The Real Divide in Braintree: Investment vs. Austerity

Across Braintree, the condition of our infrastructure, especially our schools and the Firehouse HQ, is a top concern. These buildings are deteriorating, and yet the response from both sides of the development debate has been disappointingly vague. Neither the pro-development nor anti-development camps have put forward a clear, actionable revenue plan.

Let’s be honest: the most consistent message we hear is “We need to cut services and reduce the budget.” That’s the only idea being repeated. But cutting the budget means cutting maintenance. It means putting more pressure on our heroic, overworked public works staff. It means fewer chances to build new schools and firehouses. And yes, it means reduced services for school programs.

There’s a direct link between buildings and programs. When we fail to renovate or rebuild schools, we drive up long-term costs. Cutting resources leads to catastrophic failures. Every year, the gap between what needs to be done and what gets done grows wider.Maintenance costs rise, but we mask them by skipping scheduled work—until something breaks. In 2018, two 20-year-old roofs collapsed, costing us $3 million in emergency repairs. That’s money we could’ve spent incrementally, with planning and redundancy. Instead, we paid more because we waited too long.

When candidates or residents talk, the debate often gets framed as Anti-Development vs. Pro-Development. But what’s really driving that debate is the lack of funding for our buildings. The argument goes: “We need development to raise revenue so we can fix our infrastructure.” But residents like me aren’t caught up in the development fight—we’re focused on the town’s future. We’ll ally with anyone who presents a serious plan to raise revenue. Otherwise, we’ll gravitate toward whichever camp offers the strongest solution, regardless of their stance on housing.

The group opposing development could easily say, “Let’s raise taxes so we can pay for things.” But they don’t. And after years of hearing their arguments, I can only assume they’re not investment-minded, they’re focused on cost-cutting. They use traffic and population concerns as cover for austerity. I’m not saying those concerns aren’t real, but I’m exasperated by their refusal to offer a solution to the budget crisis. If you expect me to listen to your concerns about development, why won’t you listen to mine—and many others—about the state of our infrastructure?

And the pro-development crowd? They could be advocating for balanced growth and creative revenue strategies. But instead, they spend their time criticizing the anti-development side and repeating the same budget-first rhetoric. They claim the only way to avoid future budget crunches is to cut expenses—even when services are already cut to the bone.

I’ve listened to their arguments about austerity for years. Yet, they still haven’t offered a comprehensive plan to fix our infrastructure. Their solutions always seem to begin with cuts. So again, I have to assume they’re not infrastructure-first—they’re just approaching the same austerity mindset from a different angle.

So, let’s reframe the debate. It’s not about being for or against development. The real divide is between:

• Investment-minded leadership vs. Cost-cutting-focused austerity
• Infrastructure-first priorities vs. Budget-first constraints
• Sustainability-focused planning vs. Short-term savings-focused thinking

And I believe most residents support investment, especially when it comes to schools and public safety. Don’t believe me? Look at the numbers: 71–77% voted yes on the debt exclusion. 67% voted yes on the override. That’s a mandate to fix what’s broken.

Candidates: If you want our support, show us how you’ll raise revenue. Fix the schools. Fix the firehouse. That’s how you win votes—and build a better Braintree.

Residents: I know you want what I want. Schools without holes in the roof. No water pouring in. Steam pipes that won’t burst and harm our kids. Librarians in every building. Music classes that don’t have to double up. A safe, functional firehouse HQ. And public works staff who can take a day off without guilt.

Push back on the candidates. Whether you’re pro- or anti-development, demand that our leaders focus on the real issue: fixing our infrastructure. If Massachusetts voters can pass the Fair Share Amendment and use that money to fix MBTA speed restrictions under the leadership of General Manager Phil Eng, then surely Braintree can find a way to fund school repairs, firehouse upgrades, and build a 20-year scheduled maintenance plan.

Let’s stop pretending we can cut our way to progress. Let’s start acting like a town that believes in its future.

Call to Action:
This election season, press every candidate running for Town Council, School Committee and the other roles like Housing Authority and BELD. Ask them directly: What’s your plan to raise revenue and fix our infrastructure? Don’t settle for vague answers. Don’t let them dodge the question. Whether they support development or oppose it, they owe us a real strategy. Because if they can’t tell us how they’ll fund repairs, staff our schools, and support public works, they’re not serious about leading Braintree forward.

We are where we are because of the choices made—and right now, there’s no plan other than cuts.

• Let’s make infrastructure the issue.
• Investment the solution.
• Let’s demand better.
• Let’s build the Braintree we deserve.