Our Island Home - A Conundrum

To the editor: Our Island Home (OIH). What to do, what to do?

It’s indeed a conundrum.

Friends of Our Island Home (Friends) says it will embark on a capital campaign to solicit pledges and raise funds for the $137 million OIH project, and has partnered with the Community Foundation for Nantucket (CFN) to fundraise for a new, 45-bed, modernized skilled nursing facility on the island to replace the outdated OIH facility.

Friends has yet to raise, or solicit, any funds for this project, saying they can’t unless and until Article 17 is adopted at ATM and then passes at the polls on Tuesday, May 19th.

So, only if Article 17 is adopted and passes at the polls will Friends start its capital campaign? Yes, that’s what they’re saying, but if Article 17 passes both hurdles, Friends won’t have to engage in a capital campaign or raise a single dollar, because the taxpayers will now be on the hook for the entire $137 million.

At that point, Friends doesn’t have to raise any money for the OIH project… so why would they? Let me ask you… If you had a $137 million capital campaign on your to-do list and the next day that to-do item disappeared because taxpayers are now responsible for the entirety of the OIH funding, would you still venture out to raise $137 million? The answer is a “hard NO” because you wouldn’t have to!

This is not circular reasoning or convoluted logic; it’s straight-on linear thinking and couldn’t be clearer. The Friends board members aren’t stupid, and I’m sure they’ve figured this out, but it doesn’t benefit them to share this with the voters.

A NO vote on Article 17 will relieve taxpayers of the obligation to fully fund the OIH project. Additionally, a NO vote on Article 17 is the only way to allow any private fundraising by the Friends and CFn for the OIH project.

Voting NO is a win for Nantucket’s taxpayers and also a win for private philanthropy funding this project. NO is definitely a win-win situation!

Kit Murphy