Analysis by John Schwing
WESTPORT — Abrupt withdrawal of plans for a new Long Lots Elementary School last week will be far from the final word on the much-debated project.
Efforts to renovate or replace the Hyde Lane school — built in 1953 as a junior high school — have been underway since the spring of 2021, when the Board of Education began seriously weighing options to address deteriorating and potentially unhealthy conditions at the structure.
Since then, the route to a new Long Lots has been a bumpy, often noisy one, as school neighbors immediately began raising concerns about flooding and quality-of-life disruptions the project might cause.
Debate over fate of the Westport Community Gardens, which would be uprooted under the current scenario vs. the need for a large, multi-purpose athletic field that would supplant the gardens — designed primarily not for Long Lots students but other athletic groups — fanned acrimonious flames of the process.
Fast forward through months of meetings, studies and wrangling, and the $90-million-plus proposal rolled out last October by the Long Lots School Building Committee, with unequivocal support from First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker, seemed headed toward final approval — until Dec. 18.
That’s when Tooker’s state-mandated “8-24 municipal improvement” application, needed before such projects can advance, was treated to a round of critical questions from Planning and Zoning Commission members during its initial review.
Although the P&Z did not vote on the application, in anticipation of what appeared to likely be a negative vote by the commission at its Jan. 8 meeting, Tooker last Thursday withdrew the plan before a stinging, back-to-the-drawing boards rejection of the entire project.
Neither Tooker nor the LLSBC has made any public statements about the reasons behind the sudden hold placed on plans both had stoutly defended since last October, with only a brief explanation provided in a letter sent by Tooker to P&Z Department Director Mary Young.
In the withdrawal letter, provided by sources to the Westport Journal, Tooker wrote: “Following a robust P&Z Commission meeting on 12/18/23, we would like to take into consideration the feedback of the commission members.
“After discussing with [P&Z] Chair Lebowitz, we have decided to review possible modifications to the application and will file a revised proposal to be heard at the 1/22/24 P&Z Commission meeting.
“It is still our goal to start construction of a new Long Lots Elementary School before the end of 2024, so moving swiftly and decisively remains a priority,” the letter concludes.
How that P&Z feedback might influence “possible modifications” to the Long Lots application was not detailed.
‘It is still our goal to start construction of a new Long Lots Elementary School before the end of 2024, so moving swiftly and decisively remains a priority.’
first selectwoman Jennifer tooker
Tooker did not respond to a request by the Westport Journal for comments on what appears to be a major setback for her favored Long Lots plan, one often described as likely to be the most expensive in town history.
A first step in the relaunched review process is expected to take place Tuesday when the Long Lots School Building Committee is scheduled to convene at 6 p.m. in Town Hall to discuss “possible modifications” to its plans.
The meeting will take place in-person only in Town Hall Room 307/309, and unlike meetings in the larger auditorium, there will be no video/audio live-stream.
The committee, according to the posted agenda, also plans to go behind closed doors for an executive session “to discuss contracts,” although given the now-uncertain status of the project, it is not clear what contracts could be up for discussion.
For months, the flashpoint over the Long Lots project has centered not on the need for a new school itself — widespread support for that goal has been voiced from all sides of the argument — but on land-use issues for the rest of the property.
Topping that list are plans, as recommended by the LLSBC and Tooker, to move the 20-year-old community gardens off the Hyde Lane site; their recommendation to supplant the gardens with a multi-purpose athletic field as an integral part of the overall project, and neighbors’ concerns about more severe flooding and the noise and traffic generated by what some have called a “stadium” built on garden property near their backyards.
Resolution of these thorny issues in a timely fashion, with Tooker’s stated goal of seeing shovels break ground for a new school before year’s end, will largely depend on the “possible modifications” to the existing plan.
Others look for a way forward
While Tooker made no public statements about her decision last week to withdraw plans for a new Long Lots Elementary School, other officials were willing to comment.
Supt. of Schools Thomas Scarice said Friday, “I am not sure if it was postponed because there is a great idea that is going to resolve this issue … I assume they took a time out,” but added, “I am cautiously optimistic.”
The schools chief also said, “I keep going back to the same thing, that this school has a shelf life and we are at the end. Whatever happens, the district needs to move forward with building a new Long Lots.”
Scarice said he told a meeting of the Long Lots PTA last Wednesday that just before Christmas there had been 17 water incursions in the building.
Underscoring the several-years-old health and safety issues, he said, “We need to make sure we keep this process moving forward.”
A delay of a week or two, the superintendent said, should not derail the current construction timeframe. But if it takes months to resolve, he indicated, that is a different story.
Officials attend “quorum-less” meeting
A Long Lots PTA meeting, scheduled last Wednesday for a status update on the project, was attended by three members of both the Boards of Education and Finance.
If one more member of either board had attended, constituting a quorum, questions over whether the gathering violated public meeting rules may have arisen. Under the state Freedom of Information Act, failing to post public notice of a government agency’s gathering — where a membership quorum is present and an issue under consideration by that board is discussed — violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, regardless of whether the group itself called the meeting.
Board of Education Chair Lee Goldstein, one of the three school board members who attended the PTA meeting, confirmed there were no quorums of either board at the meeting.
“We were literally in the audience,” Goldstein said.
Tooker and several LLSBC members also were on hand.
Harrington: Don’t blame gardeners for ‘politically calculated’ delays
Another school board member in attendance, Robert Harrington, offered these observations on the Long Lots controversy when contacted later by the Westport Journal.
Harrington said he understands Long Lots parents’ “frustration” about the ongoing debate. “The situation at Long Lots is unacceptable. This school should have been replaced a decade ago.”
He also said, “I was disappointed by some of the comments from the building committee members that seemed to be showing a high level of frustration with some gardeners. It just wasn’t productive.”
‘A political calculation was seemingly made to delay the original 8-24 until after the November election and it backfired.’
Board of ed member Robert Harrington
He added, “Elected representatives need to come up with a workable solution — and fast. The delay is coming from the fact that an unrealistic proposal was presented. The LLSBC and Selectman’s Office knew this back in October. A political calculation was seemingly made to delay the original 8-24 until after the November election and it backfired.
“A workable 8-24 proposal should have been presented in October 2023 or earlier, but it wasn’t. They waited until a few days before Christmas to get it in front of the P&Z. They knew at that meeting it was dead in the water, and they decided to delay withdrawing it until the day after the PTA meeting on 3 January. These delays need to stop,” he said.
“Many parents think it is the gardeners that are delaying the school, but that is simply not true. The proposed land-use change and the slowness of these unrealistic proposals are causing the delays.”
With reporting by Linda Conner Lambeck.
John Schwing, the Westport Journal consulting editor, has held senior editorial and writing posts at southwestern Connecticut media outlets for four decades. Learn more about us here.
Thank you for keeping proper journalism in Westport. The Fourth Estate is as essential today as it was when The First Amendment was conceptualized.
From the gut-wrenching day we learned the Town would think the unthinkable … to raze the Westport Community Garden … our mantra has been “Gardens and Schools Grow Together.”
We “the gardeners” have never deviated from that commitment.
How can this garden and school ‘grow together’ if students are banned access to the space? This is a private ‘garden club’ that has been allowed to reside on town property for two decades. The use of that property was based on the premise that the school did not need access to the space. Now, they do, and while the conversation is that the gardeners ‘support’ the school, the fight for the garden is causing the delay. Our kids are freezing in their classrooms (being told to wear extra layers and coats to school), taking art and science classes in hallways and spending their last year of elementary school in a mobile classroom. But! At least we have a lovely ‘community garden’ that…oh right, the kids have no access to.
Toni – can you list for us the initiatives, events…etc that you have done in collaboration with the Long Lots school to “grow together” per your mantra that you never deviate from?
Please educate us on the facts behind this commitment.
Toni – kindly still awaiting your response to the initiatives, events…etc that you have done in collaboration with the Long Lots school to “grow together” per your mantra that you never deviate from?
We are awaiting your response.
In lieu of a response, we will just assume the Gardners have never done anything, ever to “grow together’ with the school…but please correct me with some facts.
Bill, here is all I got for you today:
The outrageous dishonesty demonstrated today by the inflamed “parents” is not a debate I would dignify. And, it would not be a fair fight.
But I am praying for your children, with hopes for better role models.
Save your prayers. We’ll just take the land. Thanks!
Let the sense and reality of that nasty response and for that matter all of your nasty and self serving responses speak for themselves.
The land is not yours to take. Thank the good lord.
Nobody is arguing about the need for a renovated or new school.
I do not believe a single comment in these almost 70 has said a better school is not of immediate need.
None.
What is new here is the “axe wielding gardeners” theory that someone is putting out there that inspite of the school having the gardens as a neighbor for 2 decades no less, suddenly there is a safety issue with that. That the gardeners might pick up their shovels and pitch forks and force their way into the school they have been neighbors with for decades and commit a massacre ?
Who are you kidding with that ludicrous insinuation.
Tough guy!
Tough guy
You don’t need to put “parents” in quotes. We are actual real live parents, begging to get this project moving so we can stop sending our kids to school in extra layers due to failing facilities and freezing indoor temperatures.
According the the PTA and LLES administration the answer is “Zero” Please feel free to refute that fact rather than running away.
I am a volunteer in the Tools for Schools committee which covers indoor air quality at Long Lots. The school must be replaced as quickly as possible in order to avert a crisis similar to Coleytown Middle. Unfortunately the conversation and progress of this project has been hijacked by a small group of people who are putting their needs ahead of the needs of the school, the children, and the staff of Long Lots. This was never a choice between baseball field and a garden. We must bring the conversation back to the school needs itself, and make the school our priority.
Speaking of land use, a garden has no place on a school property. If a choice was to be made today, and given the history of school mass shootings we have as close as Newtown, the decision would not have been made to place a garden and provide access during school hours at the cost of weakening the security of the children. In fact, when there were discussions back in 2005 to find a home for a garden, the superintendent of Westport school Mr. Landon objected to place a garden at Long Lots due to safety concerns, and that was only at the early onset of mass shootings epidemic.
A garden has no place on school property because it is in direct conflict with the needs of the school. The state provides the board of Education oversight of the schools and educational requirements. It is not the place for others to suggest modifications to those requirements such as building a three story school in order to save a garden.
We need more parents and people to stand up, be upstanders, and say enough to the lies, to the misinformation, to the conspiracy theories, and be the voice of the voiceless and most vulnerable in all of this, the children and staff of Long Lots school. We need to place public health and safety first.
I agree that any facility that attracts adults unaffiliated with a school (and wielding picks and shovels!) DOES NOT belong on the same property as a school. One of many things that needs to be modernized at LLS.
Here is a very tragic fact. Senator Chris Murphy has repeatedly pointed out these fact-checked facts in the floor of the US Senate. The facts are derived from a Washington Post database:
“When we [Politifact) checked with Murphy’s office, they pointed to a database project undertaken by the Washington Post that tracks every act of gunfire at a primary or secondary school during school hours since the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999. The Post found more than 200 incidents that met the project’s criteria.
“When the Post analyzed these shootings, it found that more than two-thirds were committed by shooters under the age of 18. The analysis found that the median age for school shooters was 16.”
Right so you’re saying one-third come from adults over the age of 18. Which is why there should be safety protocols in place for anyone entering a property on which a school is located.
All school shooting basically without exception are shooters who attend the school or who have attended the school..
not a group of neighboring gardeners.
The grasping at straws here is comical.
Statistics don’t matter. Especially when it comes to our kids. There will always be exceptions. Why create the opportunity for something tragic to happen? Especially in these times.
It is not the “same property” it is “adjacent property” that was acquired for municipal uses.
It’s all 13 Hyde. One lot.
Respectfully, one municipal lot that was divided for different uses. That it has one street address doesn’t mean that it all belongs to the school, any more than the school belongs to Parks & Rec.
There was a vigorous debate when the property was acquired. Many did not want the full property purchased because the school only needed property for the parking lot. Instead, Town leaders decided to purchase the whole property for future (undetermined) municipal uses. At a later point, some of that additional property was assigned to the Community Gardens through a process that went through all appropriate Town bodies. (This is all part of the public record and can be looked up on the Town website.)
As one who was on RTM at the time, my interpretation of the process was never one that the creation of the Gardens was temporary, until the BOE wanted the property.
Doesn’t matter ! It’s not part of school campus. Again you ppl are clueless
13 Hyde Lane
Land Use
Use Code 933
Description Pub School
Zone AA_A
Neighborhood F
Alt Land Appr No
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Further,
Owner: Town of Westport
Co-Owner: Long Lots Jr High
Lee Goldstein, Thomas Scarice, Jen Tooker, and the town and school attorneys all know the answer to this debate, as they have answered it many times. The school admin or BOE have no authority over adjacent lands that are not considered part of the school property. This was looked into specifically by the Chairman of the BOE and she got answers. Legal answers from attorneys are in the public domain. I would send you copies but best if you. just improved your research skills.You could also just ask any of the aforementioned.
