In the fall of 1998, Newtown was ready to surrender whatever interest it had in purchasing the 185-acre core campus of the Fairfield Hills property in favor of having the state sell the site of the former mental hospital to a private developer. Back then, the Fairfield Hills Advisory Committee, reporting to First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, concluded that the town purchase of the site would be too expensive and problems associated with cleaning up environmental hazards in and around the buildings there were too unpredictable.

The following February, however, Ruby Johnson and a small band of interested citizens circulated a petition, gathering the names of more than 300 residents asking the selectmen for a reconsideration of  the advisory committee’s conclusion. The petition and a subsequent meeting on the issue convinced the first selectman that growing popular support for the purchase warranted another look at the question of town ownership of Fairfield Hills. That was a year ago next week.

The committee was revitalized and enlarged, adding new members, including Mrs Johnson and the panel’s current chairman, Michael Floros. In the intervening year, the committee has come to the conclusion that its first recommendation was wrong. The Fairfield Hills Advisory Committee now formally advocates the purchase of the property from the state.

In making that recommendation, however, the advisory committee is also calling for the creation of a Fairfield Hills Development Authority with sweeping powers that will give it near absolute control over how Fairfield Hills is developed. The authority’s work would take place within the context of a master plan for Fairfield Hills, which does not yet exist. The proposal, as currently conceived, would have the authority be appointed by the selectmen and not elected. Its decisions and actions would not be subject to review by any other agency or authority in town. Such authorities, as constituted elsewhere, have the power to sign contracts, issue bonds, and otherwise encumber the general public to obligations as it sees fit.

The yet-to-be-written master plan for Fairfield Hills will outline how the property will be parceled out for municipal offices, school facilities, recreational fields and facilities, open space, and commercial and corporate uses. It appears to be the advisory committee’s intention that a Fairfield Hills Development Authority would concern itself largely with attracting and overseeing the commercial development of the site. They want such an authority to be given the flexibility and latitude to carry out this mission without a lot of political interference from other town boards or the general public. They are proposing that the Legislative Council create an ordinance that empowers the authority to do business this way.

We urge the Legislative Council to be cautious about surrendering its own and the public’s prerogatives at Fairfield Hills to a development authority. The only reason the town is now even considering the purchase of Fairfield Hills is because of the political skills of Ruby Johnson and others who thought the town was making a mistake by passing up this opportunity. It is interesting to note that Mrs Johnson felt compelled to resign from the Fairfield Hills Advisory Committee earlier this year because of the emphasis on corporate development in the panel’s recommendations – yet another political act that has served to focus public debate on the issue.

One of the most convincing arguments that has been made for the town purchase of Fairfield Hills is that it will give townspeople more control over what happens at the site. It is ironic that now that we are on the verge of doing just that, we are seriously considering surrendering that control to an unelected agency with no obligation to listen to anyone in Newtown.