Room To Grow

Sag Harbor School District is in fine financial shape. On Tuesday, district residents will vote on a $48.06 million budget for the 2023-24 school year — a spending plan that has one of the lowest tax levy increases in the district in over a decade.

That success has been obscured by the debate over Proposition 2, which asks voters to approve the purchase of five lots on Marsden Street for $9.425 million — $6 million in a bond, with the remaining $3.425 million already available to use in a facilities capital reserve account.

Traditionally, this kind of proposition would be a simple one: a school district with limited land, and facility needs, seizing on its last opportunity for expansion. Sag Harbor schools have been nestled in the heart of the village since its founding over a hundred years ago. As the village has grown, and property values have soared, Pierson Middle-High School remains an island in a furious sea of real estate transactions. Now, there’s an opportunity to take advantage of a few precious vacant parcels a stone’s throw away.

The community has remained significantly divided on this issue since it was first floated last fall. At the time, the district set aside plans for proposed renovations at Mashashimuet Park, where Pierson athletes have played sports for generations, and began looking at the Marsden lots in a potential joint purchase with the Town of Southampton through its Community Preservation Fund program. The plan included an athletic field, bathroom facilities and parking on the new site.

That partnership collapsed, and what’s on the ballot now is purely acquisition of the lots using school district funds alone, including debt of $6 million. School district officials say they will engage the community in a conversation about the school’s needs and priorities if the vote is successful. Superintendent Jeff Nichols has said the land could be used for new gymnasium facilities, sports fields or even science programming.

Opponents of Proposition 2 — largely, but not exclusively, nearby property owners — continue to question the district’s motives, the potential impact on their own homes and the environment, and the final price tag for taxpayers.

It’s been an aggressive fight, littered with lawsuits, stolen yard signs and allegations about the project hampering other district priorities, including teacher’s pay and even hot lunches. Those are straw man arguments — both issues deserve further conversation apart from the Marsden proposal, but neither need be affected by the outcome of Tuesday’s vote. Suggesting otherwise is a scare tactic. (It must be noted: The teachers’ union has been vocal in support of the purchase, and members of the Parent Teacher Student Association, also in support of the purchase, have provided constructive commentary throughout the months-long debate.)

Scare tactics, though, have been deployed by some members of the Sag Harbor School Board, too, publicly suggesting that statements made by residents opposing the project could be “actionable.” Surely those comments were rooted in frustration, but threatening lawsuits over rigorous public debate is never acceptable — we expect more from elected officials. It was unnecessary and unwise, and it only widened an acrimonious divide.

Tuesday will settle the matter, at least in part. And despite a few bad actors on both sides, there has been a spirited discussion of what, ultimately, is a simple dilemma: Should the district wade into the overheated real estate market to add to its footprint, despite the limitations of the site and the sizable price tag? Does the rarity of the opportunity justify the commitment? And is it a purchase made out of necessity or convenience?

The price to be paid is reasonable — slightly below market value, in fact. Some have suggested that no purchase should be made without a full plan in place, that it’s putting the cart before the horse. But the reality is that real estate opportunities on the South Fork, and especially in Sag Harbor, move quickly. The owner of these parcels has already committed to returning to plans to develop the Marsden lots into private homes should this vote fail to gain support. Any suggestion that Southampton Town might ride back in and use the Community Preservation Fund to preserve a few scrub-covered lots in the center of the village is purely speculative and probably counter to the new acknowledgment that what’s needed are more housing opportunities, not fewer.

There’s no reason not to take school officials at their word: Buying the property won’t commit them to an athletic field. It’s an option, but if the opponents have done nothing else, they have made clear the uphill fight the district would face in making that happen on Marsden. More likely, the new lots offer room to grow, and a further conversation can begin about long-term needs, and how best to address them. It would be unwise to simply plunk an artificial turf field on the new lots — and that’s not likely to happen.

So, together, Sag Harbor School District voters must decide whether to make an investment, taking advantage of an opportunity, to allow for growth. As with any real estate purchase on the South Fork, it’s a pricey one. But we believe it’s money well spent, and voting no would be an opportunity lost.