When people start talking about “rebranding” something, one of two things has gone wrong: the original something in need of rebranding has obvious inherent flaws that require significantly altered perceptions to hide those flaws from view; or that same original something has been so successfully mischaracterized by adversaries that a new light is required to illuminate the truth of it. So when several people at the March 24 community forum on the initial phase of a proposed three-phase community center project suggested that town officials rebrand the plan, townspeople were left trying to decide whether they are about to be deceived about the project or whether they already had been.

Either way, the campaign to win public support for the community center and its development plan jumped the rails this week. First Selectman Pat Llodra recommended Tuesday morning that the allocation of $15 million for the first phase of the project not be included on the April 28 budget referendum ballot as originally planned. Canceling the vote now allows more time for rebranding — in both its forms.

There is one aspect of this issue associated with a sturdy blue-chip brand — GE — that led most people to believe that a vote launching the community center project would be a pro forma endorsement. The GE Foundation’s offer of $15 million for the construction and support of a community center in the wake of 12/14 astonished everyone, especially in light of GE’s previous unhesitating and generous in-kind contribution of essential expertise in the weeks and months following the Sandy Hook tragedy. Who could be against the receipt and use of such a gift?

At the heart of the town’s shift in focus from unanimous gratitude to GE to the divisions that ultimately canceled the vote is the plan to supplement the $15 million gift with town funds in the capital improvement plan to realize a larger community center that would better support programs and activities for all sectors of Newtown’s population. The problem was this: some things had to come first and other things had to wait for a couple of years, which set the stage for a contentious debate about priorities. In this case, the contention was between facilities dedicated to senior citizens and facilities for the community at large.

The town’s capital improvement plan is in essence a crowded financial waiting room with only so many chairs; immediate relief is not available for everyone. In one rather awkward tangent of the community center debate that evolved in recent weeks, it was suggested that maybe the town’s elders should not be offered quite so many chairs while the rest of the town stands and waits.

The overall plan to develop and finance the community center over the next three years anticipates impressive facilities that should serve the entire town for generations. We encourage the community not to waste time on rebranding tactics or on a divisive game of musical chairs in the waiting room. Better to take advantage of this hiatus before a community center vote to map and articulate a winning strategy for the long game, where the real benefits lie.