Dear Town Residents:
I am the chairman of the Westport Community Gardens and director of the Long Lots Preserve.
Members of the Westport Community Gardens and the volunteers involved with the Long Lots Preserve support the construction of a new/improved Long Lots Elementary School.
If the development of a new/improved Long Lots Elementary School truly requires the use of the existing gardens space during construction, then our request is to rebuild the gardens, post-construction, in their current location.
This is our position.
At no point in this process has the request for consideration and regard for the gardens and preserve delayed the process of constructing a new/improved school. Not by a second. To imply otherwise is false.
Furthermore, the current efforts by some community members to vilify the gardeners and blame them for delays in the process is misguided. The gardeners are not the problem. The gardeners are not the enemy.
If anybody tries to convince you that the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve are responsible for getting in the way of a beautiful new school for the town of Westport, they are misstating facts.
We all want the school. The process is supposed to get us there.
I very much hope the new 8-24 application will include the school, fields and restoration of the community gardens and preserve.
Let’s get this done together!
Louis Weinberg
Chairman, Westport Community Gardens
Director, Long Lots Preserve
I am very glad to read this letter from Mr. Weinberg. I am hopeful we can all move forward and together.
I did not understand the reasoning for building the gardens back the way it was though. After the new school is built, the old one demolished, the remaining space will need to be split between the needs for athletic fields and the gardens. Athletic fields lost a baseball field compared to what it there now. The multi purpose field is used by the school itself and several organized sports, and impacts over 10 times more people in this town.
Joe, there is more than enough land on the town owned lot to have the community gardens continue to exist where they are. In fact I’ll take that a step further.
There is no need for it to be moved or replaced. A bit like the bus contract.. there’s plenty space at the train station for a staging area..
please stop with your jargon.
I pay taxes for your school.
I get to say how my taxes should be spent.
I want them spent on community gardens.. lots of them.
And the schools.
Mom of 4
I want to thank Lou Weinberg for this massive compromise during construction. There is no excuse whatsoever for any delay and the position stated here makes it clear the Community Gardens are not standing in anyone’s way.
Their request to rebuild the gardens, post-construction, in their current location seems like something the Town of Westport and Tooker administration should make happen.
Lou Weinberg is a science teacher and has spent hundreds of hours and many years building the Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve. It is a wonderful barrier between the Long Lots Campus and the many abutting neighbors.
Let’s rebuild the Community Gardens in their current location once a new Long Lots School and Stepping Stones Preschool have been constructed.
I believe there are very few people who are not in support of building the best, most sustainable school at Long Lots we can as rapidly as is feasible. We have enormous talent and resources in town that will enable us to get there. But a lack of foresight about how to address the other non-school uses on the property has led us to an unfortunate stalemate. I am very sad to see the current campaign to label the gardeners as a “special interest” in an effort to discredit them. They are no more a special interest than the sports clubs that want new playing fields, or even than people with school-age children (of which I am one). We are all residents and taxpayers of Westport, neighbors and friends, and this is a huge public project of interest to us all. We need to continue to work together to learn, adjust course and get to the best solution.
Wow. I am absolutely delighted to hear that the official position of the gardeners is to rebuild/restore the gardens after the new school is built. This is the first I’ve heard anyone affiliated with the garden acknowledge that building this new school, while at the same time keeping the current school functional, would require use of the land the garden currently occupies. It seems it would behoove Louis to take some time to educate some of the garden’s most vocal supporters, as they appear to have misunderstood this key detail. Of course, this does beg the question, if the garden is effectively going to have start all over again, post-construction, and there will be no access for 2 years during the build, how is the town’s offer to provide a brand new location not a preferable option for all parties? Many parents and residents have raised valid concerns with having a school share it’s property with an unaffiliated facility. There will likely many more restrictions on the new garden if it continues to occupy the LLS lot. Why not get started working toward a new and more appropriate location for the garden TODAY? So again, Louis, thank you for clarifying! That will go a long way to addressing some of the anxiety we parents have been feeling as this project continues to be delayed. I do hope you will go a little further in answering why the brand new garden MUST occupy the LLS property, as our inability to understand the logic in that continues to be a cause for concern.
