Housing At Fairfield Hills ?

To the Editor:

The January 5 issue of The Newtown Bee reported that the selectmen’s request for proposals (RFP) would be sent to developers interested in acquiring development rights to buildings at Fairfield Hill (FFH). The article states, “The selectmen propose to allow no more than 200 residential units and/or beds… in the development plan. Council member Ruby Johnson has opposed this idea. She does not want to see any housing at Fairfield Hills.” Not True. Let me explain.

In June of 1999, Save FFH distributed a paper survey to 500 citizens who were asked to respond to the question “If the Town purchases FFH, what would you like to see there?” One suggestion proposed was moderately priced senior housing similar to Nunnawauk Meadows.

Hence, the first Save FFH proposal included this request.

However, during the spring of 2000 a new poll was taken using a combination of telephone, mail, e-mail, and Bee mail-in forms. Not all respondents answered every question, but of those who did respond to the order of choices were: 1. Open Space 2. Playing Fields 3. Town offices 4. Future school site 5. Senior housing 6. Economic Development

The results of this survey pointed to the fact that there was the least support for housing and economic development. Consequently, in our final plan we proposed a Central Park to provide for open space, playing fields and a future school site. Several buildings were retained for town use and recreational needs for all ages. We included 200,000 sq ft for economic development (Cochran House) and short-term leases for Newtown Hall and Shelton House until the town grew to need additional office space.

Town leaders dismissed the Save FFH poll as unprofessional, but neither the town government nor any other group has attempted to survey public opinion or even been willing to hold public meetings on the proposed RFP. In short, public opinion is unimportant to them.

At the Legislative Council meeting on January 3, I opposed the selectman’s proposal to allow developers to create 200 units of housing at FFH. The Becker and Becker plan shows that four large buildings (Bridgewater, Litchfield, Canaan, and Stamford would be needed – plus parking spaces) to gain 200 units. I do not believe young families in Newtown should be asked to subsidize the purchase of land at FFH, assume part of the abatement costs, and hold the state harmless for future asbestos liability suits in order for a developer to build up-scale townhouses or condos for affluent citizens or seniors. The private sector should undertake such housing and purchase land at market rates for such uses.

One building (30-35 units) of moderately priced senior housing may be a proper role for government to subsidize land costs for lower middle-income seniors, but a plan to create 200 condos or apartments at FFH is a plan to destroy the heart of Newtown. I welcome your opinions – phone call or letters; I always respond to my constituents.

Ruby K. Johnson

16 Chestnut Hill Road, Sandy Hook    January 9, 2001