By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT — Board of Finance members on Sunday toured the site of one of the town’s most deep-rooted controversies — the Long Lots Elementary School property — to gain insights into what is likely to be Westport’s most costly municipal project and the debate that has engulfed plans for months.
The tour was led by members of the Long Lots Elementary School Building Committee, which recently recommended a plan to construct an all-new school building on the Hyde Lane property, with a price tag of between $92.1 million to $98.2 .million, and planting a new athletic field where the Westport Community Gardens now grow.
Lee Caney, chairman of the Board of Finance, said he requested the tour of the grounds with his board.
Finance board members weren’t the only ones on the early-morning tour, however. Joining them were about 30 other people, including some members of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Long Lots PTA presidents, Representative Town Meeting members, school neighbors and several members of the Westport Community Gardens, who for months have been campaigning against construction plans that might plow under the 20-year-old gardens.
The plan endorsed by the building committee would replace the gardens with an athletic field, now located on another part of the school property. Moving the gardens to another spot — as the plan recommends — is impossible, the gardeners argue, and would essentially destroy the community plots.
“I asked for the tour,” Caney said. “I wanted all of our board members to have a feel for the terrain.” He also pledged that his board would give the gardeners, and all members of the public, several opportunities to comment on the project by scheduling two or three meetings that will include public hearings.
The proposal to replace the 70-year-old school had been under review by the Long Lots Building Committee since last fall before the panel made its recommendation Oct. 5. That plan now faces action by the full range of town boards and commissions regarding financing, zoning issues and educational specifications before final approval.
“We want to be fully transparent … for as many people in Westport as possible to be knowledgeable about the issues,” Caney said. “When the first selectwoman asks for money for the school design … we’re going to listen to the public.”
First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker has reached out to set up a meeting with Louis Weinberg, the chairman of the Westport Community Gardens, and Toni Simonetti, a member of the gardens’ steering committee, they said as they took the tour. The outspoken garden advocates said Sunday they had just received Tooker’s invitation and a meeting date has not been set.
Jay Keenan, chairman of the building committee, led the group around the property, discussing issues including water-retention basins under the parking lot, geo-thermal devices being assessed for the new building and other technical details with architects from Svigals and Partners of New Haven, the firm working on the project design.
Keenan, also a District 2 member of the Representative Town Meeting, reminded the tour group several times that no comments or questions could be asked of the building committee or the design team, except by members of the Board of Finance. “No questions from the public!” he said.
Several neighbors of the Hyde Lane property on the tour included Elissa Alexander and her husband Ashwin Pamadurthy of Bauer Place, whose house is adjacent to the community gardens.
“I’m trying to protect my home right at the edge of the gardens,” Alexander said. “They’re going to build a ballfield 20 feet from our yard.”
“What kind of a life is that going to be for us?” her husband said. “What will that do to our property values? Our home is our biggest life investment.”
Pamadurthy said he is “absolutely” in favor of preserving the gardens, which was one reason the couple bought their property. “This is Westport. Who destroys gardens here? How can this happen in a progressive town like Westport?”
Peter Swift, another neighbor and president of the Harvest Commons Condominium Association on property neighboring the school athletic fields, said he and fellow association members “have serious concerns about the drainage” on the school property, especially during construction.
“I don’t think there’s been adequate planning. The cart is before the horse,” Swift said.
Also on the tour was Parks and Recreation Commission member Elaine Whitney, who said her board will be considering the school project soon. “It’s a long town process,” she said of the multi-board review procedures.
“We’re definitely looking at it in the next few weeks,” agreed Parks and Recreation Commission Chairman David Floyd. “Everyone wants to get it right; everyone has a stake in it.”
An analysis of usage of all the town’s athletic fields had been requested by several of the gardeners at a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on Sept. 20, hoping that another location for an athletic field could be found instead of using the garden property.
That report, which was not released until a subsequent building committee meeting, can be read here.
Freelance writer Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist and journalism teacher for many years, was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman newspaper for 10 years and teaches journalism at Southern Connecticut State University.
The Power Play
The Westport’s elected Board of Finance held a meeting Sunday morning. The public meeting was a tour of the Long Lots School Building site, conducted by members of the LLSB Committee. I attended as did some BOF hopefuls, Board of Ed members, PTA reps, gardeners, neighbors, a handful of RTM members, chair of the Parks and Rec Commission, and a local journalist.
It was eye-opening for me in a couple of respects.
As a noticed public meeting for BOF, the public had a right to attend. However they were denied the right to participate in discussion. The BOF chair refused to allow public questions during or at the end of the meeting. I understand the nature of a site tour is non traditional, but a public meeting is a public meeting all the same. Much as the public has been shut out of the LLSB project, you’d think we’d be used to this treatment. Nope.
