The ‘Me’ Generation
To The Editor:
Newtown’s April 28 referendum results highlighted a troubling disconnect in our community’s priorities. While it is undeniable that residents of all ages, whether on a fixed income or raising a family, are under significant financial strain, the specific items that passed versus those that failed reveal exactly whose burden we are choosing to ease.
It is difficult to ignore the irony: Voters approved $1.44 million for the library parking lot and sidewalks and $1.2 million for a salt storage facility, yet rejected $1.4 million for the Treadwell Park turf replacement. There is no civic logic in prioritizing salt and sidewalks while simultaneously turning down vital athletic infrastructure used by thousands of our young residents.
It is, quite frankly, shameful. Many who can navigate the current parking lot and sidewalks at C.H. Booth without issue still voted "yes" because we believe in a collective vision where the entire community thrives. When we only approve what we personally use and reject what we don't, we aren't making a community-driven choice; we are living out the "Me Generation" narrative, a term coined by Tom Wolfe to describe a shift toward a culture of self-interest at the expense of the common good.
The "fixed income" argument is a reality for many, but it must be weighed against the crushing economic math facing younger families. We are in a historic housing crisis where the median home cost has jumped from 3.5 times the median income in 1980 to over 6 times today. Since that same era, inflation-adjusted college costs have risen 169%, and childcare costs have spiked 214% faster than the average inflation rate.
When daycare costs rival a mortgage payment, the "strain" is universal, but the community support clearly is not. The generation that benefited from the most affordable education and housing in history is now dismantling the ladder for Newtown’s youth. Yet, they remain perfectly willing to pay for their own interests.
To the families of Newtown: These results are a direct consequence of who shows up. Absence at the polls is an invitation for others to choose self-interest over community growth. If we want our children’s needs to be prioritized as much as all the other generations’, we have to make our voices heard, or "me" will continue to outvote "us."
Katherine Mellen
Sandy Hook
This is disappointing because it frames voters who rejected the Treadwell turf replacement as selfish or anti-youth. When I suspect that Katherine’s motives were likely because she has some vested interest in those turf fields, which makes it exceptionally selfish.
There is a clear difference between maintaining basic town infrastructure and approving an athletic facility upgrade. Library sidewalks, parking access, and a salt storage facility support safety and essential town operations. The turf field may be worthwhile, but it is still a different type of request.
Residents can support youth sports and still question the cost, timing, or priority of a specific project. Calling that selfish, or turning it into a generational argument is unfair and unproductive.
Newtown is better served by honest discussion about priorities, not by accusing voters of lacking community spirit because they disagreed on one ballot item.
Tom, I appreciate you sharing your perspective. My advocacy isn’t about a personal ‘vested interest’ in a single field; it is about the Standard of Newtown.
While you categorize the salt shed and library parking as ‘essential’ and the turf as an ‘upgrade,’ I would argue they all fall under the same umbrella of maintaining town assets.
The Turf Field ($1.4M): This was a replacement project for a facility used by thousands of youth athletes, not a new ‘luxury’ add-on.
The Salt Shed ($1.2M) & Library Parking ($1.4M): These were passed at almost identical price points.
The point isn’t to say these items aren’t important; it’s to ask why we find the money for infrastructure that serves one demographic while claiming we are too ‘fiscally strained’ to fund infrastructure for another. When we categorize things we use as ‘essential’ and things our neighbors’ children use as ‘extras,’ we aren’t having an honest discussion about priorities, we are picking winners and losers.
The goal of my letter wasn’t to be ‘unproductive,’ but to sound the alarm for the 82% of residents who didn’t show up to the polls. We cannot be a community that only thrives in parts. If we want Newtown to remain a place where people want to move and raise families, we have to invest in the next generation with the same urgency we use to fix our parking lots.
I understand your basic point, but not the numbers. Can you help us understand where your numbers come from? Thanks!
Nothing says “community spirit” quite like declaring moral bankruptcy because voters didn’t fund your preferred project.
Apparently, approving basic infrastructure that everyone uses—like functional sidewalks and parking for a facility that all community members use and salt that keeps those touchpoints functional in winter—is now evidence of generational selfishness. The real irony isn’t in what passed or failed; it’s in accusing others of self-interest while insisting they should have voted for something you happen to value. That’s not “us”—that’s just a different version of “me.”
Voters weighed priorities and made a choice. Calling that “shameful” doesn’t elevate the argument—it just reveals how little tolerance there is for democratic outcomes that don’t go your way. If the takeaway is that more people should show up and vote, fair enough. But let’s not pretend disagreement is a character flaw. Sometimes the electorate simply decides that not every nice-to-have is a must-have.
Sure! Child care costs: https://www.ffyf.org/2022/10/13/data-child-care-prices-continue-to-rise-ahead-of-midterm-elections-outpacing-inflation/ (also from 2021-2025 we had 2 children in a local daycare in Newtown and it cost us $3200 a month, so that’s a number I am very familiar with)
Home price / median price vs income source: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios
Tuition increase vs inflation: https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/noting-a-decline-in-middle-class-students-colleges-provide-more-aid/
Hope this helps 🙂
Thanks for the reply. I meant the numbers you presented in your letter. I found one place where other numbers were listed: https://www.newtownbee.com/04232026/get-out-and-vote-on-the-2026-27-proposed-municipal-and-school-budgets/?q=\\\%22advisory%20questions\\\%22.
In that article, the numbers were cited as:
Treadwell field: $1,125,000
Library: $720,000
Salt Storage: $600,000
As one who started out in the early 80’s when inflation was double digits, my 1985 mortgage rate was 14%, and child care costs were comparable (in present value), I shared your grief but never considered the voters ironic or shameful.
PS. I agree college tuition is ridiculous. Thankfully, universities are offering (or considering) waiving all or most tuition for middle class families (upwards of $200,000 incomes). Hopefully, they’ll also reconsider their need for those funds in the first place.
Debora, thank you! I accidentally doubled the project prices by adding the bond to the appropriation. Thank you so much for catching that and pointing it out. With the corrected numbers, the voters approved a combined $1.32 million for a salt shed ($600k) and library pavement ($720k), while rejecting the $1.12 million replacement turf.
Regarding the 80s, I truly respect the hurdle of 14% mortgage rates. My point is simply that the math has shifted: in 1980, while the rates were higher, the price of a home relative to earnings was significantly lower. We are facing a different, but equally crushing, financial wall. Ultimately, it is disheartening that voters who recognized safe sidewalks and parking lots as essential, dismissed a playing field in the exact same condition. The turf has passed its life cycle and is just as much of a liability as the library’s pavement, the only difference is that this safety concern affects thousands of children who, coincidentally, cannot vote. These are apples-to-apples needs. I was hopeful our community would agree that all Newtown residents deserve safe conditions, regardless of which facility they utilize. Again, I would be remiss not to mention that when 82% of residents don’t show up, we have to deal with the interests of those who did. Hopefully, the next referendum will have a bigger turnout.