To the editor:
In a souvenir booklet issued on the 50th anniversary of St. John’s parish in 1927, it states that the land and home on the corner of Union and Pleasant streets was purchased in 1876 from Capt. McManus. The house on the property has been used as a rectory and convent.
The first St. John’s Church was built on the corner of Union and Pleasant streets in 1882. It burned down in 1912.
The Franco- American parishioners, not to be deterred, decided to build a bigger, more magnificent church. It was decided to move the rectory from its place where the new church would be built. The parish moved it to where it is now situated.
That building has been moved once already. Can it be moved again?
I doubt it, as it would be too costly.
So here is a possible solution for the three Village Review Board members holding back their votes to allow the parish to demolish the building. All they need to do is find a lot to move the house on and come up with about $ 40,000 to have it moved to their prepared lot. Then they can enjoy it to their hearts’ content.
We as a parish no longer have any use for the building. Being a parishioner from the day I was born, it was hard for me to accept that the rectory had to go, but we need a parking lot that is accessible to the ramp and lift for older parishioners, of which I am one.
In winter, it is hard to park on the side of the church and walk on ice-encrusted sidewalks to the ramp on the other side. Having a parking lot on the side would solve our problem and make it a lot easier for older parishioners to attend church on Sundays in winter.
If you can’t move the building, then neither can we. So please change your votes and let us, St. John’s parishioners, move on with our plans.
Martha Dowling,
Brunswick
letters@timesrecord.com
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less