You must have missed this the first three times through. One more time for you, Dan;
Here is the Legal memo provided to all concerned parties, as previously stated.:
To: File
From: Eileen Lavigne Flug, Assistant Town Attorney
Date: April 26, 2022
Subject: Town or School Control of Jaeger Property at Long Lots
Over the years, the question has arisen about whether the former Jaeger Property adjacent to Long Lots Elementary School is “Town” property or “School” property. Based on my review of the attached memos, minutes, and P&Z resolutions regarding the acquisition and development of the former Jaeger Property, it is my opinion that the Board of Education has control of the 2.2-acre parking lot for school purposes, and that the remaining 4.3 +/- acres containing the Community Gardens are under the control of the Town.
Purchase of the Property:
The Town purchased the 6.5 acre parcel located at 11 Hyde Lane, adjacent to Long Lots school, on August 27, 2001, and the property was consolidated with 13 Hyde Lane (the Long Lots school property) into one lot. The P&Z issued a positive §8-24 Report for the acquisition on July 20, 2001, stating that the site “could appropriately be used for expanded parking and recreational facilities that could serve the school and the neighborhood.”
Board of Education Interest in the Jaeger Property:
The Board of Education advocated for the acquisition of 2.2 acres of the Jaeger Property for school purposes (BOE minutes dated July 9, 2001) and provided educational specifications for those 2.2 acres for a parking lot (BOE minutes dated April 29, 2002). They did not, however, present a formal proposal for the use of the remaining 4.3 acres, and they are not now using it for school purposes. Dr. Elliot Landon’s July 5, 2001 memo to the BOE, and the July 9, 2001 BOE resolution a few days later, were both clear about recommending the acquisition of 2.2 acres of the Jaeger Property for school parking. Dr. Landon had recommended that the BOE
resolution also support the acquisition of the entire parcel “because it would enhance educational programming by providing additional play and athletic space contiguous to the school,” but the BOE instead voted to support the purchase “as it complies with the town plan.” That suggests that the BOE considered possible educational programming uses for the 4.3 acres but decided against officially endorsing that at that time.
P&Z Resolutions
On June 27, 2002, the P&Z issued a positive §8-24 Report for the overall use of the Jaeger Property for developing a parking lot, playing fields, and community gardens. On March 25, 2004, the P&Z issued a positive §8-24 Report at the request of the Westport Public Schools for the parking lot portion: improving the existing parking lot and constructing a new parking lot to serve Long Lots Elementary School. On April 22, 2004, the P&Z issued a Special Permit/Site Plan for that purpose. On October 27, 2005, the P&Z issued a Special Permit/Site Plan at the request of the Parks and Recreation Department for the creation of the community gardens. Five years later, on February 11, 2010 (modified June 10, 2010), the P&Z issued a Special Permit/Site Plan at the request of the Parks and Recreation Department for the expansion of the community gardens, stating that, “The Commission finds that the use of this site for the Community Garden, instead of the previously proposed use for athletic fields, remains in keeping with the 2007 POCD.”
Summary
The P&Z §8-24 Reports and Site Plans/Special Permits for the property make clear that the initial plan was to use 2.2 acres for a school parking lot and use the remaining 4.3 acres for both playing fields to serve the school and community, and a community garden to be managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. The Westp01t Community Garden was opened in 2006, but the playing fields were never officially proposed to the P&Z, and when the Westp01t Community Garden was expanded in 2010, the P&Z’s finding implied that approval of the expansion precluded the use of the remaining portion of the 4.3 acres for ball fields, whether for educational or community purposes.
Conclusion:
Connecticut General Statutes Section 10-220(a) provides that Boards of Education “shall have the care maintenance and operation of buildings, lands, apparatus and other property used for school purposes.” Because the 4.3 acres that include the Westport Community Garden is not used, and has not been proposed or approved to be used, for school purposes, it is my opinion that, other than the 2.2 acre parking lot, the remaining 4.3 acres of the former Jaeger Property are not being used for school purposes under§ 10-220(a) and remain under Town control.
