In the coming days voters will have two opportunities to make choices that will help shape Harvard’s future, for better or for worse. At Town Meeting voters will consider the merits of 33 warrant articles, several of which relate to raising and spending money to support town services, schools, repairs and upgrades to municipal and historic buildings; to move one step closer to a town center sewer solution; and more. They will vote on bylaw changes that could affect the quality of life in town, including changes governing museums, night lighting, scenic roads, wind energy systems. There will also be questions setting direction for the disposition of Devens.

On election day, April 1, voters will have a chance to vote on the override—to confirm or undo the Town Meeting budget vote—and to select leaders who will help move the town forward on a number of issues that some feel have languished in an infinite analysis loop for too long.

Historically the fate of the town—and of property tax bills—has been in the hands of the people who attend Town Meeting and who make it out to the polls—a fraction of registered voters—leaving one to wonder: what about the rest of the town? Do the no-shows not care about tax increases or changes in town service levels? Do they not care who represents their interests on town boards?

We’ve heard it said that if all Harvard’s voters turned out for Town Meeting, the meeting would have to be relocated from the Bromfield gym—probably outdoors somewhere—to accommodate them all.

That would be a wonderful problem to have.