But Back to the site tour.
What really struck home is how problematic the site is. Physically problematic: water, wetland, drainage, various levels of terrain, residential neighbors abutting the property all around, with a faulty building full of K-5 children.
It is challenging enough to build a new school while keeping the current school open. Why, then, further complicate the matter by adding the untenable layer of Parks and Rec’s fanciful wish list: sparkling new, expanded, full feature gilded baseball field for the narrow demographic of male teenagers? (See population chart).
The LLSB Committee’s recommendation (in fact, their unstated longstanding desire) is to put 10 pounds of community into a paper-thin one-pound bag. And they won’t let go of this pipe dream.
It even seems delusional when you realize how hard they work to convince YOU and me that the gardens, native habitat and neighbors’ peaceful backyards are the appropriate sacrifices. Who needs sound environmental, sustainable green space, anyway? It’s not like we’re having an environmental crisis.
The Committee directed the hired architects to make it work. Try they did. The resulting recommendation is a huge.. huge .. compromise for every stakeholder except one: teenage boys who play baseball. God bless them. I’ve watched many of their games and fully support their access to nice fields.
This is NOT the fault of boys who play baseball. Rather the source of our angst is a sliver of their parents and friends-of-parents who hold positions of power in this town. Ok I said it out loud. There is a very small group of people with disproportionate power in Westport. It is a power play.
I believe a new school can be built. I believe there is no need to disrupt the gardens and preserve, nor further exacerbate water, traffic and noise issues for the neighbors. What will be displaced is one baseball field. Why displace two resources when you can displace one?
Because those in power said so. The Power Play.
Here’s to the underdogs. Let’s keep going.
Tony, Similar to a comment I saw previously from Michelle Mechanic, I too have a school age student in town who plays 14U baseball and I am completely against the gardens being moved to accommodate a baseball field of any kind. As others have said , this baseball field would not be for LLS students, as the current one is not. It’s for boys 13 and up. I wouldn’t even bother with statistics about teenage boys in town because most don’t play baseball and many (the significant majority right now) play baseball out of town never using any of our town fields. At best I can think of 2 teams – so no more than 30 kids – that would use this field. Our Babe Ruth team and our Westport Travel team, which for this particular age group at present is practically defunct. There are other fields in town they can use so I truly can’t fathom how this is a priority and I’d like to understand better why anyone thinks it is. I have heard that this is not just baseball but general use athletic fields. I’m sure soccer fields are needed and whatever fields LLS needs but it seems that those don’t need to be placed where the gardens are. Let’s get the facts about baseball in town before its selected over gardens when it should not be or is the scapegoat for this decision.
Sorry – I meant Toni !
Toni – I would bet a significant majority of Westporters (even parents of that small, segmented, sliver of HS baseball players) do Not want a redundant Babe Ruth Baseball field on top of the national award winning ONE and only 20-year old Community Gardens/Preserves.
I just cannot relate, in the least, to the mindset or self-aggrandizement necessary to place my narrow needs and wants over the significant harm done to stakeholders. Imagine being ok with tens of thousands of dollars (more?) in property value lost by each household living near the Garden/Preserves, let along detracting from their quality of life – when it’s not even necessary?!? Or being ok with telling Gardeners they have to start over again on a toxic landfill? It’s mind boggling.
But a recent article commenting on what’s wrong with society today stated: “…the whole world is in the ‘selfie’ mentality: It’s my world, step aside….and until we address the selfishness that permeates every layer of society, we are doomed.” Well, certainly selfishness has permeated Westport and can doom an ecological, beloved treasure and the peace and tranquillity which once surrounded its neighbors.
Exactly. What is scary, is that Westport has always prided itself on being a more organic, boho, and I don’t know if it’s an influx of New Yorkers moving in, or just a ton of money that can ram through and control the new direction of the town, but it is not going to serve us well not keeping nature in harmony with our town. Really quite sad the speed of destruction and greed taking over. If we do not keep and preserve land we will just be another city. Not why people live here.
The 2020 US Census data population chart showing teenage boys in Westport is here:
https://data.census.gov/profile/Westport_town,_Fairfield_County,_Connecticut?g=060XX00US0900183500
With construction budget numbers from the recently completed feasibility study floating between $95M and $100M, for a new ground up, new construction, two story building, we still believe the proposed two story structure as presented, can easily be sited along with a new 90’ baseball diamond while retaining the Community Gardens in its existing location.
