A Win/Win Consideration
To the Editor:
What awaits us if the referendum question to consider a housing component at Fairfield Hills is rejected by the public voting on Election Day? While the FFH Master Plan Review Committee voted to allow commercial proposals that include a housing component to be considered, they also recommended that all remaining unused buildings on the campus be razed as soon as possible.
How soon is “as soon as possible”? With roads to repair and school boilers waiting to be replaced, every dollar borrowed to bring down those buildings (and we are talking tens of millions of taxpayer dollars) puts some important repair on hold.
The potential for restoring two buildings for rental housing offers multiple solutions for both the taxpayers and the town. The tax income from the housing helps fund the demolition of the remaining unused buildings. In addition, the two buildings designated for restoration would have been the costliest to demolish, saving millions of dollars from being spent.
It appears to me to be a win-win proposition and a wise decision to vote YES to consider housing [on] the Fairfield Hills campus.
Stephen Rosenblatt
50 Watkins Drive, Sandy Hook October 2, 2020
Mr Rosenblatt is incorrect that the taxes from private personal housing on Fairfield Hills would pay for demolition costs on the other crumbling buildings. The taxes expected are only $1000 per one bedroom and $1500 per two bedroom units. This hardly seems like their fair share of municipal and schools budgets. Taxes on 300 apartments might generate $350,000 in taxes. If only 30 students lived in the apartments the school costs alone would be $450,000. So the apartments appear to be a net loss for the town from a cost verses a tax revenue basis.