by Mary Mcfarland

Created on: April 22, 2009

When we think of state control of a local or community project, it seems like a good thing on the surface. More money would roll in. Right? Less responsibility for overtaxed local officials. Right? Unfortunately, these are myths. The money from Fairfield, Connecticut's train station project would go the state, and local officials' paper burden, i.e., the reporting requirements of the state, would increase drastically. If the state develops Fairfield's train station project, then Fairfield residents, and their mayor and council will lose control of two of their most important means for strengthening their community and, hence, their lives and families in their very own neighborhood. First, they will lose control of the decision-making process with regard to the Fairfield train-station project. That is, the state of Connecticut, rather than their own local government, i.e., their mayor and council, will make decisions regarding how the project is developed. Second, Fairfield residents will lose control over the financial management of the project and, hence, over the income from the project.

Why is it important for Fairfield residents to maintain local control over the development and financial management of the project? The train station project, once it is controlled by Fairfield, can become a central theme around which all or many of Fairfield's capacity building and other communiy strenthening programs can be organized and developed. For example, communties such as Lebanon, and Cincinnati, Ohio have organized multiple programs around their train stations. Such events are in the best interest of all residents since they enable them to establish and to preserve their community's unique character. In addition, the programs and activities offered enliven resients and imbue them with an increased sense of civic pride. Conversely, if the state controlled the Fairfield train station project, local needs and community values could be overlooked completely.

In addition to the preservation of unique and cultural characteristics of a community, control over the financial management of its train station project would provide Fairfield with one its most lucrative sources of income. Under the auspices of a nonprofit, programs organized thematically around the train station could add a great deal of money to local coffers. This holds true in Lebanon, Ohio. In the case of Midland, Ohio, the preservation of the depot and control of the project is financiallly reinvigorating the entire community. Midland is linking its train depot thematically to local festivals and other activities county-wide; in addition, it is seeking to use the depot to become an attraction on the national level for railroad and train enthusiasts.

A vote for the state is a vote against Fairfield, whose residents need to become involved and informed of the intricacies of such a project, which if left to others, could mean irreversible damage to their local community, government, and economy,as well as a complete obviation of their local values and culture.

Learn more about this author, Mary Mcfarland.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.