Letter to the Editor:
I write in response to the [Wilton Athletic and Recreation Foudation] president’s April 19 response to my April 18 [Letter to the Editor], and also to address the WARF April 27 letter to the Board of Selectmen regarding WARF’s so-stated “financial commitment” of $180,000 to be added to the proposed $1.9 [million] bonding for the artificial turf field up for a Town vote this week. WARF hasn’t provided money or guarantee; its “intent” is without recourse; and the vote should be “No.”
The April 19 WARF letter didn’t address the uncontested fact that the commissioned environmental report was designed to avoid analysis or conclusion, and that Town-prepared documents were not provided timely before the BOS voting meeting.
Show Us The Money. WARF also doesn’t refute that, despite its effort to push residents to undertake a $1.9 [million] bond, it is not fronting or legally guaranteeing the $180,000 it represents only that it may try to raise — without which the bond would be $180,000 more. WARF’s unswerving position, unchanged from the get-go, is that it “stands behind its publicly-stated financial commitment” (April 19) and on April 27, possessed an “intent to contribute funds,” but neither comes with any guarantee of any amount. No money and no legally binding commitment. Can’t take that to the bank.
All WARF commits to is an “intent.” The funds do not currently exist. WARF’s “intent” is ephemeral; there is no obligation on WARF to maintain any “intent” in the future, much less any legally-binding obligation to go through with its best wishes.
Those who believe WARF is good for the funds fail to consider that WARF may be unable to provide the cash even if it actually maintains its “intent.” The Town also has no recourse to compel WARF to cough it up should its “intent” change, or can’t or won’t raise the money, or refuses to give it to the Town. WARF does not indicate how a real $180,000 will be provided to the Town should WARF be unable to — or simply just fail to — execute WARF’s “intent.”
In its April 27 letter — after weeks of widespread concerns about the eventual nonappearance of the $180,000, and with no binding obligation on its part ever — WARF has the arrogance to unilaterally dictate when and how it will cancel its stated “intent” to shell out. WARF further claims that should voters not approve the bonding, “this letter shall terminate [sic?] and be of no further force and effect.” Impressive. In this one sentence, WARF disses the majority vote, threatens withdrawal of support for the project, and also attempts to imply that there is, before such “termination,” some or any obligation to follow through with … its “intent,” which is all WARF’s as-yet “unterminated” letter offers.
We are urged to undertake bonding of $1.9 [million] (best case scenario) on the current “intent” of a group of [four] local boosters, that $180,000 will appear like in a fairy tale — with no greater certainty. Too much rush and too little due diligence, and the vote for the bonding should be “No.”
Kelly L. Morron