One school of thought, represented by the NRA and like-minded politicians, holds that after every mass-casualty event, “now is not the time to discuss gun control; now is the time to heal.” The opposing view, articulated by Rahm Emanuel in 2008, is that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Great Barrington, we have an infrastructure crisis. Let’s consider, now, where we go from here because waiting for our infrastructure to heal is not an option.
With its markets, thriving downtown, shops, theaters, cultural venues, and restaurants, Great Barrington has become the commercial and artistic hub of South County while continuing to be administered as if it were the sleepier town of old. The town’s administrative resources have not kept pace with its robust growth. Town personnel have been stretched thin, asked to do more with less. This is no doubt due to the struggle the Selectboard faces meeting front-burner obligations while minimizing headcount to please demanding taxpayers. Something has to give.
Taxpayers should take heart that town administrators have been good stewards of their tax dollars. When you deduct school costs from the town budget, town’s frugality is evident. Great Barrington’s per capita operating budget for 2024/2025 is $2,286.67, which compares favorably to Stockbridge’s nearly double per capita operating budget of $4,345.58. Notably, Great Barrington is approximately twice the land area of Stockbridge. And Lenox, less than half the size of Great Barrington, has a total per capita overall budget spend of $6,946.62, about eight percent higher than Great Barrington’s total per capita overall budget of $6,427.77. So, there it is: Great Barrington, the economic engine of South County, provides more services and maintains more roads for less than its neighbors. But the town’s thriftiness can only be appreciated to a point. Great Barrington needs to emulate its neighbors and spend more, wisely.
Government efficiency is admirable; government underinvestment is not. The town’s needs exceed its resources. Taxpayers, we have reached the point that we need to loosen the purse strings to permit the town to continue on its remarkable economic and cultural path. Town Hall needs more hands on deck, and taxpayers need to change their tune from “how little can we pay?” to “what do we need to pay to accomplish what needs doing?”
It is estimated that it will cost $15.7 million to replace the Division Street bridge, $11.6 million to replace the Brookside Road bridge, and approximately $5 million to repair the Cottage Street bridge (well suited to be a park, but I digress), nearly all of which cost will be borne by the state up to eight years from now. Having the state pay for bridge replacement is a blessing. Waiting eight years is not. We would be better served with a used bridge now than a new bridge later. To put routine bridge closures behind us, the town needs to add personnel charged solely with infrastructure oversight and state interfacing.
Town bridges deteriorated slowly over the years and then all at once. We know that in 2019 an engineer advised the state that critical Brookside Road bridge supports needed repair “as soon as possible,” but that report never made it to the town. Everyone knows that town government interaction with state agencies can be cumbersome and complicated, and that the flow of information is imperfect. If there had been better coordination between town personnel and the state, the town could have acted on the information rather than being gobsmacked that it was not advised.
To move forward, we need to stop with the recriminations regarding how we reached this point. It is hypocrisy for social media posts to criticize the Selectboard for failing to maintain our infrastructure while the same posters decry efforts to increase tax revenues. We all failed to insist on spending more for infrastructure maintenance. No one should act surprised when bridges close after years of underinvestment. What did we think would happen if we insisted on waiting to pay tomorrow for the bridges we use today?
Looking forward, one solution is for the town to create a committee—let’s call it the Infrastructure Committee—charged with responsibility for overseeing town infrastructure, interfacing with the town’s Department of Public Works, interfacing with relevant state departments, and reporting regularly to the Selectboard and Finance Committee. Communities throughout Massachusetts have committees charged with overseeing the planning, maintenance, and improvement of roads, bridges, and public buildings. These public-works and infrastructure committees interact with the state and relevant municipal personnel. We need to bridge the apparent gap between what the town’s hired engineers are seeing and what the state’s engineers are seeing, and we need to make sure they are regularly speaking with one another. The Infrastructure Committee will be charged with supervisory authority to keep everyone on track.
Let’s ask members of our community with relevant experience to serve on the Infrastructure Committee. Civil engineers, structural engineers, and mechanical engineers with expertise in long-term durability of infrastructure need apply. We are looking at you, construction and project-management professionals. Architects, real estate developers, urban planners, and concerned community members—we should all be concerned—should step up too. This is going to take a village.
Once formed, let’s make sure the Infrastructure Committee has a prominent seat at the table. The Infrastructure Committee should be right beside the Finance Committee for joint Selectboard meetings. Great Barrington’s existing stabilization fund should be sized to meet the needs that the Infrastructure Committee perceives rather than what taxpayers would prefer. And, last, taxpayers need to permit meaningful funding for current and future maintenance.
There will be bumps in the road. We can manage bumps. Closed bridges we cannot.
Survey Monkey Questions
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Should Great Barrington form an Infrastructure Committee and give it a prominent seat at the table?”
Survey Monkey Results
A recent column asked the following survey question: “Would the Berkshire Third be better served by a Democrat?”
As of publication, 63.64 percent of respondents said “yes.”
Days Great Barrington has held Community Access Fees hostage: 212