Lou, I have a honest question to ask (I am not looking to argue but rather to understand). As I stated at our last meeting, I don’t think that rebuilding the gardens back in their current location makes sense. So I would like your input here. By not looking for another location, this means gardens will loose a couple growing seasons. There will not be direct access to a parking area due to a multipurpose field between parking and the desired location of the gardens. The gardens may be smaller and have no opportunity to expand in the future. There is the potential for balls to go towards or into the gardens. I am obviously missing something in terms of why the desire to go back to this specific location, which is less desirable, in my opinion, then alternatives off-site or at the rear of the property. Please help me understand.
Of course you don’t.. because there’s always been an agenda…. Missing something ?
Lmao. Literally as a member of llsbc, you’ve just shown us all you could care less..
the desire is because that is where the gardens have sat for 20 years.that is where they shall stay.
Srikanth, I have a few questions as well- if it has been determined the ball field is no longer required, why not go with Alt C Option that your feasibility study already detailed out? Why go back to the drawing board when the thorough analysis was already completed? It seems where the ball field was to go could be free play area for the students, and thus give more field area to the school, which I would think the school would be happy about. Wouldn’t this also address the 8-24 change in usage that is delaying this process, as P&Z did not agree with putting high usage fields abutting the neighbors’ properties? If the (only)community garden stays in its current location at the completion of this project, doesn’t that eliminate this current road block with P&Z?
Lastly, you previously stated you weren’t concerned where non-school items were placed. Your comment above indicates otherwise.
Ps. A garden can’t grow just anywhere…. See comments in the related 06880 post if you truly seek to understand.
I believe there are solutions on the table that have been ignored by the administration and the building committee. I have confidence that our commissioners and elected officials will execute due diligence to make sure all citizens of Westport, state laws, town charters and prior precedents are considered when making these decisions.
I disagree.. the solution does not work ! Lou does not speak for his gardeners… nobody agrees with hin
Kristin,
As always, I appreciate you expressing your sentiments. It is unfortunate that it’s taken so long for any Town official (other than Mr. Harrington from the BoE) to finally, and rightly, defend the Community Gardeners – and meaningfully acknowledge that they have not been the “selfish problem” as has been depicted by so many who have been misinformed, nor have they been opponents to remedying Long Lots or in any manner anti-children miscreants.
The current display of despicable vilification of the gardeners by worried parents looking for a vulnerable target to scapegoat was beyond anything witnessed by those of us who have lived in Westport for decades/generations; and I imagine this will not be forgotten anytime soon. If we need any evidence that Westport has changed not for the better, we need look no further.
That Ms. Tooker, and no one else from Town Hall, stepped in with the truth to stop this “cannibalization” was disheartening to witness. Given the inaction of leadership, allowing this to continue to fester, one might reasonably surmise it to be an intention to watch it play out from the shadows, just in case it furthered a troubled agenda. Shameful. Disgraceful.
In your comment, you are almost correct that there was “a lack of foresight about how to address the other non-school uses on the property” that has led us to this juncture. However, to be completely accurate you must publicly acknowledge the purposeful plan by Jen Tooker and Jen Fava to displace the Community Gardens in order to incorporate a “babe ruth baseball field” on that land. The fact is that there WAS considerable “foresight” – it was just done behind closed doors so only a select few knew about it. Jen Fava’s communication “I guess they found out” evidences this. This, and the LLSBC’s acquiescence to that long undisclosed agenda, is what brought us to this juncture.
Incidentally, I would not designate this to be a “stalemate” because there is a workable way forward.
However, where I must vociferously disagree is your premise contained in your final sentence: “We need to CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER to LEARN…”. The essence of the problem is that there HAS NEVER BEEN a “working together” – and failure to acknowledge this serves to perpetuate misjudgments, poor decisions and a patriarchy that becomes costly in reputations, relationships, emotions, and treasure.
