Unwarranted attack; Fresolo ratchets up opposition to Dismas House.

COLUMN: IN OUR OPINION

The battle royale between state Rep. John P. Fresolo and a respected social services program just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Now, it seems, Mr. Fresolo supported the Dismas House appropriation before he opposed the Dismas House appropriation.

We don't know what has prompted the Worcester lawmaker to turn so pointedly on a program he once promoted, but this soap opera definitely has gotten way out of hand.

Dismas House is a respected re-entry program for former prisoners at 30 Richards St. Not only has it provided invaluable support to individuals struggling to make the transition from incarceration, but it also has proved to be a good neighbor with a laudable record of community service.

At issue now is the plan by Dismas House to establish a supervised residence at 50 Arthur St. for up to six individuals, some with families. The idea is to provide affordable housing to graduates from the program at 30 Richards St. who are working to establish themselves in jobs and new, more wholesome lives.

Isn't that what enlightened rehabilitation is all about?

Although Dismas House hewed to the voluntary siting protocol set up by a special task force, Mr. Fresolo mounted a zealous opposition, hinting darkly about "children and former incarcerated prisoners interacting with one another in a confined area."

Last week, Mr. Fresolo ratcheted up his campaign at a public hearing and in an intense exchange on a radio talk show with Dismas House's director.

Moreover, after supporting an $80,000 state appropriation for Dismas House just weeks ago, it turns out that Mr. Fresolo asked the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee to halve the line item - a tactic he surprisingly claimed is a "tradition" in Worcester.

Really? In fact, even fellow members of the Worcester legislative delegation declined to support the move and deplored the "inflammatory rhetoric."

Indeed, given that the appropriation had nothing to do with the Arthur Street program, the attempt can only be interpreted as political payback intended to punish the program operators.

Continuing this unfortunate controversy can benefit no one. We fervently hope Mr. Fresolo can find it in himself to change tack.