Growing up on a farm in Sunderland, my first-generation Polish parents, who lived through the Great Depression and 1936 flood, ingrained in me and my three siblings the values of being practical. I can still hear my dad say, “Use your common sense.”

Unfortunately, there is less and less of those words being heeded. Practical decisions are made after hearing all sides on an issue rather than approaching them as a black or white choice only. I’d like to share my practical, common-sense thoughts on three of the articles to be voted on by Deerfield residents on Monday, May 11 .

Article 6: An additional $103,253 to rent 112 Amherst Road in Sunderland for the Senior Center. This requires a Proposition 2½ override, which will raise property taxes substantially. Is it common sense to increase taxes (which hurt seniors disproportionately) to pay rent? The building’s second floor would be used for large gatherings. Is it common sense to have seniors climbing stairs? Yes, there will be elevators, but consider an emergency when elevators cannot be used safely, in which people, many with mobility issues, are scrambling to get down the stairs. And the building is on a major route where drivers speed. Pulling out of the driveway can be tricky. Also, it’s so far from the town center and amenities.

Voting against this article does not mean you are against getting a pleasant place for seniors to meet and enjoy each other’s company. You are just voting against a location that makes no sense. Let’s find a more appropriate location.

Article 19 and 21: If these are adopted, we will become a Climate Leader Community eligible to apply for up to $1 million in state grants from a fund that your state taxes have already contributed to. Thirty-five municipalities have become Climate Leader Communities. Only six are in western Massachusetts; the rest are around Boston. Let’s get some of our tax money back! (Since adopting Green Community standards, the town has received $600,000 in grant money.)

Adopting the Zero-Emission-Vehicle First Policy in Article 19 would mean when the town needs a new vehicle, electric will be considered where practical. No, the town isn’t going to have to purchase an electric dump truck, but for local use perhaps by the building inspector, for example, EVs will be considered. A gallon of gas can generate enough electricity to propel an electric car 80 miles. A gas-powered car, maybe 30 or 35? EV batteries don’t just die after 20 years; they start to lose their efficiency and get less mileage per charge. Doesn’t a gas car do the same?

Adopting the Specialized Energy Code in Article 21 would apply to new construction only — not additions, remodeling work or farm barns. Opponents decry just more government regulations. But why would you not do something that initially costs more, but in a short time will be paid back in energy cost savings? Common sense.

We need both solar and fossil fuels, so let’s use the limited oil supply wisely. These regulations might discourage homeowners from building in Deerfield, but as surrounding towns adopt these codes, and inevitably the state will make the codes mandatory, does it make sense for the town to lose out on $1 million so that somebody who might be considering building here can save a couple thousand bucks? Any new house is more likely to go electric with or without any new codes because of the energy cost savings of efficient appliances and heat pumps. And since Massachusetts is moving rapidly toward becoming a net-zero state, these new building codes, which now have an incentive carrot (grant money) attached to them, will most likely become requirements without any grant money. There is a freeze on new natural gas hookups, and oil-burning furnaces are at the mercy of global politics. That leaves propane as the alternative to electric. 

I hope I’ve given you folks in Deerfield something to ponder to make a wise decision when you vote. See you at Frontier Regional School on Monday, May 11.

Reenie Grybko Clancy lives in South Deerfield.