raise the $245.
Hunt sold the land to Dr. Oliver Partridge, who sold it to Dr. Thaddeus Pomeroy who sold it to the Congregational Society (First Congregational Church of Stockbridge). In 1839 the Congregational Society leased that same piece of land to the town.
Stockbridge built a town hall on the property. It was called the Town House and constructed for the purpose of conducting town government functions. The Town House was the first physical manifestation, in Stockbridge’s 100-year history, of separation of church and state.
“So in 1839,” local historian Richard Wilcox summed up, “the Town House ended up resting on the land that John Hunt offered to sell to the Town 26 years earlier.”
Now all of this is more than retailing historic minutia or telling another quirky Berkshire tale; it is the basis of a problem Stockbridge is wrestling with to this day. The Congregational Church owns the land and the town owns the building on the land. Those are two important variables that impact any current decision-making, but there is more.
In 1902 there was a devastating fire in the Town House. A revised lease stipulated that “the Town shall have the right to remodel, enlarge or rebuild their Town Hall…”
On September 17, 1902, Article 2 on the town warrant read: “…the Congregational Society accepted the offer of $2,000 for a perpetual lease of the land now occupied by the Town together with the plot of land in the rear…authorizing the town treasurer to borrow $2,000 for the lease of land and $14,000 for the purpose of erecting a suitable Town Hall.”
Between 1947 and 1958, the building was more beloved than cared for; finally, it was condemned. The question was posed: Does Stockbridge wish to put the building to use or does the town prefer to leave it idle, a hollow monument to the past?
In 1961 the offer of the Procter gift settled the matter.
“The possibility of renovating the Town Hall had been eliminated previously because of the high cost. With a substantial gift from Mrs. Procter, this alternative became a very attractive one.” — Town Hall Committee Report 1961.
In 1961 it was again renovated and, afterward, the building was often called Procter Hall to honor the major donor.
Since 1961 the building has been maintained but without major updates.
In 2004, after construction of the Muddy Brook Regional Elementary School complex, the Berkshire Hills Regional School District returned the Stockbridge Plain School building to the town. The school closed.
Subsequently, the town abandoned its Town Hall in favor of moving the town offices into the school. The issue became what to do with the Town Hall building.
There was some plan to turn town hall into a social or community center with funds raised privately, but that never materialized. There were doubts, since Stockbridge owned the building but not the land, that it was possible for the town to sell or lease to a third party. There was also some basis to think that, since the Church owned the land, under Massachusetts law, ownership of the building fell to it.
Whether or not the building became the property of the land owner by Massachusetts law, the 1902 lease concluded, “In case this property shall cease to be used for a Town Hall it shall revert to said Society.”
However, that point seemed less important than one might think as apparently the Church did not want the building. The problems attending ownership were considerable. The building did not meet current codes. It needed a new roof and had outdated mechanicals. Even empty, there were annual maintenance costs. Finally, the building was in a residential area and any new use was subject to zoning restrictions.
In 1921, according to the Selectman’s report, the town had $500 “to cover the cost of repairs necessary to make the building safe for public use… that it may be a credit rather than a disgrace to the Town.” The report goes on to state that that amount was not adequate; nonetheless, those days are gone. Today, the cost to make the building “safe and a credit to the town” is not in the hundreds, but the hundreds of thousands.
After the school became the town offices and the Town House was vacant, some said demolish it and others said restore and reuse it: It was a replay of the debate of the late 1950s.
Years passed. Committees sat. Suggestions were made. Questions were raised: If a new tenant were found, who would make the requisite renovations? If a new use were proposed, would the Church, which was not just the land owner but also an abutter, agree? Whatever the final recommendation was, the voters of Stockbridge had to approve it. In 12 years no solution was found; the Stockbridge Town House sat empty.
The Town Hall committee was formed. Its purpose was to “offer guidance to the Selectmen as to what should be done with the Old Town Hall [and] issue a final report offering informed and well-considered recommendations…”
Currently, there are three suggestions on the table. None were developed by the committee; rather, the three options were brought to the committee.
In a reversal of uses, the first is for the Town House to become a private school just as the school building became the Stockbridge town offices. The second is to raise money, through grants and private donations, and create a cultural center to deepen understanding of human history including Berkshire history. The most recent proposal is for use by the Norman Rockwell Museum.
At 4 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 25, the committee will convene to discuss how to proceed. This will be an open meeting in the Town Offices.
What can happen and what does happen is a function of what did happen in the past.