We also believe the Town should seriously investigate a three story, split level design solution, (to work with the site’s grade elevation changes) with a more compact building massing, benefits being; reduced annual operating expenses for heating and cooling, saving taxpayer funds for energy consumption and more open space for recreation and parking. The response to this request during the last meeting was a thin, false narrative. Three story elementary schools are built all across the country, everyday.
The feasibility study determined only one major aspect of the school project; a new school is more feasible to construct than the rehabilitation of the existing structure. Agreed.
While the architect for the feasibility study has presented “feasibility sketches” for a proposed new structure, the First Selectwomen, the B.of E., the B.of F., the P&Z and the RTM should all realize; at this early juncture of the process, sketches generated to date should not be construed as the “final design solution” for the project. Meaning; at this early “feasibility sketch” stage, the Town is NOT wedded (neither emotionally nor financially) in any way, to one architectural firm, one design solution, nor one specific location on this site, for this proposed new school building to be constructed.
An investment of this magnitude, by the Town, should not be hastily entered into. An investment of this magnitude should produce a product the entire Town can stand behind and take pride in. This project is an amazing opportunity for our community and I implore all governing bodies to examine the totality of the redevelopment of the entire site. From the limited involvement I have had with this project, I believe it is not yet on the right track but it could be, should the governing bodies have the will to do so.
Really? Do you not talk at all about keeping space for nature? Does every open spot have to be utilized for construction? Clear Cutting? Do we not talk about the future of this town regarding budgeting our police properly? Aren’t we severely under funded there? A lot more crime to come, especially with all the building initiatives taking place. Does all of our taxpayer money have to go to a baseball field? Clearly this town has too much money then.
Ms. Webster,
Thank you for your fulsome reporting on this important issue.
It is critical to note that they are not proposing to move an existing (smaller) ballfield to where the gardens lay. They are proposing to create a new, mega ballfield (known as a “Babe Ruth” field) which does not presently exist on the Long Lots “campus.” This proposal means creating something new on the LL school property not designed for LL students.
While the Town has, I believe, three other Babe Ruth fields, we have only one garden. If we really need a fourth Babe Ruth field, surely we can find a location that does not plow asunder our only garden, create a nuisance adjacent to existing homeowners and, almost assuredly, worsen the existing water issues for the neighbors. The Community Garden has the capacity to absorb 66,000 gallons of water. The Babe Ruth field will be designed to drain water from its surface.
It is truly astounding that we even have to discuss, much less debate, this issue. Let’s build the school our kids need. Let’s leave the garden alone. And lets find another site for the trophy field.
Sam Levenson
Lee Caney at the conclusion of the meeting
“I’d like to thank everyone on the LLSBC for arranging this meeting and for all the stakeholders who took the time to come out and hearing what you had to say…”
Toni Simonetti:
Are you taking questions?”
Lee Caney:
No…
As my daughters would say…SMH
What a waste of time this was – Even in the tiny room in Town Hall where the LLSBC meetings were held you can barely hear the committee chairman speak – how did he think that marching ahead yards in front of everyone and talking without amplification was going to be beneficial for anyone?
For all this talk of “transparency its crystal clear that none of these people gives a damn what the public thinks…and now they have been found out none of them wants to swallow their pride and admit they have overreached here…
Lee Caney made it pretty clear at a recent Board of Ed meeting that he would use his position as Chair of the Board of Finance to get a baseball field built because he’s a baseball dad. He didn’t even veil his motives.
In a Town with 20+ ballfields, he stressed the importance of shared sacrifice which, to him, seems to mean “gimme, gimme, gimme.”
Is there a report that list the usage by ball field? Are there existing fields that can be reconfigured to Babe Ruth size? I was recently behind Kings Highway School and noticed the 2 baseball fields there. How often are they used? It appears there is plenty of room to expand these 2 fields? The neighbors are businesses & not homes, there would be ample parking between the lots at Kings Highway & Saugatuck Elementary School, room for bleachers & possibly lights given the location & proximity to the Post Road.
I was on a tour of the garden with one of my current RTM members, Nancy Kail. She recommended that it’s important to make suggestions for alternatives. The above is my suggestion as an alternatives to just covering the existing garden. I am asking the P&R department to dig deep and please explore this option or others that will keep the garden in tack & provide the right amount of fields to our children & adults that utilize our recreation facilities.
I am grateful for all the volunteers hours and hope we can find a solution that works for all.
Thank you!
