The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance today applauded voters across the Old Colony Regional Vocational School district for rejecting the proposed $288 million building project, calling the outcome a clear message that local taxpayers will not accept unnecessarily expensive construction plans padded with costly alternative add-ons.

Across the five member towns, voters delivered a decisive 62 to 38 percent defeat. While residents voiced strong support for vocational education, they also made clear that projects must be designed responsibly, transparently, and with affordability at the center. The election was held on Tuesday, November 18 in the towns of Rochester, Lakeville, Acushnet, Mattapoisett, and Carver.

A major concern expressed by voters was the project’s alternative energy systems with solar and geothermal, which added millions to the upfront cost compared to a more efficient and cost-effective natural gas design. Beyond construction, the proposed building would have locked towns into dramatically higher operating costs, making the project even less sustainable for smaller communities already struggling with tight budgets. Several towns indicated they simply could not afford the operating costs associated with a school that was twice the square footage, serving 200 hundred more students and increased staffing.

“The defeat of this proposal shows that taxpayers want high-quality schools, but they won’t accept inflated, wish-list projects that bake in unnecessary costs to fulfill expensive climate mandates. Communities deserve modern, safe vocational schools, but they shouldn’t be forced into costly electric-only systems when inexpensive methods like natural gas would save millions in both construction and annual operating costs. Natural gas powers the current school building, but the proponents of the new school project didn’t want to use it and instead proposed expensive alternatives like heat pumps and geothermal. It seems clear that was a mistake by the proponents. Some towns could not afford to run the building they were being asked to approve,” noted Paul Diego Craney, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.

Despite claims that this project was the “only responsible option,” district officials acknowledged that repairs and scaled-down alternatives remain possible. Voters across the region recognized that saying no to an overpriced plan is the first step toward crafting a better one, one that puts educational needs ahead of political mandates and costly energy experiments.

In the days leading up to the vote, the Fiscal Alliance Foundation conducted on-the-ground reporting in the district, releasing two videos that highlighted the true cost drivers within the proposal, including the expensive all-electric design and the issues that the smaller communities would have covering operating expenses. At the same time, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance helped educate the public through digital ads that presented the videos to residents and encouraged them to scrutinize the project’s full price tag. Together, this outreach ensured that taxpayers had clear, accessible information before heading to the polls.

“Massachusetts is home to some of the most generous taxpayers in the country, but they expect projects to be built efficiently, not loaded up with unnecessary alternative climate mandates that push both construction and operating costs into the stratosphere. Tuesday’s vote should serve as a wake-up call. If local officials want support, they must start with affordability, instead of costly climate mandates that local taxpayers would have to unnecessarily have to fund through their property taxes,” noted Craney.