Also, 11 Hyde Lane and 13 Hyde Lane were consolidated into one address some years ago, but the town and school properties were and continue to be governed separately. There is a special permit for the gardens, approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, who deemed it a good use of the parcel. There is no special permit on Terrace 1 for athletic fields.
The leadership of the schools and town would do well to hold another PTA meeting to share some of these pertinent facts about land use, the present safety of the school building in which children are allowed each day, the reason the school has fallen into disrepair despite pleas to address it over 9 years, and the reason LLS is overcrowded while other elementary schools have quite a bit of vacancy.
And one more thing: there are risks inside schools as well as outside, in terms of bad actors. There have been news reports of late that should be far more concerning to parents than old gardeners with dull shovels.
You’ve all goaded me far enough into engaging. Please read slowly and study how to write fact-based information.
Over and out.
The school is far more likely as history has proven, to sprout weapon welding kids than the gardeners.
Westport is not a prison.
Your comments are outrageous.
This is in reference to 5-10 year olds?
And that is where you and the vast majority of the down disagree.
Safety concerns ? What are you spouting ?
Name your safety concerns ? And for that matter the chief of police needs to immediately list his issue since he started this.
Are you insinuating that the gardeners would be the shooters on a mass school shooting, because that insinuation is OUTRAGEOUS !
It is far more likely as proof has shown the shooter would be a home grown terrorist from the student body !
I am horrified at the depths to which you have dared to stoop, to alledge the gardeners would ever be a threat to the school.
You are lucky I am not a gardener, though I am a vehement supporter of them.
But if I were a gardener I would be taking you to court stop with these self serving lies.
Cop on. !
Stop with these theatrics.
Thank you Dr Webster P. h. D. for your professional opinion. I got some news for you though. ANY type of adjacent facility that shares the grounds with the school presents itself as an unnecessary opportunity for people who wish to commit violence against children. I know you very much wish that the garden didn’t qualify as such, but here in the real world it most certainly does. And while it would be nice and neighborly of you to at the very least consider the health, safety, and well being of my children and their classmates, you’ve made your priorities clear on the matter. Please step aside, we parents have some children to protect. Thanks!
This drama is beyond. It isn’t about suggesting gardeners are school shooters (how did we get here?), it is about non-school affiliated community members having access to school property during the school day – that is a safety concern. As a parent, I’m not allowed to loiter on school property or hang around the sports fields or playground to see my child. Why? BECAUSE IT’S A SAFETY CONCERN. If someone were to be targeting the school, the placement of the gardens provides a soft target point of entry into the school property. Which, you guessed it, is a safety concern.
Oh please.. stop your drama ! I have 4 children.
And I have no stake in the gardens. BUT I THINK THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT to be there were they have been on neighboring town land for 20 years. Not once have they caused any security issue. Not once in 2 decades.
I have not argued that a renovated or new school is not necessary and quickly.
A terrible pity it was not addressed 10 years ago ! Don’t you think.
Once again. Contractors are neither entitled to nor need to have staging areas for construction.
They are a nice to have not a necessity.
Secondly the llsbc committee have changed their very shady agenda 100 times, and it becomes more and more disingenuous every time.
Maybe it’s time for some less hysterical dialogue.
Because it doesn’t matter how many tantrums are thrown here.
What does remain is the need for a new or improved school that NOBODY is arguing against and RESPECT for other groups in town.
“Maybe it’s time for some less hysterical dialogue.” You might want to take a quick look back at this comment section….
Interesting you point out respect. I’m not sure I’ve found anyone on the garden side afraid for their and their children’s safety. The bullying and harassment that public officials and private citizens have incurred from the gardeners and their friends caused the majority to be silent for a long time. They are no longer silent.
It is time for parents legitimate safety concerns to be addressed.
There are many who disagree with the statement “a garden has no place on school property”. The fact is that many communities across the country are seeing the benefits of adding gardens to schools. According to the attached article, the Town of Hamden “is building a new community garden at each of five elementary schools, aiming to raise awareness of food resources and get teachers and students active in the gardening process”. According to the Hamden Town Mayor Lauren Garrett, “The goals are to provide interdisciplinary outdoor space where kids can investigate and learn about the value of the natural world and spend more time outside”. https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/comm-gardens-coming-to-hamden-elementary-schools-18093505.php.
Jennifer, I stand corrected. I should have said that “a garden club has no place on school property”. I have no issues if the Westport public school decide to add a garden under their oversight on school property, and enrich the kids in the process. That’s a big difference from what we have now at Long Lots. The community garden is an exclusive club and outsiders are not allowed in the gardens, definitely not the students of Long Lots, and as demonstrated with the recent event, the self interest of a small group has taken precedence over the ability for the public school to have oversight over the its school as mandated by the State. The reason we are building a new school is primarily for the health and safety of children, and we need to act quickly in order to avert a repeat of Coleytown Middle School.
Joe,
Thank you for setting the record straight on this important issue that has been delayed too long. It is refreshing to see the facts laid out versus special interest propaganda.
The facts laid out ? What facts ? That the garden isn’t a school project, because the school was too stupid to do one.
Sorry ! The garden does not need to be an extension of the school.
It is a neighbor.
It is for the last time not part of the campus.
Jennifer – this garden has not once come to partner with the school. They had the Eagle Scouts help build their pergola, but if you want a garden on school grounds that’s run/managed by the school and teaches children, I am all for it.
If you want a garden social club that is meant for a select members to gather, have drinks, and hang out, then that can be somewhere else.
It is not on school grounds, it is on adjacent municipal property.
It is also not a “garden club,” it is Westport’s Community Gardens under the auspices of Parks & Rec. It’s no more a “club” than the schools.
The utter mendacity of your argument speaks to its quality.
That’s incorrect. It’s on school ground on 13 Hyde Lane. If you look it up on GIS or look up the description of 13 Hyde Lane it says Public School. Unfortunately you are not accurate in this case.
No, it is municipal property. I won’t say you are inaccurate. You are being willfully dishonest.
I encourage anyone who wants to know the truth about the property to go to the records in Town Hall.
The school only needed extra property for parking, nothing more.
Chris, so you say that the Jager property was bought for a parking lot for the school, it was combined to the school property. So now that we need to build a new school, it is normal to consider all of the property to make this construction on time and without any delays. Both the fields and the gardens are affected. That property is not for the fields or the gardens. It is mainly a shcool property. And what is more of a reason to use all of the property than when we need to build a new school, in parallel to an existing and functioning school, and do this as quickly as possible to avert a crisis like CMS.
Joe – there was vigorous debate as to whether or not the Jaeger property should be purchase and whether that purchase should only have been what was needed for the school parking lot or (as was decided) the whole property should be purchased for future municipal uses. The use for the portion used for the Gardens was decided twenty years.
No part of the decision making process included “the land belongs to LLS if they want it.” You insistence in calling the total property “school property” is misleading and, frankly, dishonest.
In another comment you said that the gardeners needn’t have been consulted with, but I wonder why the LLSBC found it appropriate to consult with other interest holders unrelated to the school. Can’t have it both ways.
@Erica – if you are worried about the safety of kids, why would you want the garden unlocked?
Absolutely agree with this. It is all one lot. 13 Hyde Lane. If a garden is going to be there is should be run by the school, faculty and have some student involvement. The garden is currently a locked private club with no affiliation with our schools or kids at all. This creates safety and potential liability issues for our kids and school district. Bottom line is that a new school is desperately needed, and that is what’s important here. Not the garden. No one is trying to destroy it due to any malice or ill will – the land is needed by the school and per the MOU, the garden club does not have a right to remain there.
The garden is not part of the school Lee.
Nor does it need to be.
Not sure what your hard on is for the gardeners who have coexisted AS NEIGHBORS. With the school, NOT on school campus for years.
The garden WHILE, not created to be a part of a school curriculum could in fact be incorporated into a school curriculum. If the gardeners feel comfortable with that.
Now the fact that you have labeled the gardeners a security threat is not only concerning but utterly outrageous, idiotic and blind.
School shootings have all been carried out by students ! NOT gardeners, minding their own business.
Point is – modern safety standard not met here. Not accusing anyone of anything. Time to modernize!
It’s not part of the school, but it’s on school property. Thanks for supporting my point.
According to your aforementioned article, the Hamden gardens will be maintained by the town but will be managed by each school’s PTA. While community members can apply to have a plot, the article states that “the money that would be raised for [sic] that would go directly back into managing and keeping these gardens up and running….they’re going to use it for educational purposes, for the schools, for the students at the schools and new programming around it as well.”
NONE of those statements are true in this case. WCG is not for educational purposes or for the students at the school. It is a gated and locked space that has never (before this Fall…) expressed an interest in collaborating with LLS.
You cannot compare apples and oranges. WCG and WPS have never “grown together.” Let us please refocus the conversation on what is best for the children in our community who deserve better from all of us.
The purpose of a community garden is not to have the school manage it. Especially when they screw up most things they manage.
The gardens are for the last time not on the campus.
They are adjoining land.
They owe the school nothing !
If they are willing to allow the school some access to attach a curriculum then fine. But that is not a given !
Under the current vitriolic allegations that you people continue to spout, oozing desperation , I would say if I were a gardener I’d be very slow to allow any co curriculum with the gardens and school.
Stop this lunacy, and these unfounded fallacies.
You are lambasting the very people /tax payers who allow Westport schools to exist.
I have seen a lot of misinformation posted lately. Technically, the garden is on TOWN property, it is NOT part of the school campus. Yes, the town can decide to change the use of the land, but the school, its parents, or LLSBC cannot; no matter how much they stomp their feet. The ballfield will not only destroy a 20 year old community garden, it will encroach on the peaceful living of the neighbors bordering that property. Don’t we have enough density in town? I mean seriously, construction/development of all types is out of control here. No dispute that the school has to be updated except that the quoted price is VERY expensive. Decouple the ballfield (that won’t be for Long Lots students anyway) from the decision and start over. Several qualified town residents have presented several options that would be lower cost and not affect the garden. Do you all really want a tax increase?
I think it’s important to be clear about this field – it is not a baseball field and not even a ‘ball field.’ It is a multi purpose use field that LLS student DO USE for recess, sports practices, and most importantly, for field day, when of the most beloved LLS traditions. All of these activities take place on the current soccer fields, space that will no longer be for general purpose ‘green use’ as it is the site of new construction. So please PLEASE everyone stop suggesting that there is a field being built for adults on school grounds. The only space on the property that exists for adults only is the locked garden.
Katie Andrew’s the map shows existing field to remain. What are you looking at? Thus no need for a super sized athletic field. Also do we really want elementary children ( or any child) to play on synthetic turf with all its known and suspected hazards including toxicity. Do the neighbors deserve toxic run off ? Does the wildlife? Do you?
Do we really want microplastics ( these fields shed) carried into an elementary school day after day if this is to be their recess area as you suggest will be the case? Lastly ironically artificial turf is a magnet for mold.
Are
You familiar with the property? There are two sets of soccer fields and a (largely unused) baseball diamond at long lots currently. On any given Saturday in the fall, all those soccer fields are in use for rec and travel games for elementary school aged kids. On any given week night in the fall, all those fields are in use for practice. We are losing half the fields for the placement of the new school. Where are we making up for the other half if not in the new multi purpose field area?
In terms of turf I cannot speak (as someone who plays no sports whatsoever) to that but I agree with you – I’d prefer a grass field and agree it’s safer for the kids and better for the environment.
@Katie – Town has well over twenty fields for sports use. And one community garden. Parks & Rec can deal with allocating field space for a couple of years while the school is being built.
It is ironic to claim the the Gardens are a “club” and then want to remove them to accommodate sports teams that aren’t affiliated with the Westport schools.
This isn’t an original comment. But imagine if town had twenty community gardens and one sports field. And as part of a school rebuild, the suggestion was made to replace the sports field with a garden that was going to be used in the building project and find a new home for the one sports field. People would think that was completely senseless.
No it is not !
That is incorrect and you are mis informed !
Fact checking:
1) The garden is on town property and is not part of the school campus.
Go check the town records online, and you will see that the co-owner of 13 Hyde Ln where the garden is located is LONG LOTS JR HIGH. Technically, you are correct that changes to land use must be done through an 8-24 application, but this municipal property is for all intent and purposes dedicated for the school.
2) The ballfield will not only destroy a 20 year old community garden, it will encroach on the peaceful living of the neighbors bordering that property.
This is all but mixing the cause and effect. It is not a choice between a ballfield and a garden. The construction of a new school IS the reason the garden needs to be destroyed. So let’s stop this false narrative so that we can focus on what is at stake. We need a school to be built as soon as possible.
3) Do you all really want a tax increase?
