In 2004, the Woodstock Academy quietly purchased approximately 25 acres of swampland on the Hill for $450,000.00. The commercial market value of that same land in 2004 was $282,000.00. The funds came out of Woodstock taxpayers’ pockets along with sending towns taxpayers’ pockets.
What was prudent about that expenditure?
The Woodstock Academy just resubmitted the same poorly packaged plan for the development of a football stadium and baseball field plus concession stands, team rooms, storage barns and wetlands crossing on its acres of swampland.
The Woodstock Academy stated their need for additional classrooms and science facilities two years ago. The Woodstock Academy swims in it’s own sewage on wet days because they will not spend the money required for a sewer extension.
BUT, the Academy plans to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to build a football stadium on pricey swampland.
Can anyone explain how this can be considered “prudent spending” given the Academy’s stated needs plus the restrictions of the town’s prop 46 ruling?
I’d really like to know.