It seems that the proponents of the Picture Main Street project are pursuing their goal at any cost. A few years ago, the city touted what was then a $21 million project that was purportedly fully funded as a way to make Main Street safer and more vibrant (see Daily Hampshire Gazette Nov. 17, 2023). Now the estimated cost for the project has increased by over 100% to $43 million. Northampton’s estimated share of those costs has increased by over 400% to more than 50% of the total original cost of the entire project. The proponents of the project are undaunted by the massive cost increases.

The proponents of this project seem to have confused their goal with their purpose. No, a goal and a purpose are not the same thing. For example, if you play a game with friends the goal may be to win the game, but the purpose is to have fun. Taking the proponents of Picture Main Street at their word, the purpose for the project was to create a safer, more accessible, vibrant and economically viable downtown. The redesign was a goal the city had which would ostensibly serve that larger purpose. Now it seems the proponents are so married to seeing the project to fruition that the project has shifted from a goal to the purpose.

Even before the most recent increases to the estimated cost, back when we thought Northampton would bear only $2 million to $4 million, I asked one of the project’s proponents, “How much would be too much for Northampton to pay above external funding?” He would not answer. His reluctance to put a number on it or even acknowledge there was a cost that would be too high made me realize that their goal had become their purpose — no matter the cost.

I have been very public about my own reservations as to whether the project will make Main Street safer or more vibrant or whether those goals might be better accomplished with less expense and disruption. Consequently, proponents of the project want to dismiss substantive concerns about the cost of the project as disingenuous. The arguments about the merits and the costs are not mutually exclusive. Concerns about costs should be shared by everyone, even those who love the idea of the project. My underlying concerns remain unchanged, but I am not interested in preaching to that choir in this column. This column is for the folks who do not share my substantive concerns.

I am writing to the folks who think my concerns about safety and traffic congestion are misplaced and that my desire to see those elements tested is unnecessary and impracticable. I am writing to the folks who think the project design is so good they have no doubt it will achieve its original purpose. I am writing to the folks who are so confident they see no need to do a trial run to test the impact on traffic congestion or bicycle safety at intersections. I am writing to the folks who love the project so much that they are willing to accept the risks to businesses during the three years of construction. To those folks I ask: How much is too much to pay? What else could we do with that money? Is there no other way to accomplish the original purpose with less cost and disruption? Do you really believe we should complete Picture Main Street at any cost?

Good governance involves weighing options, setting priorities, and determining what we can and cannot afford. Picture Main Street is already expected to cost us $11 million before ground is broken, before we even have contract bids. How much will it ultimately cost us? How much is too much?

As facts change, prior decisions and conclusions should be reevaluated. As we learned from the Resilience Hub project, financing is never certain and costs matter. We should look at other more cost-effective options to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.  The Picture Main Street project should not be our purpose, and it should not proceed at any cost.

John P. DiBartolo Jr. is a Florence resident with law offices in Easthampton and Greenfield.