The town has a responsibility to the children and staff of the school. This is not even a choice. The Long Lots school is past its shelf life and is deteriorating rapidly. The town is doing its due diligence in terms of finding the best option, and the building committee recommended a new construction over renovation or what you call “updating”. The committee was deliberately formed to minimize special interests getting in the decision. That’s why there are no parents with kids in the schools on the committee. This group has already went through a successful delivery of a renovated Coleytown Middle. Their work was only preliminary and not final.
If you are indeed concerned about tax increases, imagine what the consequences would be if no action is taken, and we end up with a crisis at hand, let alone failing our children yet again to provide them a healthy and safe environment. Do you think for a moment that this would be zero cost to taxpayers? The plan recommended to the town IS the least costly option.
Lmao ! The tax increase is coming regardless… gotta love you that you just cannot see the wood for the trees here.
This town is an all inclusive community.
Let’s NOT forget who pays the taxes, the community gardeners included.
Let’s not forget who who liability are in school shootings. It’s the students.
But yes we all need to suck up the tax increase regardless. You are welcome !
Now let’s stop with the mis information which is rampant here.
The staging area is not required and the entire plan is a crock !
It’s been rushed through full of BS agendas from friends of friends of the administration.
Countless other experts have shown how this can happen with no disturbance to the community gardens but you just don’t want to hear it.
You are incapable of hearing the truth.
Instead you have gone ludicrously off script basically alleging the gardeners are a group of mercenaries planning a school shoot out.
Maybe you are spending too much of your time on the game GTA
Let’s be clear this is NOT A COMMUNITY GARDEN. It is locked and for members only. There are no more plots available for anyone new to join and there is NO – I repeat – NO relationship or outreach to the school. I have several friends who have tried to visit the garden with their children and been yelled at to leave as it was for members only. I fully support a Westport gardening club or whatever they want to call it- but for us to be having this continuous, circuitous debate about keeping the gardens at the expense of a fiscally responsible plan to rebuild the school is mind blowing in a town like Westport. You realize we’re saying that thousands of children must lose a soccer field so 100 people can grow their miniature gardens and play bocce exactly where they are right now? Let’s remember we’re not saying the gardens are being erased from the face of the earth/ we are asking that they relocate to a permanent home. Listen – I take no joy in asking the gardens relocate – but gardeners’ hard headed refusal to compromise AT ALL has lessened my ability to feel much empathy.
Well said Sandra!
You CANNOT support the need for a new school without providing the space to do construction and keep the 600+ students safe, while they simultaneously attend school in a construction zone. To say that you can have the gardens untouched and a new school without significant (frankly unapprovable by BOF) financial sacrifice and an increased risk of a failing school building, is misleading and what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. You cannot be pro new school and pro not touching the gardens.
When your article points out that the building of a new school “has never been the issue” as it has had “widespread support from all sides” that is false. The gardeners want a new school, if and only if it means their gardens aren’t touched. From the start, the gardeners were offered a rebuilt home on the LLS campus (‘it’s clear as day for anyone who wants to look at the feasibility study), but they made it very clear under no circumstances was ANYONE to touch the garden but them. We heard screams of insect apocalypses and were accused of mass murdering insects in front of our children’s eyes. Furthermore, not only did they not want anyone to touch the gardens, they wanted access to them during construction and were even offered ways of accessing them through backyard neighbors to “get around construction security”. At one point, Mr Harrington himself tried to put forth a vote at the BOE Meeting that no matter what, the gardens were off the table, without thinking of any of the financial or time implications of such a rigid stance.
So when you look to who is responsible for the delays, ask yourself, if the gardeners had just accepted the proposal to be rebuilt on the site at the end of construction, would we be here right now or would we already have board approvals? Did their absolute rigidity on not being touched contribute to the current delays? The answer is of course and the only people who pay the price are the kids.
It would be nice if the Westport Journal included any information on the stance of the gardeners throughout this entire thing. After all, much of it was recorded and publicly televised so it’s very accessible. Responsible journalism would have taken the whole story from start to finish to get us where we are now. Maybe then it would be even more clear who is responsible for leaving our children in their leaking / crumbling building longer than necessary.
I want to thank Mr. Nader for describing the Long Lots Elementary School controversy in the manner which he did. While disappointing, it was instructive to see in print. Here are some takeaways:
1. While implying that his volunteerism at Long Lots provides some sort of indisputable expertise that guarantees conclusive objectivity in this discussion, Mr. Nader fails to emphasize a probable conflict interest of him having a child enrolled in this school. This intentional omission certainly refocusses his presented perspective. As a parent with a directly impacted child, frustration is certainly understandable – but impacted parents do not have a monopoly on the frustrations that have been voiced and acknowledged, and frustration is not a wise determinative basis for decisions.
2. The many legitimate and essential questions (fiscal, design, necessity, impacts, etc.) being raised by Westport’s taxpayers, Town Officials, and several interested experts with a wealth of architectural and construction experience and expertise, are being rejected by Mr. Nader out of hand as if they either have no merit, are undeserving of discussion, and that Westport’s residents have no legitimate right to want them vetted.
3. “Many parents think it is the gardeners that are delaying the school, but that is simply not true. The proposed land use change and the slowness of these unrealistic proposals are causing the delay” – Robert Harrington. It is quite disappointing that despite this clear acknowledgement that the Community Garden participants ARE NOT the cause, Mr. Nader chose to perpetuate the “misinformation, lies and conspiracy theories” he states that he objects to in an effort to both undermine Mr. Harrington’s truthful observation and further incite parental animus towards the gardeners (and neighbors and taxpayers) who are, and have always been supportive of remedying the Long Lots School concerns as quickly, efficiently, cost effectively, and responsibly as possible.
4. By describing the LLSBC & PRC proposal’s opposition as being “hijacked by a small group of people who are putting their needs ahead of the children, etc…” Mr. Nader best re-evaluate the situation. First, as Mr. Harrington correctly stated, the group questioning THIS SPECIFIC proposal and expenditure IS NOT SMALL. Second: the process has not been “hijacked” – the Town’s political process permits, and even requires open (and sometimes contentious) debate.
Third: Of the current 28,000 Westport residents, the number who will directly benefit from a $100+ million dollar school expenditure is a tiny percentage; therefore it might be more accurately interpreted that the Town Budget, other important projects, and our Mill Rate are being “hijacked” by a small group of parents who are putting their “$100+ million dollar desires” ahead of the other 98% residents who they wish to force to pay for it – and not only pay without hesitation, but without having the ability to question and offer reasonable, or desirable, or more responsible alternatives.
To be clear: No one has been disputing that the structural concerns at Long Lots need to be adequately addressed. No one. So please finally STOP any direct or implied misrepresentations to the contrary.
5. I thank Mr. Nader for clearly articulating his unmitigated desire for the destruction of the Community Gardens. Absent any expertise, Mr. Nader emphatically states that “A garden has no place on a school property”. While he later walked this back, he did so by demeaning Westport’s as merely being an “Exclusive Garden Club” (ignoring invitations to incorporate it into the school curriculum, its outreach, & the many affiliations the Garden has had within the Westport community). In addition to the link Jennifer Johnson has provided, I offer the 2018 article Community Gardens: Interactions between Communities, Schools, and Impact on Students by Matthew R. Bice PhD et.al.: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1196092.pdf
6. Finally, Mr. Nader finally inserts another tactic – fear-mongering that the Community Garden endangers the lives of our children vis a vis Newtown.
As school safety IS an important consideration, I imagine that any worthwhile school renovation project will consider best means to harden against potential incidents – including access from adjoining neighboring homes – and any necessary improvements to secure the Community Gardens from the school can be constructed and implemented if deemed appropriate.
I would be remiss if I did not add another reason impacting the current hesitation in this project: This past summer when the RTM moderator was approached to place the LLSBC proposal on their agenda to enable the entire Westport community to have a comprehensive discussion and debate about merits and concerns, he censored such debate. Despite meeting the Town Charter’s petition requirements to obligate this discussion at the Town’s community forum in front of the representatives sworn to serve them – i.e. the RTM – this opportunity was prohibited. This breach of resident rights to petition their representatives potentially wasted 7 months. Acceptable alternative proposals might have come to light and the project might have not met the current opposition and could be on its way. The RTM should be ashamed.
Finally, that our First Selectwoman would suddenly withdraw her 8-24 request based upon a handful of detractors at the P&Z, yet ignore the scores of residents who have been vocalizing the same outrage and opposition for the past 7 months, is a clear indication of what she thinks of Westport’s “meager residents”.
This demonstration is perhaps the most disappointing of all.
Mr Walshon, that is a lot of implications and jumping to conclusions that you have written there. And once a person starts using personal attacks or make up their own facts, that person is no longer contributing to the discussion.
I would like to remind the readers though that the town supports the public schools by funding the school every year. There is no question on the value that the school system adds to Westport community, and the benefits that we all appreciate. In fact, the P&Z POCD document mentions in numerous places the importance of conserving the schools. It is also a state mandate to provide a healthy and safe environment for the children and staff, it is not just the right thing to do. Having a club on school property with an existential conflict to the needs of the school is contrary to the objectives of having a Board of Education with oversight to the educational needs. The other clubs that are using the school property did not object to the needs of the school, and they understand what is at stake, and why the new building needs to be constructed as quickly as possible. The town has done its due diligence in finding the most fiscally responsible way of moving forward, and now the rest of the governing bodies are as well.
Mr. Nader,
I was just responding to the assertions you made in your comment. No implications, no made up facts, and no personal attacks. If you believe there are falsehoods in my understanding please articulate them.
As I stated, I appreciate your candor in exposing your position, and of course you are entitled to that – but not any more than those who disagree with it. It is getting tiresome to repeatedly hear that anything less than spending $100+ million on an elementary school, and that any other design or approach, will permanently disable children’s education. Using children in this manner in order to impose upon the entire community is unbecoming. We all know that a successful education is far more dependent upon the quality of the educators, curriculum, parental guidance and student initiative rather than a building’s structure. And putting aside the often invoked contrived sentiment of “deservedness”, that a “desire” doesn’t necessarily mean “need” or “sufficient”.
This project will be the most expensive in Westport’s history with potential impacts extending beyond the school structure itself. Certainly everyone can take a breath and reconsider IF there might be viable alternatives that are both reasonable, fiscally prudent, while adequately remedying the schools current deficiencies while meeting actual educational needs and standards.
While I agree that ascribing blame isn’t productive in this point in time, it is equally true that continuing to blame the community gardeners is unproductive, disparaging and unnecessarily divisive. Just look at what that has wrought – “The gardeners use picks and shovels that are dangerous to our children!!!” OH MY!
But it should serve as a lesson to be heeded in the future.
(And BTW, I believe that those gardens are not on “school property”. )
It has already been admitted that if the garden was a cemetery, a different school proposal would suffice. If the garden was instead a private home, eminent domain would not have been utilized and a different adequate structure would have been proposed.
Fortunately our form of governance, based upon the New England Town Hall, allows for collective community problem solving. For the Long Lots problem THIS should have transpired long ago. It didn’t. Now we are finally recognizing its importance. AND as an entire community we can resolve this. We will resolve this, but hopefully without lingering animus towards fellow residents.
And the children will be just fine.
let me get this straight jay- are you saying the gardens should be held to the same standard as the hallowed ground of a cemetery?!
This is pure lunacy. Guess what — our children are going to be fabulous because the parents are coming out en masse to stop this circus and get this project done.
Your plants will be just fine.
Sandra,
Respectfully, the cemetery and private home observations were made by a Town official…but they served only to illustrate that other solutions would be explored. That is obvious. Although “sacred burial grounds” HAVE been relicated, no “equivalency” was implied…and you ignore the eminent domain example.
I cannot speak to whether or not your children will be “fabulous ” – not even sure how you would define that – but in the opinion of many, children witnessing such bully tantrum tactics cannot be healthy or character building. It sounds more like you want your children to admire you by acting in this fashion.
An adequate replacement or renovated school will eventually be constructed. The children’s education will be just fine. These hysterics are unhelpful.
What is very distressing to me is seeing the vitriol and animus snd threats being spewed by a small contingency of 28,000 residents who should instead be working together with the other 27,000 residents to resolve this issue as a community. Respectfully.
A parent stating they will “Just take the land” is simply unacceptable. I thought “Hatred Has No Home” in Westport. Great example for kids to hear.
And FYI, although irrelevant, I am not one of the gardeners you keep on attacking…but I am a resident who has as much a right to my vision for what’s best for Westport as you do – just perhaps less blinded by hysterics ruled by emotions.
Spend more energy on bringing the community together and building concensus than ripping us apart, demeaning neighbors, and demanding your way.
THAT would be a great lesson to teach children.
To be clear- the vitriol was not introduced by myself or any of the parents. In a review of this comment thread I think you would agree that the most unhinged and aggressive comments are directed at US — most as a retaliation to our simple request that the gardens kindly agree to either a temporary closure – or a free relocation – while the construction of a new school is underway and the adjacent land is needed. Pretty sure our ask is one of compromise and camaraderie between neighbors.