To review this instance: While the LLSBC was tasked, Westport’s Public Site and Building Commission was, and continues to be, frozen out of any review and decision making. The Long Lots neighbors were shunned until late in the game. The PRC plans were intentionally secreted from the Community Gardeners who would be directly impacted – presumably anticipating that Jen Fava’s plan would be jeopardized unless their train got a significant head start down the track. And Mr. Scarice was all too willing to quietly abet that BoE-unrelated determination. Repeated requests for other expert opinions have consistently fallen upon deaf ears.
AND of most significant importance, the RTM failed in their primary purpose: To serve Westport’s residents by being the watchdog that oversees Town governance and deliberate ALL resident concerns.
LAST SUMMER, when the RTM was asked via petition to deliberate a variety of resident concerns about the LLSBC’s recommendation that were emerging – including your stated “how to address the other non-school uses on the property” – instead of encouraging a collaboration, the RTM chose censorship. The RTM denied Westport’s residents the ability to work this through towards a recommended resolution in a collaborative manner – either at the full RTM or via a subcommittee. The RTM abrogated their primary responsibility to their constituents, hiding behind the fallacious guise of a “lack of current jurisdiction”. AND knowing the emotional volatility at the time, the RTM enabled the Community Gardeners to be unnecessarily scapegoated. The RTM owns no small responsibility for setting the stage for the resident vilification we witnessed, and allowing this contentious juncture to have arrived.
In this instance, the RTM failed us – and this failure is a consequence of their petition censorship. As an RTM member, you should understand that any typical RTM self-admiration (including the predictable reflexive defense of the sitting first select-person by the customary RTM public-relations sycophants) is ill-advised.
To be clear, I am NOT suggesting that the RTM bears the full burden of responsibility in this matter. However, unless confusion, resident vilification, resentment, animosity, acrimony, project delay, and general dismay during project development is what the RTM finds desirable, I suggest that they would be better served to perform a “root cause analysis” of how and why we’ve gotten to this situation – and take the necessary steps to avoid this in the future. Might I suggest, as a first step, immediately abort any further desire for resident petition censorship.
It is incontrovertible that this has been a leadership model that exemplifies the consequence of secrecy and imposition, rather than transparency and collaboration.
So while a Town official finally speaking the truth is refreshingly welcome, acknowledging the whole truth is crucial to the “learning” that you conclude to desire.
It would help if the LLSBC referred to FOIA requests.
Given your own unfortunate comments, maybe you should stick to the merits rather than call people out for their tone.
https://westportjournal.com/government/at-team-westport-civility-promoted-amid-harsh-words-for-critics/
Funny that someone critical of “sneaky” government would be questioning people who question how our local government works. Especially when a member of the BOE referred to the LLSBC actions as “sneaky.”
https://westportjournal.com/government/controversial-fair-share-zoning-plan-stripped-from-state-housing-bill/
What happens if the gardens are placed back in the same exact location after construction is completed?
Check the following submitted Proposed Site Plan in the last 8-24 application to P&Z:
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83670/638378813288800000.
Existing gardens extend all the way to the first dotted red line on the left (labeled Terrace 1).
The multi-purpose field will then be reduced to a 9v9 soccer field, which will be a further reduction of space that is currently available in the upper field. This will impact not only the Long Lots school children who use the field for their school organized events, but also all elementary school aged children across Westport that use the upper fields in organized sports practices and games. Practices use all of the grass area of the upper field, with parents sitting on one side, and as many as 5 or 6 teams on the field. The other fields in town are also heavily used.
Then they can use a field somewhere else ?
For the love of god ! You selfish jerk !
It is NOT all about the kids !
What happened to “Gardens and Schools Grow Together”?
And do you speak for all the gardeners? Or just yourself?
And by all means, please come and make those statements in public in the next P&Z meeting.
Gardens and Schools grow together ?
You never heard that from me. And in light of the nervousness of your friends, because they think somehow the gardeners after 20 years of nothing but peaceful existence might now become school shooters. I suggest Joe you take a rethink on your innuendos.
Do you think I am afraid of coming to a p and z meeting ?
Seemed like you did !
Haha. Sorry to disappoint you n yours.
I vote for NO REDUCTION in green space. Your kids, and their kids, will thank me for it.
