The closing and sale of Simon’s Rock campus presents both opportunities and challenges. The opportunities are plain: a rare chance to shape the future of South County by tackling long-standing issues. One door closes; another opens.
A reimagined Simon’s Rock could:
- Expand workforce and single-family housing, addressing the region’s chronic shortage;
- Create higher-paying jobs, diversifying the economy beyond its service-based foundation;
- Stimulate complementary local businesses, driving economic growth across South County; and
- Strengthen South County’s role as an economic and cultural hub, attracting families to put down roots.
Done right—with care, capital, and community support—Simon’s Rock 2.0 could be truly transformative. Tomorrow could be bright. But to get there, the community must confront key challenges today.
Consider the scope: 46 buildings spread across the 270-acre campus. Bard hopes to expedite the sale, and while we should hope for the best, we must also plan for the worst. There is every reason to believe Bard will continue to maintain the property in top condition—it has been a responsible steward and valued community member. Preserving the property’s value aligns with its interests, and there is no reason to think Bard would act otherwise.
Beyond Bard, however, the future is uncertain. There is no guarantee that the next owner will be a responsible steward. The next owner may arrive with grand plans and good intentions, but as history shows, the road to present-day Searles School, DeSisto School, and the Fairgrounds was paved with good intentions.
It would be an understatement to say that Searles School was in a deeply troubled state for years, having been used for highly questionable activities over an extended period. Fortunately, in 2024, the owner voluntarily addressed key life and safety concerns, demolishing two problematic structures and securing the main building. Notably, this action was not compelled by the town, which lacked the necessary tools to force the owner to act.
With 46 buildings, Simon’s Rock presents an exponentially greater challenge than Searles School, making it critical to consider what tools the town should have to ensure that the next owner does not allow it to deteriorate as Searles did circa 2023. This concern is not unique to Great Barrington. Consider Lanesborough, where officials have struggled to enforce security and maintenance at the former Berkshire Mall. Like Great Barrington, Lanesborough lacks—and could greatly benefit from—a vacant commercial structure regulation. With this in mind, I researched how other Massachusetts municipalities secure vacant commercial properties for life and safety purposes.
Drawing from bylaws enacted elsewhere in the Commonwealth, I presented the Great Barrington Selectboard with a proposed town bylaw requiring commercial property owners to register vacant commercial properties with the Planning Department and Building Department on standard forms.
This registration ensures that public safety officials are aware of structures needing closer monitoring. Of course, heightened vigilance comes with administrative costs, so property owners would pay an annual registration fee to offset the town’s expenses in overseeing security and maintenance.
Once registered, a vacant commercial structure must remain safe, secured against the elements, and inaccessible to unauthorized persons—issues that plagued Searles School. If a citizen, neighbor, or public safety official observes broken windows, doors, other openings, or unsafe conditions, the owner must secure the building within 30 days. Additionally, property owners must remove trash and graffiti from the premises.
Once notified, most property owners will presumably secure their buildings—after all, maintaining a safe and secure property is in their best interest. Realistically, however, some owners will require prompting to do the right thing, which is where escalating fines come in. A bylaw without teeth is merely symbolic.
When it comes to public safety, meaningful penalties are essential to ensure compliance and motivate negligent owners to act. If a property owner continues to neglect their building, the bylaw authorizes the town to step in, secure the structure, and bill the owner for the associated costs.
On February 6, at the Selectboard’s request, the Planning Board reviewed the proposed bylaw, leading to an insightful discussion. Two members expressed concern that enforcement might strain town resources and that the registration fee could place an undue burden on vacant commercial property owners. In response, Planning Board Vice Chair Pedro Pachano astutely reframed the issue, highlighting the greater cost to the community if vacant structures are allowed to deteriorate, become safety hazards, and cease contributing to the town’s economic vitality:
Burden on who? As far as I am concerned, buildings like [Monument] Mills and Searles School are a burden on all of us. Buildings are empty. They are not generating the tax revenue that could be generated. Searles School for a long time was used as a clubhouse for teenagers.
If a person purchases a piece of property and they don’t develop it, they don’t secure it, or take care of it, what we have been doing is letting it sit there. I think this might be some impetus to get a building owner to either move the property or to develop it …
In my opinion, the fairgrounds, as long as I have lived in this town, other than when the farmers’ market was there, is an eyesore. It served a great purpose during the fires, but as land that could be [used], imagine that property as a public park, as we always discuss, or something else. But, as it is just sitting there deteriorating year after year, and I am sorry if the owners don’t have the means to do anything with it, but, well, maybe they shouldn’t own it.
Mr. Pachano got it exactly right. Commercial properties must be maintained, secured, and either operated or transferred to those willing and able to do so. When buildings fall into disrepair—jeopardizing lives, livelihoods, and the community’s well-being—the burden ultimately falls on the town.
Following discussion, the Planning Board agreed to advise the Selectboard that it is not opposed to the bylaw, though it noted that certain details will need to be refined. Hopefully, the Selectboard will take up the bylaw at an upcoming meeting to ensure it is ready for the town’s consideration at the May Town Meeting.
It serves no one’s interest for commercial properties to be treated as mere trophies on a mantle. The town is poorly served when a commercial building deteriorates from useful asset to an eyesore then to a hazard. This bylaw equips the town with the necessary tools to prevent such decline and, once passed, will meaningfully strengthen our community.
Survey Monkey Question
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Would you support a town bylaw requiring vacant commercial property owners to keep their buildings secure and inaccessible to unauthorized persons?”
Survey Monkey Results
Here is the result of the following recent survey questions:
- “Do you favor the Village of Desisto development plan as currently proposed?” As of publication, 75 percent of respondents said “no.”
- “If you do not favor the current permit application, would you favor a single-family home development at the Desisto School property?” As of publication, 60.61 percent of respondents said “yes.”
Days Great Barrington has wrongfully withheld Community Access Fees: 344