The report on the Long Lots field is that it was used or scheduled to be used a grand total of 6 days in the 7 months ( 4/1-10/31). In addition on those 6 days it was being used one or more than one of the other 3 fields (Doubleday, Wakeman & Staples) were also available. The bottom line is there is no need for another Babe Ruth sized baseball field. Also. these fields are being used for the Westport Travel baseball program which is not for town children to play against each other like they do in Little League. Westport travel baseball charges 16 kids $1500 each per season to have the privilege to play against other towns travel teams who by the way also have fields to play the games on. That is a total of $24k per season, there are 3 seasons which equates to $72k/yr. Why should we destroy the gardens and have taxpayers foot the bill for a profit making program that benefits just 16 kids? Its about an elite group of 16 selected kids who can afford $4500/yr to play & thousands of $’s in private lessons to be able to make this team. I really hope the LLBC & the board of finance take these facts into consideration before approving a field that there is no need for.
Hi Peter
The point is not what’s right…it’s what these folks WANT
They have their sticky fingers on the $100m levers of power and they will drive it through whatever the public says because they WANT it…and as taxpayers we will all foot the bill for their desires, not because it’s the right thing to do but because they can…
Peter…Wow those are very interesting stats on field usage. I feel sports are very important for kids but with the exception of Michael Calise who played in the minor league’77-‘85 I don’t believe Westport has produced a Major League Baseball player. We have however produced an award winning community garden & and a very impressive pollinator pathway. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Hi Susan
As you know Michael Calise is a town treasure – he has made it clear he opposes bull doxing the gardens and yet here we are…
He will certainly have our family’s votes in November,,,
Susan I love sports & also think its very important for kids. Both of my children were very involved in local youth sports programs & travel programs. Locally, I coached boys & girls basketball, baseball & softball. But there is a clear distinction between the all inclusive local youth sports like the Westport little league baseball & softball programs and the parks & rec run Westport basketball association compared to travel sports programs which you have to be selected for & pay much higher fees to participate. I don’t feel that the taxpayers should be subsidizing a new full size baseball field for a select few kids to play on and I certainly don’t think it should take precedent over an award winning community garden. That type of thinking borders on lunacy.
As a Board of Education member I want to highlight that 1) LLSBC will be updating the Board of Education at our next BOE meeting – this Thursday, 10/19 at 7pm at Staples High School, and 2) I will be proposing a motion at the BOE to support both a new school BUT also to protect the Westport Community Gardens in their current location.
In term of potential conflict of interest – I want to disclose that I am a gardener at my private residence in Westport. I am NOT a member of the Westport Community Gardens – past or present.
Mr. Harrington, Thank you. We’ve heard from the LLSBC that we should just resign ourselves to moving the WCG to another location (the hilly, and possibly contaminated, terrain of Baron’s South being discussed) because the LL site will have to be closed for two years during the construction. I, for one, do not buy that premise. How is it that road contractors can blast rock at exit 17 AND fully replace the I-95 bridge over Saugatuck Avenue and those roads are still usable for thousands of cars each day? If that challenge can be solved then, surely, we can figure out how to construct a school without plowing asunder 20 years of work or forbidding access to the Gardens which are not in the middle of the LL “campus.” We’re all in favor of building the school, but let’s not let the appointed committee appropriate unrelated territory, especially to build our twenty-something ballfield over our only garden.
Sam – I don’t buy it either. Not one bit. I have found it to be provocative towards a section of our community. I think Westport can and should do better. I am an optimist and think elected officials are there to find solutions. Its what most of us do in our working day – most days.
But if this was really about helping out the Community Gardeners because the gardens are doomed for the next two years… Well let me take the other side. That would be bad and unnecessary – BUT indulge me – let assume that it is true. If this is NOT about placing a larger baseball field that stands on the campus today – then after two years of construction – rebuild the gardens in the exact spot.
They won’t because this is ONLY about a bigger plan for a bigger baseball field.
They want to convince people that the gardens are doomed anyway so you will shut up an go away.
To Selectwoman Tooker and the Building Committee, PLEASE pause this charade of a process and work with the town, parents, and the gardeners for an actual solution that truly serves the town. We can all grow together if we think a little more creatively and collaborate!
Selectwoman Tooker, don’t turn your legacy into that of a destroyer of a nature preserve and community garden. You can claim you didn’t know how town residents felt months ago about preserving these town treasures, because frankly you didn’t. And you never asked. No stakeholders were included in this process until the gardeners and residents got wind of the plans and had to beg for any information on the direction of the school construction (which suddenly ballooned into building a massive baseball field and associated infrastructure and bulldozing an award winning garden and neighborhood flood buffer).
Give your constituents a seat at the table.
Revisit school constructions plans, and break out a review of athletic field spaces into a separate project. These should never have been tied together to begin with, a brand new massive sports field shouldn’t be forced into existence simply because you decided to attach it to a much needed school renovation.
Prioritize the school, leave community treasures intact, don’t force through a new sports field and put the whole project at risk. You can do better than this.