And for the record, the lesson we’re all teaching our children right now is that we will not sit back and be told that the children will be “just fine” and to basically shut up. I refuse to simply be a bystander to this discourse when the outcome has such immense impact on our children. Proud to be advocating for them – today and always.
Wishing you a very good evening. Off to be with my children now. Signing off on this thread.
Mr. Nader – calling Westport’s Community Gardens a Club is mendacious. And an ironic claim, given that folks are advocating for the placement of a Babe Ruth League ball field, not designed for the LLS students, to be placed on the municipal property where the Gardens have been located for twenty years, seem to want the land to be used for their private organizations.
Any Westport residents can apply for a plot in the Gardens. It is really no different from any other Parks & Rec administered function.
This is false! Parents across the ENTIRE town are advocating for a replacement of the multipurpose field that is currently used by elementary age students districtwide Monday – Friday from 4-7 PM throughout the entirety of Fall and Spring. Furthermore, the field is absolutely used more specifically by LLS Students for field day, run club to name a few. Why, no matter how many times we say it, do we keep going back to the argument that these fields are not used by elementary age students, it’s nonsense. They are used by them DAILY from Sept – Nov and March-June and all summer long for camps etc.
We keep going back to it because it is a misrepresentation. An after-the-fact excuse for a land-grab. It wasn’t part of the BOE Ed Specs. It only came up because the LLSBC went beyond its scope, seeking input from Little League buddies.
Anyone who has seen the results of FOIA requests has had a good look at the communications that went on before any of the plan was public.
There was no baseball field in the proposal. How many times does this have to be said? It was a multi use field as described above.
And how is a private garden anything other than a club?
If the Garden Club would like to grow with the school that would be wonderful. That will involve growing pains during construction, compromise during planning and coming to grow a new vision as we step into 2024. Westport had changed and all interested parties can move forward but we must accept compromise, and that means the Garden Club aka Community garden may need to move and may need to rebuild.
The children are being taught in a substandard facility and deserve a new one IMMEDIATELY.
Kids don’t have a choice of where to attend public school- and I expect that most families move to Westport for our fantastic public school system. It is devastating that a members-only hobby club, which does not currently integrate with the elementary school, is taking priority over the health and safety of our children.
ANY delays are unacceptable.
Isn’t it a pity that the administration chose to ignore the need for improvements for over a decade.
Same administration we still have. The same ppl served on board of ed and board of finance IGNORING the immediate needs.
That is NOT the gardens fault.
I’d offer one correction which is to say that the proposed fields would indeed be used by LLS students, similar to how the existing fields are used today – gym, recess, outdoor learning – and then opened up to broader Westport student use after hours. An excellent use of town space, that serves thousands of our students.
The gardens are used by a limited number of people (not open to the “community” as the name suggests), and are unaffiliated with the school (a massive safety concern in modern times). Moving these gardens is an inconvenience to this group… but should that inconvenience stand in the way on getting the urgently needed school rebuild underway? If a local photography club chimes in to complain, will we hold this up again?
It’s the job of P&Z and other officials to push through this kind of noise.
Children > plants. Time to move forward.
Community gardens always have people entering them and exiting them. By their very nature, they do not claim to be a gardening fest or a free for all.
That this is your justification for dismantling them is assinine.
Right. Gardens are great and am not denying that we should rebuild them. I don’t understand why keeping them in this spot is so important? More important than fixing a school that is absolute disrepair and will benefit thousands of kids over the next decade?
I believe there are others who do not view the garden as a ‘private garden’ but instead as a nationally-recognized/ award-winning community garden which is one Westport’s many great town resources. In truth, there have been many efforts by the WCG over the years to encourage the use of the garden by the schools, including tours and meetings with various educators. Ideas were enthusiastically shared, but no one ever followed up with the WCG. I suspect it’s not from a lack of interest, but instead a lack of funding and/or BOF budget issues. It would be a fairly nominal cost to expand the garden to make a ‘kids garden’ that could then be also used by the school. I am just commenting on the term ‘private garden’ not school safety – I strongly believe that our BOE and school officials will continue to ensure that LL is safe while the community as a whole sorts out a path forward for this important project.
As a parent of 2 long lots students and 2 future students, it is unbelievable disheartening and frustrated that the desperate need for a new school has been hijacked by a conversation that should have zero relevance. There is a community garden on school property, which should have no business being there in the first place. Currently students are not welcome there. Our children are our future – they should undoubtedly be the NUMBER ONE priority and we MUST get shovels in the ground ASAP. Nothing should get in the way of this. We cannot wait any longer.
The community garden. Westports only community garden sits on town property adjacent to the school. It DOES NOT sit on school property.
It has just as much of a right to be there as the school.
Joe, with all due respect to you as well as to your esteemed and highly celebrated cousin, Ralph, you have been “sold a bill of goods” that is quite simply wrong. The Gardeners are not the culprits here. If you insist on looking for and assigning blame for this complete and utter fiasco you need look no further than our First Selectwoman. Jen Tooker has repeatedly road roughshod over any and all efforts by our entire town to come together and manage, in a respectful and transparent manner, all aspect of this vital and important school building project. And that PTA sideshow last Weds is just proof positive.
So please don’t fall for this tired old scam. Ask yourself, what would Ralph do?
John F. Suggs
John, we can blame a lot of people on why we are here now, but we can certainly not blame the children and staff at Long Lots. They need a new school building asap. This is what is at stakes, and the conversation needs to pivot back around that.
I am aware of the state of the school and I am convinced that the plan presented by the building committee is a good plan to move forward. I am also glad that we have our first selectwoman supporting this plan and that she also understand what is at stake.
You can diminish the situation as much as you want to serve your needs, but the issues will not just go away. We do not want a repeat of Coleytown Middle School. This is not fiction or made up. We have precedence of the poor state of our buildings.
And for the poor and unmaintained and in need of “renovation” of the buildings and the schools and the towns parking lots, you have the tooker administration and the 2 before it to thank.
That does not mean we all now rush into a shady agenda which changes every 5 minutes.
Nor should the gardeners who do NOT sit on school property but rather share the same address whilst sitting on town owned land be now portrayed as axe wielding terrorists.
That implication is laughable and ruins all of your attempts at justification.
Last I checked the vast majority of the town sides completely with the gardeners.
I agree with you, John. There has been a clear lack of transparency during Jen Tookers administration. This, the Parker Harding debacle, The Hamlet. The list goes on and on. This is the most glaring example.
1. The Ed specs are silent regarding other assets on the property besides the school.
Parks and Recs testified numerous times that all they want is replacement in kind, not looking for anything additional. Why did LLSBC spend the last 6 months trying to design, position and reposition fields? The work that is out of their mandate. This unnecessarily delayed the start of construction and unnecessarily spent taxpayer’s money. Also, why is the construction of the additional/larger athletic fields, not meant to be used by the school, is being funded by the school construction budget?
2. The Feasibility study was scheduled to be completed in August of last year, to be followed by the RFP for the next phase. RFP hasn’t even been scheduled. More delays by the school building committee.
3. P&Z requested that SBC considers proposing a partial 3-story school. SBC claimed that they’d considered it would save 10,000sf in building coverage. SBC promised to consider it, but have they? This would clearly help with drainage issues.
Just a clarification on the first point regarding the ed specs since it gets repeated a lot.
The ed specs spelled out what the new school needs, and it drives the project and what is needed to accomplish it. So, it has indirect implications. Since we need to keep an existing building and school operational, and build a new school adjacent to it, the committee looked at how to achieve that, and the recommendation was made. They determined that all of the space is needed to make this work. After all, this is a complex project, and what is at stake is critical, the health and safety of children and staff.
Jay Keenan himself said that he called Parks & Rec for input about fields.
It is odd that you would say this is about Ed Specs when the Chair of the LLSBC said otherwise, when the Chair of the BOE asked, “why is the ball field here when it wasn’t part of the Ed Specs?” in (IIRC) the meeting where the LLSBC first floated their plans before the BOE.
-Keeping the gardens operational throughout construction will cost taxpayers MORE money as it will mean off-site storage of construction materials etc etc.
-The current building plan was the least expensive option explored.
-The field in the plan is a one for one replacement of the field that is being lost due to relocation of school footprint.
– what exactly is your implication in saying the delay was caused by Tooker? What incentive could she possibly have? By all means bring it to light- we’d love to know.
Guys- our town value is rooted in its nationally ranked school system. Our home values have appreciated because of the schools and the vast number of parents and families that are drawn to them. Investing in our schools and our children is an investment in our town. Westport is not one of the most desirable suburbs in the country for a community garden that insists on remaining on land adjacent to a school. Is it part of the towns appeal and charm? Certainly— and this is why the gardens have been asked to relocate to a larger plot of land so it can expand its membership and continue to operate undisturbed during construction. The town has shown its commitment to the gardens by providing this plan to “save the gardens” – promising to foot the bill to boot – can the garden constituents in turn show its commitment to the town it claims to serve?
Parents have compromised by waiting for this process to play out- all the while sending our children to a school approaching the end of its shelf life and requiring mobile classrooms to bridge the gap until a new school is ready. All we ask is for compromise from the community garden to please do the same- please please allow for the town to use the land as is deemed necessary and has been established as the most cost effective route. Please please accept the idea of a more permanent and larger plot of land for the gardens to continue to grow and thrive and serve this community. Allow us to tend to our children’s needs as you do your gardens. Am I biased because I have children in the school? YOU BET – and I will respectfully ALWAYS put the safety and needs of my daughters well above your cucumbers. I’m begging you to stop this madness.
Mrs. Rose (and many other new-to-Westport “parents”):
You moved to Westport in a flight from NYC (see news article about your “Stone” store), and chose your neighborhood and school in the process. The problems at Long Lots were well documented at this point in time. You chose this town, this neighborhood, this school three short years ago. So who is putting your children at risk? Generally the same for several others who have been quite vocal on these pages. Had you talked to parents who’ve been through 10 years of school neglect, they may have warned you off. Had you researched information about CMS being evacuated, you may have thought twice about the reputation of the schools here. It’s all been very public. Yet YOU chose THIS for your sons and daughters. Look in the mirror and don’t blame others for the fate of your children. You are accountable for them, no one else.
Toni,
Thank you clarifying your position as being anti-education. Us Parents moved here because, despite the issues, the schools ARE good:
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/connecticut
We want them to STAY good and be BETTER. You want them to crumble into the dirt so your garden can absorb more land.
Not on our watch.
Bill
Not relying on US News and World Report marketing pap or real estate sales brochures to tell me what I see and hear here in my backyard. What I’ve seen recently is a growing caseload of litigation against the schools, increasing “hate” incidents within the schools, crumbling buildings with more “emergencies” on the way, falling test scores, and overcrowding in some buildings while others have big vacancies.
These are not what I would call pillars of a great educational institution.
Sure the academics are above average, as well they should be given our many stellar educators and an ever-increasing $148 million annual budget.
This is an elite town, and people move here to be a part of whatever that means: good schools, safe neighborhoods, big houses, swimming pools, movie stars, beaches, great retail and easy access to the greatest city in the world. I moved here for the location, the natural resources, and outstanding record of safety.
There is also the illusion that this is a homogenous town for “young families.” That sounds good, like apple pie and baseball. But … you will have to drive out more than half the population for that to be true.
If you look at the facts you will see the population doesn’t actually support that claim, much as our realtors would love to continue to tout that. The largest population group is over 50 years and most of that group has been here for decades; sure some leave to reduce their property tax load, but many are “aging in place.”
The fastest growing demographic group is over age 60 … not just here, but everywhere. So perhaps it’s time to rethink how we prioritize the limited resources of our elite town, how we treat all manner of residents no matter if they are 10 or 90, and how to care for our most vulnerable: the aged, the young, the ill, the unfortunate.
Call me anti-education? Not true, but whatever. I didn’t move here for schools but I am certainly helping to pay for them.
I care about people. All people. Even you.
Hey Toni,
It’s me again 🙂 You ever wonder what this stellar school system is doing for your property values? Good thing you have neighbors like us that are advocating for improving it. And to think, we’re just doing it for our kids, and you get to benefit from that for free. You’re welcome!
Also, I’m getting major “all lives matter” vibes from your last line there. Kudos for you finding a way to somehow include plants into that sentiment. Impressive!
Toni – no school district is perfect, its all relative. In as much as you loath the elitist moving to Westport, demand for real estate by eduction loving parents pays for EVERYTHING. 90% of the town’s general fund comes from real estate taxes. If we all picked up and moved to Darien, the drop in budget and services would have you complaining about much more than this. Yes, property prices get driven up by demand, and yes, that impacts those that choose to remain here and age in place, and yes we must rely on our elected representatives to spend this bounty wisely. I am not here defending any elected official or the actions the precipitated this. I am here to get to a solution, and that will involve compromise. If you think ‘we’ have not compromised ourselves, I invite you to spend a day or two inside long lots and witness for yourself the compromises our kids, and the faculty of that school have been making. There is mold, there are insect infestations, there blazing hot rooms, there are freezing cold rooms, there is staggering overcrowding, and there is constant ubiquitous water ingress. The breaking point as been reached.