Think of the LLES kids, Joe. They do not use town athletic fields as part of their school day, save for the well-rehearsed narrative called “field day:” a special event once or maybe twice a year. Lower fields can be used for that.
Please think of the kids in LLES and stop manufacturing reasons to delay this project.
Toni, the upper field at Long Lots is not only used by the school kids, they are also heavily used by grades K-6 for soccer practices and games. I also see them used for other sports as well. They can’t just go somewhere else, we don’t have enough fields in town.
P&Z will have to decide between the needs of 100+ gardeners for a recreational garden, versus the needs of 1000+ elementary aged kids for sports. This is the land use aspect of the new school build, and the construction firm needs to know what goes where in order to come up with their final plans. And this will be the next step after we get approval to fund hiring this construction firm.
Now who is a special self interest, Joe? The town can simply draw a red line at Terrace One and direct the architects and construction manager to not use it. This could have been accomplished one year ago. Just the opposite happened. Why?
The appointed LLSBC made a decision to breach their legal authority to effect a land grab for Parks and Rec and private sports league interests. Their charter does not include Parks and Rec planning. The BOE specs do not include town athletic fields.
This was a land grab under the cover of a much needed school remediation, and they are holding the LLES children hostage to their misguided decision.
My views are my own, but I advocate for gardeners at large, neighbors, elders, Mother Earth and future generations. Preserving green space is not a selfish special interest. Turfing green space for yet more athletic fields when the ones we already have are in disrepair, is selfish and greedy. (I’ll just throw in one more entitled behavior: not using school buses that I am forced to pay for.)
So, do not get me started on what is in the best interest for the town of Westport. The population of elders, and those without children who attend LLES will far outnumber your small special interest group. Their needs and rights matter, too. No human is better or more important than another.
The best interest of the town is to preserve our future, take care of the vulnerable (children, elders, the ill, the unfortunate), be good stewards of our natural resources, and represent ALL.
Toni,
I don’t understand your argument regarding the land grab. The property belongs to the town of Westport, not Westport Community Gardens.
As stated before, WCG went into an agreement that the location where the gardens are located can be used for athletic fields in the future. Well, right now, a new school will be built over the upper fields, and a new location is needed for the fields.
For some reason you make a claim that because the construction is somewhere else, then they can’t use the gardens when it is all on the same property. The gardens do not have any special status, neither do the athletic fields. Besides, even if there is a remote chance that the construction of the school could be achieved without destroying the gardens, the question of land use remains, and we still need athletic fields. The gardens will also be included. We can achieve all of that, just not the exact same way, and again, all of this is because the school is not on the same spot.
I understand that you view the community gardens as more than just a recreational activity, but the town has provided these gardens for people to grow their food. And the town is still committed to provide this activity to residents. In fact, the town offered to restart the garden at a different site, where the community gardens can grow, and it could perhaps be as important as Wakeman farms where people can go for events, have summer camps, etc…
I am afraid that the stance of the Westport Community Gardens (or the few vocal members) is starting to sound like extortion.
You have 20 other fields. Demand that the town who doesn’t take care of anything fix them !
What additional “facts” have been uncovered since the P&Z meeting on December 18th to foster this new proposal? Did Parks & Rec finally provide a detailed usage schedule of all the fields for the 2023 calendar year instead of the color-coded grid that no one was able to read or decipher? If so, is the public going to have sufficient time to review the results prior to the next P&Z meeting ? Why has the supposedly much needed Babe Ruth league field been scrapped for a multi-purpose field? Could it be because baseball field usage proved that a 4th babe ruth league field was NOT needed, even though at the October 30th Parks & Rec meeting Parks & Rec tried to convince the taxpayers that one was needed by using misleading information (see pg 2 of the Parks & Rec Property Review & Usage report dated September 23rd).
Until a detailed usage report of all the fields has been produced I can not see how a new multi-purpose field on the Hyde Lane property can be approved. If there really had been a critical need for an additional field why did it wait to be coupled with the Long Lots School project which wasn’t going to start construction until the fall of ’24?
