TO THE EDITOR:
Please feel free where you want to place my comment I had submitted already to a different article:

The message from the Special Town Election appears pretty clear: Don't do it!"
I'm wondering what the reasons could be for this outcome.
By financing another $1m to renovate Harvard's City Hall through excluded debt, the individual additional burden on a citizen's annual tax bill may not be unbearable in all (but probably some) cases.
A presumably large majority of residents supports the initiative to restore this landmark building and is also willing to face the unavoidable tax ramifications.
[The question remains why renovation and maintenance of the Town Hall had not been started years ago, when its disintegration was less pronounced and obvious.]
What disturbs me most about this case - and maybe others feel the same way -, is the fact that the initial financial plan ($3.97m) for this renovation project increased over a course of months by roughly 28%.
Assuming that the planning was in the hands of skilled people with insight and expertise, I'm not aware of any convincing cause - like a series of completely unforeseeable events - that lead to this (surprising) increase in necessary funding. Were there contingency margins (10%, 20%, or whatever ?) built into the originally approved budget? Such would be standard policy e.g. for capital projects in industry. Is there an estimate of follow-up cost (beyond interest charges) once the building is finished? E.g. increased utility and other cost?
How could I now be convinced that the job gets decently finished at a total budget of $5.07m? Or what other hidden risks can be identified?
All these questions may have triggered an uneasiness, which leaves us with this election result and perhaps wasted money for insufficient planning expenses in the first place.