Toni, you have reached a new low here. I am actually in shock, though I likely shouldn’t be. You’ve already made the mistake twice (that I know of) of personally attacking people on public forums and then having to retract your statements and apologize to them. It is completely inappropriate of you to go after another member of our community in this way, an entrepreneur and mother who is trying to do what is best for her family. I myself have lived here for NINE years, this weekend in fact, which I am sure you know since you’ve displayed your googling prowess, and I had PLENTY of friends early on with older children at Long Lots and not ONE of them warned me off. Our section of town is beautiful, with a lot of fun, young families, access to open space and an elementary school that, despite the subpar facilities, brings joy to my two rowdy elementary boys every day. The teachers, administrators and people at the school are more important than the building itself and THAT community is what continues to attract people. I am not going to take the time to personally attack you here (though I could bc we all know how to google) but really, SHAME on you.
Attack away, Veronica. You’ve done so previously. I stand by what I say and I own my words. When I’m wrong I say so.
And I was wrong in making an apology to a certain private citizen on Westport Front Porch, if that is your reference point. Turns out that person was monstrously deceptive, manipulative and hypocritical. Conduct unbecoming in every way.
After that deception was exposed, I wrote a personal blog titled “Hypocrite” if you’d like to google it. I had no access to private info and only told their story through that person’s public filings and being a n eye witness to their public testimonies.
.
Turns out, I was correct in the first place. I won’t sit still for premeditated dishonesty directed at me or those I advocate for. It was truly repulsive.
Oops, missed a point, why oh why do you keep putting “parents” in quotation marks? Do you not believe we are actually the mothers/fathers of these children?
Sandra,
I’m assuming that your statement regarding of cost comes from the report provided by Newfield Construction that estimated the cost of keeping the gardens on site of almost 6 million dollars. This information is false, I can stake my 40-year career on it. Below is the detailed explanation.
• Excavation Costs and Demolition Costs. The latest staff report from P&Z mentioned that the soil on site might be contaminated. Neighbors who spoke at 8-24 hearing also quoted soil testing reports that show soil on site to be contaminated. Consequently, assuming stockpiling for reuse of the contaminated soil that would not permitted is an unrealistic assumption. Moreover, if the soil is, as staff suspects, contaminated, the cost of dealing with contaminated soil is not currently in the budget.
• Similarly, dumping and sorting demolition debris next to the residences and school children is not environmentally safe. Debris can be separated during demolition process at the location of the existing school.
In sum, there are no real savings in either money or time.
• Construction Materials and Extended Duration. It is not necessary to store all construction materials on site at the same time. The secure construction zone that is isolated from the school, its parking, and the bus loop as well as the community gardens, should be able to accommodate the field offices, storage trailers and parking for the managers and trade workers. Equipment that is to be used for construction would reside within the envelope of the new building. Staging for operations like concrete truck wash-out area could also fit. It is common commercial practice to purchase materials, get them approved, have them fabricated and deliver them when needed. Materials with uncertain delivery dates possibly affected by the supply chain issues could be pre-purchased and stored at the source of supply. The cost of such storage is typically included in the competitive negotiations with multiple vendors. Finally, once the building envelope is constructed, materials needed for completion of interior constriction can be stored inside the building.
In sum, there are no real savings in either money or time.
In summary, those of you that put your faith in the recommendations by LLSBC, please note that the committee have demonstrated time and again that they lack the necessary competence to critically evaluate preproposals from their consultants. Consequently, their process has taken them to paths they should have never been on, like looking to construct professional size baseball and soccer fields on the site of the elementary school and making them a part of the school’s campus. Coincidently, the gardens are not a part of the school campus, they are securely fenced off and locked. You can look at them as the neighbor, not a joint tenant. BTW, I’m not a gardener, I just believe in fairness. According to the original charge, the new design team should have been onboarded in October, but here we are, still watching this train wreck created by poorly prepared recommendations from the feasibility study.
Yulee – regarding the contaminated soil – it is my understanding that these levels were mitigated upon discovery many years ago. That aside – is that not the exact same soil and land upon which the gardens are built? Are you saying that their flowers and vegetables are toxic? Perhaps that needs to be investigated further then……
The “toxic” or as one garden member called it “dirty” soil will sit in a mound- it will be seeded with grass so as not to be unsightly while unused. It would be no more dangerous sitting in a mound than it is currently under the ground. The same garden member asked if Westport was bound to end up like Flint, Michigan?!? The way people speak about this is like we put spigots right into the earth and drink from it. Come on.
Sandra,
I don’t know if the soil is contaminated or not, this was reported in the P&Z’s staff report. I would assume that if it is contaminated and the gardens were built over it without disturbing this contaminated layer, all OK. However, if the gardens are removed through excavation for the proposed leaching fields for temporary drainage as been proposed by LLSBC, this soil would be disturbed and would require proper treatment. Hence another additional cost that LSBC didn’t consider in preparing their budget.
As I understand it, the “toxic soil” on the Hyde Lane property was the result of use of chemicals when the property was a commercial rose garden/nursery.
The toxic soil on the Winslow Park proposed site was dumped from work on the Senior Center South.
Others more knowledgeable than I would have to provide better information on toxicity, remediation measures, deadlines for removal, and how dangerous the soil could be for vulnerable people.
Thank you Sandra for pointing this out. I have the references if anyone is interested. In 2001, the town bought Jaeger property adjacent to the Long Lots school which was a farm, and they used fertilizers. By 2005, the town was looking for a home for the gardens, and the gardeners were concerned about high arsenic levels on that property.
And before others jump to conclusions about my comment above, by 2005 the Jaeger property was already part of the school property. And for those interested in more facts, the records in Westport show that 13 Hyde Ln is co-owned by LONG LOTS JR HIGH which is the name of the school before it was converted to an elementary school.
We have no choice to to operate through our elected officials. Yulee, if you are more qualified, then run for office and we will trust you and your experience. New Fairfield just got rebuild at ~$82.5mm for the same sized school / population. Seems fine to me.
What is NOT reasonable is the Gardners complete unwillingness to compromise and accept their garden may need to be disrupted during construction. The kids and faculty will be disrupted, the neighbors will be disrupted, everyone will be disrupted during construction. Why are the Gardners not willing to make a small sacrifice like everyone else?
THIS is why you have drawn the ire of 1,000 LLS parents and WHY we are now out in masses. If you have been willing to compromise this would be over (and still can be). BUT now the LLS parents are rallying their time, resources, money and future ballot votes. We have good memories and the next few weeks dictate much more than the future of the school.
Bill, thank you for your recommendation to run for office. Not sure which elected office requires 40 years of construction management experience. You seem to know a lot, so please advise. I also want to remind everyone, engaged in this heated debate about school vs gardens vs fields. There is no need for anyone to compromise. The school and the fields can be built without destroying the gardens. This is why I got involved in the first place. The narrative that we have to choose is false. Everyone seems to feel that the current’s SBC’s member’s competence comes from working on the renovation of CMS. Well, that was renovation and not replacement. In fact, if LLES was to be renovated, none of these debates would be taking place. The renovation plan as presented in the study kept all elements intact. Putting aside the false narrative that the renovation would cost more (it would cost less), the real reason for recommending the new school was to move the school building out of the way in order to create this large athletic complex. Look, I’m not a town planner, if the Town wants to build athletic complex on the LLES property, then the Town’s leadership should say so and not try to sneak this in as a part of a school construction project. And if the Town’s leadership wants to appropriate the WCGs property for another use, then say so and don’t hide behind bogus justification of the need to use it for construction of the school. If they do, they will then need to explain how they are following the Town’s mandate to protect the open space and we would be debating this openly and honestly. Honesty and competence are two elements that are lacking here.
I cannot believe we as a community and our elected officials allowed this RIDICULOUS argument to go on for this long. I get it, you love your garden, the friends you have made, the soil, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. You know what should ALWAYS take precedence, human life and in this case young children’s lives. If you say I am biased because I have a 1st grader at LLS and one entering this coming Fall, you are correct, I AM. But, you know what I would NEVER do even if I wasn’t a parent of children at LLS or as a parent in general and just simply a decent, moral abiding, and responsible member of a great community is to keep an absolutely necessary school from being built for the safety, well being, and education of young children to save my plot so I can harvest my grape tomatoes. How about this, we keep the garden where it is and every time a toilet overflows, asbestos is found, a part of the ceiling falls, we dump it in your garden so your health is affected the same way our children’s health is currently being affected? I get you think there is a way to keep both at the site, but we know at this point there isn’t and time is not on our children’s side. You all have had a head start to this point because most of us on the parent/new school side have been side tracked with our jobs and children and TBH didn’t think LITERALLY ANYONE would put a garden in front of children. But, we are here now so sack up and do what is morally right bc in the end parents with elementary aged kids in danger WILL NOT LOSE.
https://apconst.com/portfolio-item/greens-farms-academy/#:~:text=Totaling%20nearly%20225%2C000%20square%20feet,exterior%20renovations%2C%20and%20site%20work.&text=New%2020%2C000%20square%20foot%20out,and%20a%20floating%20wood%20floor
Anyone interested in seeing how proper construction occurs read this.
Mary, I’ve just read through this entire comment section and I have to give you credit. No one has shown a greater dedication to advocating AGAINST children’s health, safety, and well being than you. I gotta hand it to you. You’ve done a far greater job than any parent could have in showing the town how completely laughable and absurd it is to prioritize and superfluous garden over kids. Thanks for all that you’re doing. Keep up the good work!
Nobody is prioritizing a garden OVER kids health and safety. NOWHERE have u read anybody not advocating for the fairly immediate need for a new school.
Talk about selective hearing !
What you refuse to acknowledge is that the LLSBC were handed a self serving narrative by the administration and they the llsbc who are NOT experts, have come up with an ever changing plan for ever changing agendas.
Not agendas that have anything to do with children’s health and safety.
They have to do with an overbearing arrogance on the part of parks and rec and the administration to admit they were wrong and must listen to the whole town and formulate a plan.
That is all the gardeners and the neighbors have been asking for for over a year.
Nobody is suggesting a working school is not needed. But again, you and your like choose to insist that anybody who supports keeping the gardens MUST be anti children. And anti school.
Do you know how stupid that sounds ?
Its not stupid, its simple. Kids and education are more important that heirloom tomatoes. Gardners need to make sacrifices as well. The past is the past, drop it and lets see if the Gardners are capable of a rational future compromise.
See here’s where you messed up. Once the garden folks dug their heels in, it forced us parents to take a closer look at what the hold up was all about. And now you have our attention. Congratulations. I never gave the garden much of a thought, but you’ve forced me to investigate what it is, why it exists, why it’s on school grounds etc… in an effort to understand why any person in their right mind would be willing to delay a much needed new school to “save” it. Any sane person would agree that the best course of action is to use this opportunity to relocate the garden to a more appropriate location and allow the new school project to move ahead as quickly as possible. Because the state of the school is an ACTUAL EMERGENCY. But you said ‘no’. So remember, you brought this on yourself. You could have been reasonable which would have been in everyone’s best interest INCLUDING the garden, but instead you stuck your middle finger up at us and our children. And you’ve likely cost yourself your garden in the process.
Dan
You’ve been here how long? Two, three years? Did you research the schools before buying a house and enrolling your children in a neglected school? It’s been in disrepair long before you showed up. This was a choice you made for your family. That is a fact, sir. The problems at Long Lots had been well documented for nearly 10 years, and quite visibly in the last five years. Every family who moved to the Long Lots enrollment area within the last fives years made a personal choice to put their children in this school.
Anyone interested in how NOT to properly chill raw meat, read this:
Nomade health violations in December 2024:
https://www.ctinsider.com/westport/article/westport-december-health-inspections-18591519.php
In what world do the Garden people see this working out for them? By willfully engaging in this delay-campaign and subjecting the entire town to their embarrassing public temper tantrum, they’ve become the biggest villains Westport has seen since the British landed at Compo Beach. Do they imagine that if they hijack this project and act like petulant children, everyone will forget the ACTUAL children who they so gladly put in harms way in favor of a superfluous garden? A garden that can exist anywhere. In a town where everyone has a yard. But now they’ve drawn the ire of parents. Parents who work their butts off to afford a town and a school system that can provide the best education, safety, health and well-being available. And they’ve effectively turned these parents from being simply “pro-new-school” to “anti-garden” and I have a sneaking suspicion they’re going to live to regret going down this road. So enjoy you’re little “red tape” victories, you wacky gardeners! Pop a bottle of champaign for every additional school year the kids are forced to endure mold, raw sewage, over crowding, etc.. Because it’s hard for me to imagine these parents are going to forget your role in this, and that just doesn’t bode well for the overall future of this garden.
