May 5, 2026 Submitted By Richard A Norman
As an 86-year-old long-term Hingham resident, I attended this year’s Town Meeting to vote on the proposed new Senior Center. I have never visited nor used the existing facilities at Town Hall. What I knew about the proposed new center came from the few opinion articles in the Hingham Anchor and the description of the proposed center contained in the Town Meeting Warrant article. I approached my voting decision with an open mind, as if I was a debate judge waiting to be convinced of one position or another.
As expected, there was an extended discussion on the matter. Those favoring a “Yes” vote principally cited the inadequate present senior facilities, the extensive public review of the proposed new facility, the recent reduction in facility cost, the opportunity to expand facility offerings, the superior senior facilities in adjacent towns, the fair balancing of town capital expenditures (it was the seniors’ time), and the consequence of a No vote (it would be 10 years, if ever, before another proposal could be developed). Those planning to vote “No” cited the large size of the facility and the tax impact of the capital expenditure, its site location and extreme impact on Bare Cove Park, unsupported assumptions as to future facility use, the need for additional capital expenditures not included in the warrant article (no existing utilities in Bare Cove Park), a substantial increase in annual facility operating costs, and a better available existing site in Hingham (more on this later).
I was seated in the auditorium. I observed many of the presenters who opposed the warrant article qualified their objections by agreeing that the present senior facility is inadequate, that parking restrictions preclude senior expansion at Town Hall, and many expressed support for a new center—just not the one proposed. I couldn’t help but observe the reaction of fellow citizens seated around me to the various presentations. Even those who were obvious “No” votes reacted favorably to the concept of a new facility. The objections seemed to be against certain aspects of the proposal, not against a new facility per se. I firmly believe that if the warrant article proposed a smaller facility at lower cost (i.e., 15,000 sq. ft. for $15 million) and at a different site, the warrant article would have received a favorable vote. Thus, in my belief, an opportunity was lost.
One presentation for a “No” vote stuck with me. The presenter stated there is an existing site available for sale that would address virtually all stated objections to the warrant article facility: the Hitchcock building on Beal Street. It has been on the market for some time without a current buyer. The site is optimally located, presents no environmental issues, has existing utility service and ample parking, and its size equals that of the proposed facility. It has a reported sales price of $5–6 million. Although unsupported, the presenter stated a private developer could do quite a bit for another $6–7 million. In my opinion, none of the other presenters refuted these assertions. If correct, it seems to offer a golden opportunity to resurrect the senior facility proposal.
Subsequently, I went online. The property’s layout shows the building to be about 25,000 square feet with existing administrative offices and a large open floor space easily converted for uses contemplated in the proposed senior center. The building is listed for sale, but no asking price is included. In a private conversation with another Hingham resident, I asked why the Hitchcock site hadn’t been considered as the preferred Senior Center site. I was told the current owner has been unwilling to consider a sale to the town, thus effectively taking the property off the market due to the uncertainty of a lengthy, contested public review process. Later, in another private conversation, I was told an autumn Special Town Meeting might be in the offing.
As an experienced businessman, I asked myself what I would do if I wanted to see a new Senior Center. First, would the proposal make sense? I think it is safe to assume that a Hitchcock-based development would substantially reduce the project cost. I would have a target of $12–15 million. Would that be sufficiently lower than the defeated proposal to obtain necessary support? I think so. It seems like it would be worth exploring all avenues to develop a revised senior center proposal. First, I would contact the existing Center for Active Living Building Committee and seek their involvement and support. Next, the expanded group would seek support of the Selectmen, the Advisory Committee, and groups that had opposed the now-defeated proposal (including environmental opponents). If this initial effort was successful, I would approach the Hitchcock owner and seek a short option on the site with definite milestone achievement dates (i.e., Fall Special Town Meeting scheduled by July 1). If an option could be obtained, I would then prepare a new detailed plan, drawing upon the internal layout of the failed Senior Center proposal as a starting point. The Hitchcock building already has internal offices, bathrooms, parking spaces, utilities, and an external structure that would house the senior center. Eliminating the need to construct these elements, coupled with adopting components like the existing kitchen design, could substantially reduce the cost of a new facility. Given the Hitchcock building’s size and location, it might also provide space for additional town services, such as a permanent home for the Hingham Food Pantry.
An obvious question is: why would the Hitchcock owner agree to such a proposal? Assuming no private buyer is currently available, the Town should be able to offer a competitive purchase price. The option provisions would provide the owner with a short, defined timeline (assuming a fall Special Town Meeting), along with cancellation rights if milestones were not achieved. The position of the voting public is now better understood. Lastly, one would hope there might be a sense of public service involved.
In conclusion, if the above assumptions and facts are correct, I hope all supporters of the previous Senior Center proposal will contact friends and public officials to demonstrate that Hingham can work together, recover from an opportunity lost, and realize what had been hoped for by creating a revised, Hitchcock-based Senior Center proposal that could receive the necessary voter support.