Concerned over ‘Tear-Down Syndrome’

Thursday, January 5, 2012

To the Editor:

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend taking place in town over the last several years. It is a phenomenon I’ve labeled “Tear-Down Syndrome.”

That is, certain members of the citizenry and departmental personnel become entranced by the prospect of shiny new buildings and embark on a tireless campaign to tear down an existing structure to make way for a new jewel.

It is easy to see how this happens. If any of us owned an old building or house in need of repair, and the townsfolk were going to pay for it to be demolished and rebuilt, we’d all jump on board. I’d be the first one to hop on the bulldozer. But that isn’t reality. Reality is, you make repairs as you can afford and improve the structure over time. You reshingle the roof when it leaks. Replace the heating system when it fails.

I don’t, for the life of me, understand why the tear-down card is being played, with respect to the Motor Vehicle building on Meadowbrook Drive. Years ago, the same game was played out with the Bales School on Elm Street. It was “too old,” “too unsafe,” and “too expensive to renovate.” We needed a new school.

Oddly enough, once Heron Pond was built, it was mysteriously safe enough for the SAGE kids and administrative staff. Construction crews have spent an awful lot of time, effort and tax dollars in recent years working on what was previously a lost cause.

Last week (executive councilor) Dave Wheeler commented on the state of the DMV building, listing the roof shingle condition and the outdated heating system as two solid reasons to abandon ship.

Roof shingles and heating systems (plumbing and electrical as well, to a lesser degree) have a limited service life, compared to the overall structure. Shingles typically are rated for 20-30 years. A heating system should be upgraded after 15 years or so, if only to take advantage of the far superior technology and efficiency available.

I applaud Mr. Wheeler’s due diligence and efforts to keep the District Court in Milford, but I have a hard time believing this building can’t be renovated and added on to, complete with state-of-the-art upgrades, for far less than $4 million. This concept of disposable buildings is something I’ve only experienced first-hand while playing LEGOs with my son. The real-life version of this has me scratching my head in wonderment, especially with regard to this comparatively “new” building. Was it designed as a throwaway originally? Maybe portables should have been considered instead, so it wouldn’t seem so bad when the excavator crunched them up into a dumpster.

Is it too late for a second opinion? We’re not talking about an old chicken coop or shed, after all, and I don’t know of too many people in town that would tear their house down because the roof leaked.

ROBERT PHILBRICK

Milford