Dan – the “garden people” have spent months trying to get attention to their concerns. You can’t blame them for being frustrated when they have been thoroughly ignored,
Members of the BOE asked the LLSBC to bring all of the stakeholders together to try to work toward a solution, but Jay Keenan has refused to budge. There has been no meeting of stakeholders. no offering of one. Ask him why there hasn’t been a meeting of all of the stakeholders. Blame the LLSBC for having an agenda beyond its assigned scope.
My personal problem here is that there are people who simply want to treat the Community Gardens as land, pretending that twenty years of work hasn’t gone into it. (When every Town body of relevance created a Community Gardens.)
If you don’t care at all about these people, why should I care about you? Blaming the gardeners is just a desperate attempt to avoid a process that includes all stakeholders.
Chris. One should care about children more than a garden. But thank you for making clear that you see the two as, at best, equal. That’s all we needed to hear.
Clearly the talking points have been handed out.
“Call it a garden club” (even though that is a lie).
“Call it school property” (even though that is a lie).
“And whatever you do, don’t mention the enormous little league field that has nothing to do with the school.”
Chris, I am wondering if it’s because we are all looking at GIS, walking the grounds of the Garden, walking around Baron’s South, reading the MOU from 2009, reading the CDC report on the toxicity of the soil in the garden and its remediation efforts from ‘05, reading the definition of private club, reading the reports, attending the meetings, and are coming to the same logical conclusions.
It isn’t a private club, it is a public community garden. It operates like most of our recreation facilities. Every year people apply to use the plots. There’s a lock on the gate to keep people who don’t belong there from coming in. I’m pretty sure lots of our other recreation facilities have locks, too. That doesn’t make them “private clubs.”
Do the parents who are worried about their kids’ safety want them wandering in through an unlocked gate? How would that make any sense?
And, of course, not a year after the gardens first opened, this happened. Good reason for a lock, no?:
https://www.westportnow.com/community_gardens_vandalized/
Which is to say:
1. We have all come to the same logical conclusion that the gardens function as a private club. There’s a membership application, fee, and background check. Members have to carry a card to identify their membership. There a private social events such bocce ball tournaments and even Jamaican Night. And, up until it was pointing out, the locked gate had a sign that read for members only and their guests. For a myriad of reasons, having such a club so close to the school as to be on the same property is a safety issue.
2. We have also all seen that according to town records, 13 Hyde Lane is one property co-owned by the Town of Westport and Long Lots Jr. High School (now functioning as an elementary school). It’s appropriated use is as a school. There is no mention of the garden on town property card.
3. We also understand the laws of transposition. When the new building is placed on a field used for field day, running club, camps, and recess, those activities need to take place elsewhere. The field has to be relocated somewhere. We have also seen the withdrawn 8-24 which does not stipulate baseball field.
And most importantly, we go into the building daily and see the disrepair. We are forced to question how long can we tolerate our kids being exposed to these conditions? How long will the teachers tolerate it before they walk out? What will happen to ALL of the kids in Westport schools- will they relocate our kids, separate them from their trusted friends and teachers and disperse them across the remaining schools? Or will they move our kids to BMS and have two middle schools combined in CMS? How long will that last? What will be the impact on the education of all of the children in Westport?
This not about the gardens, it’s about protecting 1.25 acres of natural open space. Sport fields unfortunately are not natural open space.
oh THAAAAAAAT’s what it’s about. Gotcha. Sheesh, it’s getting hard to keep track. But to be clear, it’s in no way about hurting kids, right?
It’s only 1.25 acres? And only 108 members? This seems so small compared to the many hundreds of children who attend LLS, as well as the countless other students and families who will be impacted if the school is forced to close for health and safety reasons.
Realizing that moving is obviously not ideal- how can the town make it more appealing? I’m honestly asking, since it seems like the kids are the ones who have been forced to compromise thus far (thru no fault of anyone other than town officials who have let things get so bad). The proposed new site does need some work, but long-term would it not be preferable to have more space and located near the senior center?
The fields will be heavily used by LLS students, just as the current fields are.
There is no compromise needed. The NEW SCHOOL can be built without delay or destructions of the gardens. This debate was instigated by the false narrative created by the LLSBC. Don’t fall prey to their machinations.
Hey Yulee,
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the new school was just delayed because the garden people forced them to withdraw the plans so…..
Dan, not sure if you attended the 8-24 hearing. If you did, you’d know that at the hearing commissioners stated that destruction of natural open space by placing fields over them next to the neighboring residences would not be permitted. There was nothing said about saving or not saving the gardens. Additionally, P&Z stated that 8-24 application doesn’t need to include staging plans, they are to be reviewed later when design is finalized. I suggest that you inform yourself before making baseless statements. I also suggest that you ask LLSBC why they sidestepped state mandated process of competitive bidding while hiring their consultants. If you need someone to be mad about, look no further than the LLSBC that let us down.
Nope ! Not true
The three-level elementary school, and decreased playground size, necessary to keep the gardens is not appropriate for children. Children’s needs should be prioritized ahead of the gardens’ convenience.
I am not sure what your definition of open space is, but it certainly is not that narrow. P&Z considers Long Shore and Hunt Club as open space. So atheltic fields woulud also be open space.
Also, based on Westport 2017 P&Z Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), the Open Space Map considers Long Lots property as a municipal facility, not an perserve or managed open space.
And while we are on the POCD, we should remember that perserving the schools and athletic fields is part of that plan.
Joe, since you were at the meeting, you’d know that it was P&Z who stated that they would not accept a plan with the field over the gardens, this close to the neighbors. You should consider directing your displeasure at P&Z for stating this or LLSBC for choosing this unapprovable option, not at the blog readers. We are not them.
Yulee, I just thought you might have more insight. And I will definitely write to the P&Z .
We should remember the legal concept called “Intensification of Use.”
It’s sad and disappointing to see two groups of our community attack each other like this . I sat in the audience at the PTA meeting last week after not speaking at that meeting. It was obvious that this would be the outcome and fighting like this would occur following comments of several elected representatives. They also asked parents to make more noise. I don’t blame any of the parents. I do not blame any of the PTA. They are dong what they were asked to do.
We should prioritize a new school – period. I don’t see anyone arguing against that.
The gardeners will need to compromise and I am confident that will.
I hope we can see the gardens rebuilt in the same location once the new school is built – that would also guarantee no delays driven by land-use changes.
How did Long Longs getting in this condition ? That didn’t occur since last summer. It the failure of multiple elected representatives for about a decade or longer. The current BOE is taking action to ensure this NEVER happens again.
CMS can never happen again.
LLS can never happen again.
Getting ahead of CES.
A clear strategy for maintenance and capital plans for ALL of our 8 schools.
We rightly should prioritize the kids and teachers in our town.
However, I don’t think we need to step on, or attack a diverse group of our community to achieve that goal.
Hey Rob,
Thanks for chiming in!
Maybe spend a little less time being sad and disappointed and a little more time ACTUALLY PRIORITIZING a new school. Better make it snappy. Those elections have a nasty habit of creeping up on us.
Best!
Dan – yes the last elections played a role. The 8-24 proposal should never have been delayed until after the election. It should ave been submitted in October to keep the process going. That is 3 months plus of additional unnecessary delays. Unacceptable.
I was at the meeting, and they definitely did not ask the parents to make more noise. The parents were already getting frustrated, and the first selectwoman explained the process to us, and how she is working on finding a compromise.
Regarding the comment that the gardeners will compromise on allowing the construction and hence destruction of the gardens, that’s hard to believe, and if anything, it is just tactics to keep their gardens intact, and keep fighting every step of the way. And it makes zero sense that they would then be happy with a garden in the same location with no access to the gardens from 8am to 4pm. In that case, it would make more sense to build the garden somewhere else, have more access time, expand the garden to more people, and not miss any growing season. Pardon me if I don’t have faith in this compromise.
Joe – so you don’t want to work to a compromise or think a compromise is not possible? I do. I would encourage you to please re-think.
You have worked so hard to advocate for a new school. Surely everyone should be trying to get a compromise and move forward? Returning the garden to their current location after the prioritized school construction takes place would avoid potential meaningful land-use change delays. I think we both agree that the current Long Lots should have been knocked down a decade ago.
Robert, I don’t believe that the gardeners are willing to compromise. Like I explained, if they do accept this compromise, then why wouldn’t they have compromised to move to another location which would have been the better deal? So, you see why I would not have faith in such a compromise? There must be a catch.
Why should they ? You cannot “move a garden”
It’s not a moveable thing.
Its soil. Roots, it’s not moveable. It doesn’t need to be moved.
The contractor needs to find a train station like the bus contractor to put his staging area… very simple.
Not complex.
Maybe some buddy will have to deliver his contractor buddy the bad news.. oh sorry man ! You will need to keep your crap off campus.
Ohh ok..
simple as that.
Joe – if you think the First Selectwoman is working to find a compromise, I have a bridge to sell you.
As an elected representative myself and other elected representatives have been trying to sit down with Jen Tooker for months. She just ignores the request or refuses. I have seen this go on with countless elected representatives who have tried too. There were multiple requests from different elected represents in October alone. Response: A few words, but no conversation or meeting.
2 years ago I was hosting a community event exclusively to talk about the conditions at Long Lots School and CES. Jen Tooker was going to be one of the main speakers but she canceled on the day of the event as she felt I was too outspoken on the conditions of those schools.
Sit down. Talk. Prioritize a near school that should have been knocked down a decade a go. Provide a bridge to the gardeners but they will need.to compromise. (Let them return to their home and rebuild after the construction of a new school). Rinse Repeat, and then do the same at CES.
Chris, I am just making a statement regarding the remark Robert mentioned. Maybe you missed the reason I brought this up. But since you want to debate that, we all know who is not willing to compromise here and were making so much noise from the start when they heard wind that the property at 13 Hyde Ln including the gardens was considered by LLBSC in their work. The gardeners are definitely not willing to compromise one bit, and we are here now because of that. Parents are fed up. And we are fully aware where we need to direct our fight to put our children’s health and safety ahead of special interests.
Joe – I assume Robert’s comment immediately above yours wasn’t up when you commented. You want to blame the gardeners, but they have had no voice in the process. And there has been no attempt by Tooker or the LLSBC to engage with them, despite the urging of BOE. They were making plans that could destroy the gardens a year before word leaked out. The BOE Chair and Superintendent was aware of this (hence his offensive “I have a chainsaw” comment from the Superintendent). Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the gardeners were the last people to find out, when they were being so directly impacted?
Your idea of compromise seems to be, screw the gardeners and let them find a new home. In what world is that ANY kind of compromise?
The issue hasn’t really been the school, but the ball field that the BOE did not ask the LLSBC for. I guess now it is also “staging area,” too, as they move the goalposts constantly. As if building projects don’t take place all the time, without huge staging areas.
The LLSBC committee “plan” would raise the taxes of everyone in Town about 3.5%. It behooves us to get it right. It also behooves us to allow the input of all interested parties who are paying for this project. (To read comments about the gardens making the build out more expensive… oy, this is a proposed $100 million project. Clearly the cost is the last thing on the minds of those who want a new and/or rebuilt school – no matter how worthy the project is. Clearly they want a blank check.)
You’ve said the same thing in every one of your comments – we need the school and nothing else matters. The property on which the gardens sit have never been used by the school – doesn’t matter. The property on which the gardens sit wasn’t bought for the school – doesn’t matter.
When the LLSBC scheme leaked out, the gardeners began to speak up. And if I have said once, I’ve said a dozen times, this has been a flawed process in which the LLSBC went far beyond the scope of its mission. That is going to create delays. But you want to blame the gardeners? You were told what would happen. Heck, the neighbors are clearly more concerned than the gardeners, because of the artificial turf field, lights, and water runoff issues that would come their way – and I get that you don’t care about the neighbors, either.
The gardeners are taxpayers and they pay annual fees to use a Parks & Rec facility that they have labored over for twenty years. You shouldn’t lecture others about compromise when all you care about is getting what you want when you want it. The gardeners don’t want to create delays, but they want their legitimate concerns (given twenty years of hard work based on decisions made by every relevant body in Town government considered). The neighbors want their concerns considered. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
The LLSBC refused to do that. And then, when it came before BOE, the attitude of the majority was “oh, its unfortunate, but we really don’t want to delay the project.” Well, you can see what has happened because of people kicking the can down the road. This “other Town bodies will consider that aspect” has been used as an excuse to rubber stamp the project. But as soon as one Town body does have some serious questions about the project and the process, there’s suddenly outrage? Maybe you should reconsider where to target your ire.
Chris, I don’t think that the LLSBC need to work with the gardeners on what needs to be done for the school, because the Parks & Recs are the ones who are managing the gardens and the athletic fields. The Westport gardens have found 3 homes already, at Staples, Bedford, and now Long Lots. If the gardeners want a permanent garden, maybe they should ask for one, but not share a plot with the school. The agreement with the Parks & Recs was that the gardens could be taken away from them if it is needed for athletic fields. So let’s not exagerate things or start your accusations left and right without any merit, like taking things out of context form the FOIA emails as a proof there is a there there. I’ve heard those arguments before, and it is not sticking by the way.
