Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Tom Stevens, a representative for Waterbury
On Tuesday morning, Waterbury awoke to the news that the Shumlin Administration had reached agreement with private developers in Barre to lease space for up to 400 state workers in a new building to be located in downtown Barre. It is not an understatement to say that the general reaction was one of anger and dismay, and seeing the headline certainly made my coffee taste a bit bitter.
On the face of it, it seems a terrible blow to our hopes that the administration would make a public commitment to bringing employees back to Waterbury, either in the buildings as they stand today, or in a new configuration. The surprise of the announcement diluted the good will garnered recently with the beginning of the process outlined to Freeman French Freeman and Goody Olson.
But when it comes to housing the state employees, it’s not about Barre versus Waterbury. It’s about all of us, as state taxpayers and users of state services. It’s about our vision for a state government that is smart, effective and responsive.
Pitting one town against the other is a zero-sum game. We win, they lose. They win, we lose. But in the end, everyone loses if the discussion is at that level. What we really need is a discussion about what we want in our state buildings. Where do we want them? What do we want people to do in them? How do we want to make those decisions?
So instead of fighting over how many employees land in which town, let’s take the discussion up a notch. What’s our vision? And what do we want for Waterbury?
Let me tell you mine. I want to keep the State Complex in Waterbury as a state-owned government center. Complex? Campus? Center? Whatever it’s called, I want a group of buildings that honor our historic architecture – the red brick, the green horseshoe, the welcoming entrance – while using the best of modern building science. I want buildings that are energy-efficient, cost-effective, good to work in, and welcoming to visitors.
My vision is for a center that represents a primary site for some government agencies, and a satellite location for others. Waterbury’s central and accessible location makes it an ideal location for many state agencies. Which agencies? How many people? Let that be driven by the plan that works best for serving Vermonters.
I don’t take lightly the fact that we own these buildings, and I don’t dismiss the fact that we own the land next to a river. But to dismiss waterside buildings is to dismiss all of Vermont’s downtowns. We doom our own economic development as a state if we abandon our downtowns in the name of the floodplain – so instead, we must rebuild better.
There are steps we can take to rebuild in a way that reduces our flood risk and improves our resilience. But we have to keep pushing for those steps, and articulating our vision into a concrete plan that builds on our – and the State’s – strengths. I have confidence that as we keep working – in a positive way – we’ll get our plan, we’ll keep our strong downtown, and we’ll rebuild our state center.
And so I say again, it starts with the vision. A vision that our state government, in any part of our state, will be housed in buildings that serve the needs of both the people who work in them and the people who pay for them; a vision that when (not if) we rebuild Waterbury, our complex will serve as a model for excellence in government buildings around the world. We have the power to make that vision, share that vision, and fulfill that vision – not by competing with Barre, but by showing why it’s the smartest plan for Vermont. So let’s pour another cup of coffee, stop stressing about the headlines, and start telling our fellow Vermonters why Waterbury is going to be the greatest state government center they’ve ever seen.
