Reevaluate Fairfield Hills

Projects

To the Editor:

The recent Editorial Inkdrops questions whether Mr Rosenthal should “honor the mandate of that eventual town meeting in June 2001 to implement the first phase of Fairfield Hill’s development” “or does he disenfranchise those voters by yielding to political pressures today, halting the process, and somehow redeciding the issue with the benefit of details… But such are the perils of leading a town that changes its mind.”

Mr Rosenthal states that the 2001 vote was a mandate for a new town hall.  It was a great political maneuver to bundle the FFH package with the approval of the Reed Intermediate School. I attended that town meeting with my friends to vote for the intermediate school, which was necessary to reduce the overcrowding at the elementary schools and the middle school.  Many of us, so entrenched in raising our little children, knew little about the issue of FFH, but we liked the idea of Newtown owning the FFH property for the future. What was not clear was that we would be using majority of that bond money to pay for a town hall, the Legislative Council would abdicate their responsibility of oversight of FFH redevelopment, the voter’s rights would be bypassed and we would be faced with other pressing capital needs.  The voters rejected the master plan in 2003. 

I did not change my mind about the town hall.  It was never crystal clear that I would be approving a new town hall, few demolished buildings, trails, and one baseball field for $21.8m.  I expected much more than that.  I also expected that we would not have an overcrowded high school and senior center, overheated school buildings, unsafe middle school auditorium, leaky school roofs and insufficient recreation.  For more than a year, we have urged the Legislative Council members to reevaluate the town hall and the related impact on other school/town space needs. 

Many of us present at that 2001 meeting attended the February 7th Legislative Council meeting to urge the council to halt the projects on FFH until we can all be assured that the current FFH redevelopment plan is the best plan for Newtown in light of significant capital expenditures required to address the long-term needs of our growing town.  Even 400 people could not convince the Legislative Council members to exercise their authority to pause, reevaluate and create a long-term strategic plan not only for FFH but also for the entire town.

With exception of Keith Jacobs and Joe Borst, the council members claim they have no authority over FFH and that ‘‘the ship has sailed.”  Mr Pennarola clearly stated that they do have authority over ordinances, which includes the ordinance that created FFHA.  One month ago, I suggested that our Legislative Council change the FFHA ordinance, to allow the projects on FFH to go through the CIP process, ultimately allowing the voters to approve the projects including the town hall.  This will clearly define whether a town hall project is indeed a mandate.   Without a vote, we are being disenfranchised.

Po Murray

A member of WECAN

38 Charter Ridge Drive, Sandy Hook                    February 14, 2007