Also, if the gardeners would instead take this opportunity to lobby for a permanent place not on school property, and get the P&Z to designated as a preserved open space, this might be a much better outcome for everyone, and something that I can rally around and support.
The first selectwoman has no interest in seeking a compromise. She never does.
She is the cause of this now cat fight going on and is trying to in vain divide and conquer. That is how she does business.
It is very clear to anybody, gardener, parent, tax payer who has followed this debacle that there was an agenda from the start to build a field not for use by long lots students at the Hyde land town owned property. The garden is not part of the campus.
The garden is a neighbor.
One minute the land was required for the ball field, now the garden is required for staging !
She appointed volunteers to the LLSBC, and we now know no decent or appropriate minutes were kept for any of their meetings which are all subject to FOIA.
Quel coincidence, there are none, or few.
The LLSBC were without a doubt informed or briefed and coached on what the desired outcome of the administration was.
The screw up here was just that.
The committee had its orders.
Now suddenly the garden is needed for staging.
Well no !
Staging is not as Yulee pointed out a necessity.
It is a
“Nice to have” or “convenience” that whoever the lottery ticket winner of this fiasco, standing to make untold and completely unjustified exorbitant profits, being handed the project with utterly inflated prices which have now been made so public and being treated as the word of the lord, surely means anybody bidding the project even if the number should be 70million knows that they can come in at 100 million.
Another ruse on the Westport tax payer.
An outrageously iresponsible contribution by this administration on how NOT TO HANDLE town business.
And so now that they have push back from P and Z and other officials and just as importantly from the community in general, the reasons for the gardens needing to be moved has yet again changed..
it’s comical.
Parker Harding was the same theatrics. Put back in the cut through, and the neighbors go away. So the plan there was to diminish the voice of the merchants by placating the neighbors.
To dilute the objections.
Problem is anyone who can read a plan can see in order to put back the cut through road the parking spots were made Barbie sized. An absolute joke.
Who do they actually think they are kidding.
Worst part they could care less..
this anti business administration does not care what any of us think.
Arrogance is all that they know. And when they get caught with their agenda around their ankles, they instead of fixing it or apologizing for it, double down and refuse to take responsibility or simply say that was a mistake.
No accountability whatsoever for the disasters being caused here.
And I have no dog in the fight for the gardens or the school.
The school should have been fixed 10 years ago !
But the very people you now hail as our administration sat on the boards of ED, finance etc during that 10 years.. surely they should have been fixing it then ?
But they weren’t and didn’t.
So now there’s a panic on their part, and more importantly an agenda.
They were hoping for a twofer… and now that the twofer is clearly not a runner, they are determined to try and screw the gardens as “pay back” for not getting away with their agenda.
It’s the most immature and disgraceful display of arrogance I think I have seen in 22 years of calling this community home.
You do deserve a working and excellent school.
So do your children.
The community gardens deserves to also keep their spot and not be destroyed by some contractor ( as I already stated who’s getting the gimme of the century, using it to plonk his garbage on.
Let him move his crap elsewhere.
Like we all do when we are doing a renovation or build.
Nobody is trying to delay the school which should have been addressed 10 YEARS AGO !!!!!!
Facts !
We are all on the same side here.
Just not the side of the arrogant sides choice determined to not lose face or incapable of accepting they were dead wrong and got caught !!!!!
Westport is a community, not a one trick pony.
Everyone’s important here.
Everyone pays taxes without grumbling, the majority of which go to education of our children. Nobody complains.
Stop accusing the gardeners of being selfish. They are not.
They are on your side.
My last comment is on security.
That is the biggest crock of garbage I have ever heard in my life.
There is absolutely no security issue with having a garden as a “neighbor” to the school and the fact that this administration has the balls to insinuate that it does, and to call into question the character of the gardeners, alluding to the fact they might be mass murderers, might be the most dispicable thing I have seen come out of this shit show.
If nothing else the gardeners presence next door might be the first alert… in the case of a disturbance.
There ought to be an immediate apology from the town on this ludicrous un founded fallacy.
I believe 2 decades speaks for itself and deserves an apology…
Oh cool. so the gardeners are now going to act “extra security” for the school? Genius!
I don’t expect a ton of parents to align with you on that. But by all means, let’s throw it on the board with all your other wacky ideas and opinions.
What should we call this one? How about, “Deputize The Gardeners.”
Not sure it’s beat, “Eliminate any unnecessary person from having any reason to be on school campus” but sure let’s put it to a vote and see how it all shakes out.
Oh cool. so the gardeners are now going to act “extra security” for the school? Genius!
I don’t expect a ton of parents to align with you on that. But by all means, let’s throw it on the board with all your other wacky ideas and opinions.
What should we call this one? How about, “Deputize The Gardeners.”
Not sure it’ll beat, “Eliminate any unnecessary person from having any reason to be on school campus” but sure let’s put it to a vote and see how it all shakes out.
Hi Robert, thanks for your support in moving forward as fast as possible with our desperately needed new school. One thing I want to clarify: the word compromise is being used a lot here (including by you). Elected officials are not tasked with making everyone happy and brokering compromises. They are tasked with hearing all voices and SWIFTLY taking action that benefits the greatest number of constituents. Voices heard. Let’s move! This is embarrassing for our entire town, and young students are the ones bearing the brunt of this politicking.
Hey Toni,
I know you think you really “got” me with your last comment, but I regret to inform you that I actually grew up in Westport. Yup, I was here long before the garden and I’ll be here long after it is gone. Since you might be a little new here, allow me to teach you a bit about our town. For well over 40 years, Westport’s identity has been mostly about one thing: families. And more specifically, children. It’s why we have this terrific school system and why parents with the means rush to move here as soon as possible. So what this little “hissy fit” has effectively done, is picked a fight with the largest and most motivated group in all of Westport: parents. Now we are also the most busy and distracted group, so it’s taken this childish behavior to get our full attention. But congratulations, you now have it. You’re correct that we all made a personal choice to send our kids to this school, so buckle up for our next personal choice: building a much needed brand new school as quickly as possible, and not letting any spoiled special interest minority throw up any more road blocks. There is nothing I and my fellow parents won’t do to protect and advocate for our children. I find it surprising the garden folks couldn’t see this coming when they tried to play politics at the expense of kids. I’m not looking to win an argument with you, because we clearly have different values. Mine: family, children, health, safety, education. Yours: plants? I’m just here to let you know that the jig is up. If I were you, I’d get in as much garden time now as I could, because the next sign anyone puts up over there is gonna say, “Going out of Business”.
Your lunacy is beyond the pale. I have my own garden. I will garden as long as I choose. I have a hundred options to garden in greenhouses, trial fields, and other people’s gardens all over the world. This is not about me, asshole.
None of this is about me. Others here are not as fortunate as I and so I advocate for them and for the neighbors whose homes are likely to be defaced.
I have been a taxpaying homeowner in Westport long before you decided to procreate, buy a home, and pay taxes here. But please, do educate me on what was going on here in 1984? I would love to know what I missed. Poopy diapers?
Chris,
The compromise is that community garden gets to exist at all anywhere. If I were you, I’d grab that deal before it’s no longer an option.
Classy comments, Dan. Do they reflect the values you think should be taught to our children?
yes
As much as we support schools, the community gardens are every bit as important. Your assertion is insulting !
And if you are a new implant in town and this is your attitude you better fix it.
While Westport loves schools, it loves a sense of community. And you had best do a quick study on the demographics here.
Predominantly over 45… so please do not discount gardeners and or seniors.
Let’s all grow together.
Community gardens are just as important as the schools.
I’d grab that deal if I were you before we all tell you take a hike.
These back-and-forth comments are not productive. This is what happened. At 8-24 hearing P&Z commented that they had no objections to the school component of the LLES project. Their objection was to the proposed location of the athletic fields, specifically as it relates to the proximity to the neighbors. The administration was not required to withdraw their application for the new school, that could have proceeded. Instead, they chose to delay the process once again so they can figure out how to place the fields on the property. I say once again, because the design for the school was finalized in the summer. Yes, six months ago, the administration could have started procumbent of the design for the new school. Instead, the LLSBC embarked on a task of studying the townwide needs for various athletics fields to make sure that the new Long Lots school would accommodate the large athletic complex. Then, to quote the chair, they began “moving the boxes” to see how it would all fit. All the while the school project stood still. And these are the people in whom you trust to make competent decisions on our behalf?
Yulee,
You have a good summary of the meeting, but you forgot to mention that the chairman spent 80% of his time talking about “Babe ruth” baseball field that was not even in the 8-24 application, and then made his comment that he would like to make the field smaller to make room for a garden, ignoring what impact it will have on the project itself. So even if he agreed with the school plans, he failed to ask questions on what impact his request has on the plans.
As for your comment that the building committee were causing delays when they had the plans already. Is that a case of mixing cause and effect? At that time, the small group of gardeners were making so much noise, and manufacturing conspiracy theories, that they ended up causing delays in the process because more diligence was now needed. So let’s not forget what caused these delays.
Joe,
So that I understand your point correctly, the cause for SBC’s delay in provided recommendation in August of last year was associated with the noise from the Gardners and not associated with SBC awaiting P&R’s study of the townwide usage of athletic fields? If so, how do you explain that the recommended Option C showed professional size baseball field in place of the gardens? What did gardeners get for all of their “noise”? I don’t think that SBC was really swayed by the “noise” that you mention. It is however clear which master they are serving by looking at the actual recommendation. I don’t believe that they care about the kids, if they did, they’d be procuring design already. The RFP has yet to be issued. This process takes more than 2 months and will be another delay.
Joe might talk about a small group of gardeners, but it seems to be a small group of individuals attacking the gardens by posting over and over and over, here. He’s probably commented close to thirty times at this point. The Pritikins, maybe twenty. And none of them see “compromise” as anything outside of getting what they want, when they want it.
Chris,
For the record, as of this posting, I have a total of 17 comments, you have 18, and Dan has 20 comments.
I am not looking to start down the path of personal attacks, and work hard to keep my comments respectful and factual. That doesn’t preclude throwing in some of my opinions as long as they are not consipiracy theories or based on lies.
More importantly, this is not about me. And you probably have heard me say this before, but I will repeat it just in case, it is about the most vulnerable stakeholders that have no voice in this matter, the children and staff of Long Lots.
And you also did not mention that there was a deadline for the P&Z to respond to the 8-24 application, and therefore the P&Z would have to vote on Jan 8 meeting or otherwise the application would be approved automatically in case there was no vote. So, no, the delays came from the P&Z because of their objections, and the the town wanted to give this more time to find a solution.
@chris Grimm – I don’t want it unlocked I want it moved. If there’s going to be a garden on school property, it should be a school garden
And enough of the comments that it’s not school property. That’s just false. The Westport parks and rec website explicitly describes the garden as “being on school property”
Erica, it is municipal property. Municipal property that was acquired even though the school didn’t need it. I get that you want what you want when you want it and don’t care about anyone else in Town, but P&Z well knows the status of the land (regardless of what you found on the P&Z website).
“I want it moved.” Yes, that sense of compromise that we’re all looking for. You and your husband must be instilling really selfish values in your children.
Chris, your comments and personal attacks are shameful. You can keep saying what you want about the land, but it doesn’t make it true. It’s for the school, and now the school needs it. Compromises have been sought from the very beginning but that’s hard when the garden dogs it’s heels in and refuses to be touched. It’s moved twice before- maybe now is a good opportunity to find it a permanent home becasuse, guess what, next to a school doesn’t work long term. And if you’re saying do I not want an unaffiliated club if adults meeting at on elementary and potentially preschool grounds, absolutely. Enough with the attacks. Time to move forward.
The lady doth protest too much.
oh this must be the “personal attacks” Robert was alluding to on Facebook. Keep it up, Chris! I’m sure implying we’re all terrible parents will work wonders for legitimizing your argument. Hey Lauren Macneill, did you miss this ^ when you decided to “unbiasedly” declare those advocating for children the “bad guys”?
No Dan I didn’t miss it – its what I’m talking about. you are the ones attacking… I have some other people in town to introduce you to because they play the same game. Attack, be nasty and then say don’t attack me personally and I’m so worried about my own personal safety. We don’t fall for this in our town – in case you missed the last BoE election.
These comments are seriously concerning. I don’t know what happened in the last week , other than these PTA and neighborhood meetings, but all of a sudden its the gardeners fault the school is such in disrepair, the process has been faulty and the community deserves their questions answered?
I have no allegiance with the community garden at all and in fact I am the mother of a teen that does play on a Babe Ruth size baseball field – which the town is in desperate need of. However, there is no reason at all to put a Babe Ruth field WHERE there is a 20 yr garden. We need a real Babe Ruth field in town (my suggestion is fix the one we already have at SES/KHS and partner with PAL on the football clubhouse already in the works). FYI, Babe Ruth fields are the size of Major League fields and kids do not play on them until they are 13/14 yrs old.
