The Philosophical Divide

To the Editor:

As the newly appointed Fairfield Hills Review Committee begins its assignment, it will be forced to confront two, long-standing, opposing philosophical positions.

1. Should a relatively small town like Newtown buy land to rent, lease, or sell to commercial interests that intend to extract profits for individual owners? In our American free enterprise system, should the town assist businesses by constructing parking lots, providing tax incentives, and installing necessary infrastructure?

2. Should a town like Newtown buy land to hold for the enjoyment of its citizens and to land bank portions of it for future municipal buildings or town activities? Suggested appropriate town investments might include: a municipal center, recreation center, senior center, playing fields, adequate police station, a central park to include biking and hiking paths, an additional swimming pool, summer day camp, summer concerts and plays, farmer’s market, winter activities, and space for major endeavors like Relay For Life.

For the last seven years, major efforts have been made to attract developers to renovate Newtown, Woodbury Hall, or others and to rent or lease space to potential customers. Approval was given for Woodbury Hall to house a veterinarian hospital. For 2008, town Assessor DeNoto estimated tax revenue for Newtown Hall at $33,880 and $62,062 for Woodbury Hall, but potential customers failed to show interest in coming to Newtown, and the costs for development of Woodbury were too great for the interested veterinarians.

The original bond issue ($20 million) has all been spent along with the $1,525,000 received from the sale of the houses on Mile Hill South, state and federal grants totaling $1,972,000, energy rebate $63,427, income from an uncompleted movie contract $60,000, and from the general fund $92,060 for a total expenditure of $23,763,435. The largest expenses were the new Municipal Center $11,611,171, soil remediation $3,569,642, and baseball stadium with lights $1,416,844.

From the new 2010 bond issue of $3.5 million, the greatest costs were hazardous material abatement of Greenwich Hall $997,865, building demolition $460,000, and general site work $439,351. The $3.5 million has all been spent.

In the referendum of August, 12, 2003, voters rejected the FFH Master Plan currently under review. Town leaders subsequently declared the referendum was only an advisory vote and proceeded to spend the bond money as they wished. Will our present leaders accept new directions from the Review Committee if they don’t like them?

The philosophical divide remains. Will it be possible to create a long-range plan for FFH that fits comfortably into a long-range vision for our town? What will FFH look like if a blending of these two philosophies is attempted? If you have some thoughts or ideas to present to the FFH Review Committee, watch for their meeting dates and plan to attend and share your concerns. A corporate park or a central park is the question to answer in 2010.

Ruby Johnson, PhD

16 Chestnut Hill Rd., Sandy Hook                                June 16, 2010