Override opponents love bringing up the town's purchase of the Arnold House as proof of town mismanagement.

Which is really really weird because the town didn't purchase the Arnold House.

Here's what actually happened: In 2023, the Select Board considered buying the property for $2.9 million to house school administration. They announced the plan publicly, residents pushed back, the board formed a 12-member advisory committee with a citizen majority to investigate, and that committee spent seven weeks commissioning appraisals and studying renovation costs.

The committee's conclusion? A unanimous 8-0 vote against the purchase. The price was nearly triple the appraised value and would need hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovations.

The Select Board listened. The town didn't buy it. Taxpayers saved money.

So yeah, critics are pointing to a situation where the town didn't waste money as evidence of irresponsible spending. They're mad about a bad deal that never happened. The Select Board had an idea, presented it to the community, citizens said "hold on," officials commissioned research, experts said "terrible idea," and the board walked away. Somehow this is spun as a scandal, when in actuality it shows Stoneham's checks and balances working as intended, and our leadership's willingness to listen to expert advice and resident input.

When your smoking gun about the town wasting money is something that did not happen, you're basically admitting you've got nothing. The Arnold House story shows Stoneham's oversight processes work, citizen input matters, and evidence-based decisions win. If that's your example of mismanagement, this override is looking better by the minute!