Our FDR Center Museum has been offered by the Mayor of Chicopee, Massachusetts, Michael D. Bissonnette, to relocate the FDR Center Museum and its massive collection of Roosevelt and New Deal artifacts and ephemera to Chicopee. This is a wonderful offer, to say the least, that we are actively looking into.
With that bit of good news I am preparing to depart for Washington, D.C. tomorrow, Monday, May 14, 2007, to participate in the FDR@125 inaugural event at the Russell Senate Office Building, sponsored by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute (FERI)/FDR Library and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). I have also been invited to have lunch tomorrow afternoon with the Woman’s National Democratic Club, so I am very much looking forward to that opportunity as well.
I am bringing this special event in Washington, D.C. to your attention today to illustrate, as FDR once said, that “there are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still.” Preserving the legacies of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Deal for our generation, and for future generations, is moving forward on many fronts. This great event tomorrow in Washington, D.C. is a good example of going forward. This special commemoration of the 125th anniversary of FDR’s birth will move from the Russell Senate Office Building to the White House Visitor Center, and can be viewed at the White House between May 22 and June 24, 2007. That is one reason why I am so excited to be part of this very special event.
Even though our own FDR Center Museum has suffered some setbacks as of late, we are fully prepared to “move forward with strong and active faith,” as FDR once wrote. As our FDR Center Museum actively prepares for its future as a foundational element, working with others, to advance the legacies of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Deal, let us today rededicate ourselves to this great and progressive vision for humanity, and the continuing application of New Deal principles in the 21st century. Next March (2008) will mark the 75th anniversary of the New Deal (http://www.newdeal75.org), and I assure you that we of the FDR American Heritage Center Museum will be an active part of promoting the Roosevelt legacy, even though our physical location is still at present unclear.
Cordially,
Joe Plaud
President and Founder
FDR American Heritage Center Museum
It is interesting how certain features of a news story take on their own meaning over repeated presentations. For the record, I would like to note the following:
<
p>
1. This issue about $4 vs. $15 per square foot keeps rearing its ugly head. We were paying $4 because that is what the CITY offered, not us! At the time we moved into the renovated Union Station, the market value was about $0 per square foot because there was no activity with regard to occupancy of the building. So this rent figure is not something we came up with, rather it is what the city came up with.
<
p>
2. What seems to go missing in these articles is the obvious fact that if the city approached us in any way BEFORE negotiating or while negotiating with the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission, then we would at least have had an opportunity to negotiate a raise in the rent amount. Would we have paid $15 per square foot (some articles have them paying $14 per square foot)? I do not know, perhaps not, but at least there would have been a process in place to allow us to explore the options and give us time to make decisions had we decided otherwise. The city did all of this in secret, behind our backs, offering us no right of first refusal or negotiation, and then gave us less that three months to leave Union Station. These are the most pertinent facts.
<
p>
3. The Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission derives all its funding from TAXPAYERS’ money. So this is, in reality, a taxpayer-funded shellgame! At least we were bringing in non-tax payer dollars to the city. If the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission is so flush with taxpayers’ money that they can pay such rent, perhaps the taxpayers should wonder what it is they are subsidizing. That is one issue I find so interesting: taxpayers money is being moved from one account to another, and in the process a major cultural institution is being displaced.
<
p>
Very truly yours,
<
p>
Joe Plaud
<
p>
At 06:49 AM 5/15/2007, Joseph J. Plaud wrote:
<
p>
The editorial page of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette has been best described over the past century plus in one word: conservative. So it was particularly interesting to read the editorial page this morning, May 15, 2007:
<
p>
http://www.telegram….
<
p>
May 15, 2007
<
p>
Museum on the move
<
p>
City, FDR owner should find reasonable solution
<
p>
The dispute over the move of the Franklin D. Roosevelt American Heritage Museum out of Union Station is unfortunate. It would be even worse if museum officials, perceiving some slight, decide to leave town.
<
p>
Under the current agreement, the museum pays $4 per square foot, well below market rate. With the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission about to move to Union Station and the museum’s lease ending, the Worcester Redevelopment Authority took steps to open up enough space for the commission’s needs. The agency will pay the market rate of $15 per square foot, bringing in about $100,000 a year.
<
p>
Union Station is running a $500,000 operating deficit this budget year. The city and the WRA simply cannot afford to keep on subsidized tenants while turning away market-rate renters.
<
p>
It may be that city officials could have been more proactive about finding a new home for the museum, but there are legal limits to what they can do. The museum’s owners had proposed buying and renovating the vacant and historic Fire Alarm and Telegraph building on Park Avenue at Elm Park. The city administration properly stated that the museum would be welcome to submit a proposal in keeping with public bidding laws when the city puts the property out to bid.
<
p>
Just last week, the mayor of Chicopee invited the museum owners to relocate to the city’s vacant library. But many people, including the museum’s founder and its director, appear more inclined to keep the museum in Worcester.
<
p>
That, at least, is one thing both sides agree on. There is no reason why it shouldn’t happen if reasonable minds come together and work out a feasible, mutually acceptable solution.