Why haven’t the 4 NON-profit organizations that have a vested interest in the towns fields gotten together to see how they could best utilize the $3.8 million they have sitting in cash & investments to rectify the dire field situation and then present that plan to P&Z? The lack of urgency on the part of these organizations shows that it isn’t as dire a situation as being presented and its more of a convenient land & money grab. It makes you wonder what else in the $100 million budget for this project is NOT necessary. Hopefully the Finance Committee will scrutinize this when requested to authorize the funding for this project.
FYI: The $3.8 million figure is taken from the balance sheets of the latest tax filings (Form 990) of Westport Soccer Assoc ($1.191 million), Westport Baseball & Softball ($1.144 million), Westport PAL ($1.037 million) and Friends of Westport Parks & Rec ($428 thousand). You would think with the incredible amount of money sitting on the balance sheets of these NON-profit organizations the possibilities would be endless on what can be done to the EXISTING fields in town. For example, overhauling the underutilized Doubleday field into the premier multi-purpose field in town. Also, Doubleday & Wakeman baseball fields which have been neglected (pitching mounds not the standard 10″, grass growing in the infield dirt, dangerous infield lips, etc) could be drastically improved including adding dugouts, scoreboards, etc.
These are among many unanswered questions that need to be addressed before the most expensive project in town gets approval from P&Z and the Finance Committee.
Please note – this is not an ‘additional field’ it is replacement of the highly used fields being lost by the placement of the new school building.
Mrs.Andrews.
Let’s put the LLES children first. Please cease and desist your talk of town athletic fields on town property so the actual school can be built. Such talk is delaying the project.
The LLES students used the P&R athletic fields MAYBE up to three times per YEAR. The lower fields is an appropriate location for these infrequent special events.
Let’s put the LLES school first, not myriad unrelated town sports fields that are irrelevant to the education curriculum of LLES students.
Why can’t we have both? The garden, the fields and the school these kids deserve? I’m a parent of LLS students so I know how often the fields are used. But I also recognize taking field space away impacts not just LLS students, but all Westport students who put those fields in use 7 days/week, April-October.
The suggestion made is that all 3 can happen – replaced garden, reinstated fields in kind, new school. I don’t understand why everyone is still fighting as if we can’t make this work. Everyone is giving up something – definition of compromise.
Here’s a compromise: put a fence around the garden and preserve and close it during construction. Give volunteers scheduled supervised access twice a month to maintain and prevent it from getting overgrown. Do whatever you want to the right of the curb. This can absolutely be done and I do not believe anyone who says it cannot.
That would be to have your cake and eat it.
And maybe 27,000 tax payers are getting sick and tired of your rhetoric.
Toni,
The gardens at Long Lots are established as a recreational activity, based on a memorandum of understanding that the location may be used in the future by athletic fields.
There is a new school that needs to be built. Once built, the whole property is no longer the same, and the town who owns this property needs to decide what is the best use of this land. What makes you think what you suggest will be the best use of the land?
WCG was initially given an opportunity to relocate to another site with ability to grow and expand. WCG rejected this option.
The next option was to keep the gardens in Long Lots but not necessarily in the same place, with potential of size reduction, and definitely no room for expansion. And from the sound of it, WCG is not entirely on board, and are still demanding to stay put, with some false hope that it will remain untouched.
You realize that if the WCG does not compromise in good faith, it won’t be a zero cost for the community gardens, and this might backfire in a worse scenario for the community gardens? If that happens, don’t blame the parents of Long Lots.
A zero cost to the town is to not disturb the green space that currently exists. See my other comments addressing your other self-important special interests.
As an aside, please stop saying ‘LLES.’ No one calls us by that acronym. It just further highlights your lack of connection to this school community and causes confusion. It’s ’LLS.’ Go Lions 🦁.
If is a replacement field and not required.. it’s called looking for your cake and eating it.
Have some respect for your tax payers !!!!!
Mrs Simonetti,
You seem to be hung up on the concept of ‘entitled parents’ and Mrs Webster, the concept of ‘having your cake and eating it too.’
I ensure you, as LLS parents, we are not eating cake.
We are dealing with what no elementary school parents should deal with. A raw deal, with school start and end times that force parents to pick up kids for after school activities when we’d much rather use the buses that we, as taxpayers, pay for.
I’m biting my tongue on that because I just want a safe school that maybe, if I’m lucky, my currently 3 yo daughter will benefit from. My 10 and 7 year olds sons will likely have moved on after living through the worst of the chaos and construction.
And if she doesn’t, I just hope for it for the next generation of kids.
We aren’t spoiled brats stamping our feet and demanding our needs are met. We’re concerned parents who by the way, also pay their taxes.
So let’s stop accusing, blaming and name calling. The kids need a school. The garden may need to move to make that happen. Other stake-holders have said they understand and appreciate that. Can’t we all come to that same understanding?
All I’m asking for is an understanding that no one is calling for destruction for destruction’s sake.
As I understand it, the land needs to be cleared to install drainage so the construction won’t damage other surrounding properties. I think we can all agree that not flooding a home is more important than the garden maintaining its current footprint.
Let’s stop being mean. It’s unbecoming of us as a town. I’ve only lived here with my family for 5 years, but I was born here and attended Long Lots as an elementary student. I’ve changed quite a bit in 35 years. The school has not. It’s time.
I am not sure why Lou chose to write this opinion piece, but I am positive it does not speak for the vast majority of the gardeners or for the vast majority of the town who have witnessed this literal shit show play out in real time.
Time and time again “experts” in our town with no dog in this fight, have shown us that the school can be renovated or rebuilt, experts I might add with far more expertise than this LLSBC, combined.
Yet nobody appears to be listening.
The deceitful and selfish agendas along with instructions ticked all the boxes.
Get rid of the damn gardens, to hell with the residents ( how dare those tax paying residents interfere with our end goal, we will show them…. ) and plonk a field in lieu of the “evil” gardeners space whether it makes any sense or not.
Let’s spread a new rumor that after 2 decades of minding their own business and doing so with no incident whatsoever the gardeners might actually be pitch fork wielding terrorists.
I have news for you all.
BREAKING NEWS.
The gardeners have every bit as much right if not more to co- exist at Hyde lane as any school, not to mention, a new and improved (albeit that, thanks to the administration) school, long overdue.
The WCG is not a nice to have or has been suggested and stated by various parents a thorn in our side.
On the contrary I suggest we build 10 more of them.
There’s a waiting list for a plot.
Not because they are territorial but because it’s maxed out ! Why ? Because it only has so much room, and it has rules, and it takes seriously those rules.. for which by the way we should respect them.
I suggest not only should and must this treasure remain but we should build 10 more.
I dare anyone to argue that at this point in time the tax payers in our town do not deserve 10 more such community gardens, and watch them all fill up.
This, our only community garden deserves our respect. If we cannot give it that due respect, then shame on us.
https://apconst.com/portfolio-item/greens-farms-academy/
This is how it gets done. Kids in situ and 35 million instead of 100.
How can anybody argue with this?
There are anti garden people distorting information and making false claims. It hurts, not only from the perspective of possibly losing the garden, but also the sad recognition that this low form of human nature exists right here in Westport. I just can’t understand it.
The town has failed to file an 8-24 Municipal improvement application for 13 Hyde Lane today. Let’s mark this down as ANOTHER delay by the First Selectwoman as she continues her as- yet unsuccessful political manuevering strategy.
Without a filing today, the Planning and Zoning Commission is now forced to either 1) give less than three business day notice to their Jan. 22 hearing; Or 2) hold their next meeting without this matter in the agenda.
The usual bullshit..
Toni, it is just crazy that a town administration carry’s on this way. On not only this issue but on everything else.
If the P&Z turns a blind eye to the fact that the First Selectwoman failed to meet the same legal filing deadline that every town resident with business before the P&Z is required to obey they are forsaking their oath of office. Just as every school child knows to turn in their homework when it is due, the First Selectwoman must be held accountable for her actions – or in this case, her non actions. The 8-24 application can not be legally heard by the P&Z on the 22nd because the First Selectwoman missed the deadline. LLES parents remember this and express your frustration where it belongs. At the desk of the First Selectwoman.
John F. Suggs