I have watched as Toni, Yuli and others have patiently and clearly explained the concerns with the “proposals” for the last few months. This is the single largest expenditure in town and impacts us all. I saw a post today on facebook pointing to this thread from one of the LLS parents saying they could not believe how the gardners were talking to them on this thread. I came over to see what could have changed and I saw just the opposite. The level of misplaced anger and hostility from this group of parents towards the garden community is disgusting and misguided. I have never once seem them say they don’t want a new school. In fact, they and others like Robert have been warning the school community that this process was going to delay the school moving forward. The committee over reached and they are the ones who took aim at the gardens (not on school property) and had this ridiculous idea about a major baseball presence. They are the ones that have caused the delay, not the gardeners. Stop attacking your own community members who probably already raised their kids through our school system.
The comments from many of the LLS parents seemed highly emotional and factually inaccurate. That isn’t going to help.
The Garden is not on school property and the fight to keep the garden is not delaying the new school. Everyone agrees children come first – it is not the people trying to save their garden that are to blame with where we as a community are with LLS.
Lauren,
Your upside-down assessment of this debate is doing way more to reveal your biases than anything else you actually wrote. Thanks for clarifying your priorities. Those advocating for children need to know what we’re up against.
Dan my assessment is about the vitriol of you and a handful of others and your abhorrent attacks and lack of civility in this thread. Safety concerns about having the gardners on the adjacent municipal lot ? Please. That’s actually vile. You are not advocating for children by attacking the wrong community – and your suggestion that you are and others who are civil, professional and measured are not speaks volumes. It feels a lot like when the Trumpers would tell us we didn’t love America because we didn’t love him and we didn’t hate others. We call BS. Everyone wants a new school for the children – and the teachers and the staff. Your anger is misplaced, unwarranted and unwelcome. And its suspicious that a handful of parents are all spewing from the same playbook. Have you or any of the parents who are now so vocal done anything at all to help in this process ? Or are you just here to bully and scapegoat?
I promised myself I wasn’t going to waste time that I do not have coming back to this ridiculous thread but if I hear one more presumably intelligent person say the garden is not on school property I might actually explode. As other have suggested, its a simple matter of looking into town records to find the documentation. Took me 10 minutes, here is the site https://www.westportct.gov/government/departments-a-z/town-clerk-s-office/search-public-records. Search for “Hyde Lane” and there is a document dated 11/02/2005 from when the garden were requesting to move to Long Lots and needed a special permit. The very first stated “finding” by P&Z at the time says very, very clearly “THE PROPERTY AT 11 AND 13 HYDE LANE WAS CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE LOT AFTER THE TOWN PURCHASED THE JAEGER PROPERTY AND MERGED IT WITH THE LONG LOTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY.”
I don’t know how it could be more clear than that. I know most of you, at least those new to this conversation, are likely kind and well intentioned individuals but please do your research and don’t just come here and repeat incorrect information that other people have told you or that you have read, that serves no one.
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.
Lauren
You say that you “do not know what’s happened “.
It appears that because the P&Z has correctly asked important questions regarding the LLSBC’s proposal Jen Tooker decided to endorse in her 8-24 application, a group of parents do not want the P&Z to perform their responsibility to the Westport community. When Tooker decided to withdraw her 8-24 after hearing the concerns being expressed by the P&Z commissioners, and perhaps finally entertain modifications to the current CG area (tonight we will find out what those changes are) a group of parents decided to bully the Town to get their way.
They required a strategy – so the easy one seems to be to falsely scapegoat kind, caring and responsible residents who are looking for answers to important questions and potential solutions that might better fit the needs of our community – perhaps seeking other expert opinions before embarking upon the most costly projectin our history and understanding all its ramifications. The tactics of smearing residents- many of whom are elderly and long time residents- has been chosen because it’s so easy to do – and because big lies coupled with uncivil treatment of those who instead rely upon facts, objectivity and solution seeking discourse, is a historically successful means to threaten and intimidate others into “submission”, silence those who won’t engage in trading insulting rhetoric, and bully all of the decision makers into doing what they want instead of performing their sworn responsibilities and duty to the entire 28,000 residents in conformance to the Town Charter.
I too find the vitriol of these parental comments alarming as it has revealed a true hidden character of many living amongst us. Westport used to be a community where everyone’s concerns mattered and as a community we resolved issues together.
It is particularly disgraceful that their children have been invoked as being the shields for this disgusting behavior.
Next you will see lawns splattered with signs “Build the school” as if ANYONE has suggested to not appropriately remedy Long Lots. What a waste of energy.
Such a shame. All this could have been avoided had Jen Tooker been completely transparent and appropriately inclusive from the outset, had Jen Fava not been permitted to secretly insert her plan to replace the Community Gardens and Preserve with a Babe Ruth ballfield, and Mr. Scarice not been so eager to laughingly offer his chainsaw to assist in this destruction – as if it were funny.
This is what all of that has wrought. Congratulations. It’s NOT funny at all.
Hey Jay,
Not seeing a lot of “smearing” going on here. Just concerned parents challenging an obvious wrong-headed position. I know it would be more comfortable if the garden people could position themselves as the “victims” in all this, but I think they’re going to have a tough time wrestling that title away from the kids. The problem started with the disingenuous “Save The Garden” signs. The gardens were already “saved,” when the town offered a new permanent home for them off of school grounds. Those signs are the only bullying I’m seeing around here. No one is being threatened or intimidated from this end, as much as you might wish that were the case. Sounds like you’re just mad that we’ve finally decided to speak up and fight for our children’s well being. Next time maybe you guys should try to be a part of the solution instead of the problem. That would at least save you a little money at the print shop.
Dan,
Obviously you do not have insight into the language and assertions you and others have been making.
Scapegoating gardeners.
Ignoring concerned neighbors.
Dismissing senior citizens – many living on fixed incomes.
Censoring and belittling other’s perspectives.
Accusing gardeners of weilding implements of murder.
Threatening elected officials at the ballot box for doing their job.
Threatening to just “take the land”.
Threatening the permanent demise of any community garden.
The list goes on.
Clearly your emotions have blinded you and others to your vitriol and animus.
I do not fault you for your concerns. I admire parents who are invested in their children. Having been a very involved parent in Westport’s schools, I know that importance.
However what has transpired in this blog has been not just disappointing but actually disgusting and despicable. And it has been so unnecessary.
For Jen Tooker to remain silent and allow the gardeners to continue to bear the brunt of this misguided and misdirected animus is a dereliction of her duty to the larger Westport community. She needs to apologize.
No one disagrees that Long Lots requires remedy. No one.
However differing opinions exist on how best to accomplish that. Differing concerns are to be expected – and are important. Differing needs are part of the equation. AND
everyone impacted should get their perspectives fairly and respectfulky heard and considered. Everyone.
That others with construction expertise have been ignored is unconscionable. That Westport’s own Public Site and Building Commission has been intentionally prohibited from involvement is outrageous.
You want to disagree? You want to advocate? It’s encouraged that you do that.
But what has transpired in this thread should stop. It should never had occurred in the first place.
BTW your children are hardly the first impacted by the Long Lots School’s conditions. In 2006 those kids were shuttled around for two years while renovations occurred. And guess what – a parent recently testified that her daughter not only excelled but credits her resilience in no small part to that experience. NO ONE acted in this vitriolic manner then.
You want to put out lawn signs to advocate and promote what you’ve been stating. Fine. Go at it.
But don’t have the signs say “Build the School” because everyone already agrees with that premise. That’s not what has been said here.
Instead have your signs publicize what you have been stating: Here are a few suggestions:
” Gardeners are potential murderers of children”.
“Destroy Westport’s Community Gardens”.
“Take back the Community Gardens land – NOW”
“Our Kids Matter – Neighbors DON’T!”
“Spend Now! Ask questions later!”
“OUR KIDS deserve an open checkbook!”
“My way – OR ELSE”
See how well any one of THOSE sentiments go over.
You owe good caring people an apology.
You owe concerned seniors an apology.
You owe the gardeners an apology.
You owe the concerned LL neighbors an apology.
AND you owe the children you’ve used as an exuse to behave in this manner an apology. THIS is not a healthy role model for their future social and business conflict resolution no matter what you might believe..
And once again, I am not one of the gardeners. But that is not relevant.
What ever First Selectwoman Tooker and her cronies said at the Long Lots PTA mtg last Weds coupled with her abrupt withdrawal of the 8-24 application the next day, has now unfolded here on this post (159 comments and counting!) and the tandem GoFundMe Page soliciting donations and it is exceedingly disturbing. I have lived here well over twenty years but have never seen or experience anything quite like this. The closest thing I can even equate this to is the weaponization of Donald Trump’s Stop the Steal Rally just before he unleashed the Jan 6 mob on the Capital chanting “Hang Mike Pence!”
What happened at that Long Lots PTA Mtg? What did Tooker and the LLSBC say to evoke this much rage and vitriol? And why have Tooker and the LLSBC, just like Trump, stayed willfully silent while all of this has been unfolding? These past few days are straight from the Jan 6th playbook!
Everyone, please listen! We are being played! Whatever was said at the Long Lots PTA Mtg was cynical and manipulative. PLEASE STOP! TAKE A BREATH!
TOOKER All EYES ARE ON YOU! THIS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! SPEAK UP! STOP THIS MADNESS! NOW!!
John F. Suggs
oh nice. We’ve entered the “this is just like Trump” phase of the debate. nothing hysterical about that.
John, you are jumping to conclusions and it does not help the conversation. Why do you not recognize that parents are getting angry because of the P&Z Dec 18 meeting, and the withdrawal of the 8-24 application which happened right after the PTA meeting. Many of us have been on the sideline, quiet, and letting the process take its course. We gave the small group of community garden supporter make their case. Now it is our turn. Things have changed. Instead of making up some incorrect theories, you should be ready to counter our factual arguments and make your case with the town bodies. We have had enough of the lies and those wild theories.
It’s unfortunate to see how all of this has unfolded; personal attacks, bringing our parenting abilities into question, comparing us to the insurrection!! Veronica and myself have tried for months, even before gardeners were involved, to communicate the urgency and the need for a new school. We have tried to politely suggest at every meeting that, while parents may not be in the audience due to childcare conflicts, they are indeed as passionate about a new school as we are. We encouraged the gardeners to work together with us, to understand that the gardens would be closed off and likely destroyed during construction, and so we should focus on finding them a new home together. We said this on almost every occasion, knowing that this would lead to the best possible outcome for everyone. We take absolutely no pleasure in the idea that people’s hard work would be dismantled, and we want to find a place where the gardens can flourish and members can enjoy the gardens without the confines of inaccessibility due to construction and school hours. Unfortunately, no one listened and no one budged and so the repetitive conversation about the gardens being both untouched and accessible during construction continued. This is time we could have spent discussing whether the gardens should be rebuilt on the LLS property or off of the property and how to make them better and more enjoyable for more people in the community, but that wasn’t considered acceptable. Nothing but leaving the gardens untouched was acceptable.
Now all of the sudden, everyone is surprised that the 300 parents (and more) that we said existed in those petitions and letters are vocal and upset. It’s as if you wanted to pretend they didn’t exist in the first place and you’re shocked to hear they are actual real people; real people who are fed up with the state of the school and the idea that a garden has occupied so much of a conversation that is supposed to be about a school. As this continued, parents started to ask more and more questions. The more people engaged on the issue, the more they understood how out of hand this conversation had gotten. This is what has brought us to this point; there was no magic in the PTA meeting, in fact elected officials barely spoke. The LLSBC gave a presentation (the same one all of you who i recognize from meetings) have seen half a dozen times. Parents then asked questions. That is ALL, end of story. The same parents, who are now incredibly vocal, have been around all along; they have all just realized that level heads are not prevailing and it’s delaying the school that is so desperately needed for their children.
Sarah
With all due respect your assertions are not absolute – they are merely predicated upon what the LLSBC has provided you. While I DO NOT doubt your sincerity, you are missing important pieces of this puzzle.
I will not reiterate those but will just observe this:
1. There are different constituencies approaching the SAME desire for a rectified Long Lots School from different vantage points. That’s all this is. Parents, gardeners, neighbors, concerned seniors, environmentalists, construction experts, travel baseball/soccer enthusiasts, attorneys, budgetary conservatives, other school districts, and more. EACH have valid concerns and questions. EACH deserve to have their concerns/questions/perspectives heard and adequately addressed. That’s how a caring community works outside of a patriarchy. Jen Tooker and the RTM intentionally prevented that important “ecumenical” discussion from occurring long ago. If it had, most likely a resolution would have been hammered out and we would be on our way. If this LLSBC proposal IS the only solution, so be it. However at this point that is highly doubtful – and the LLSBC even presented an alternative. There ARE others.
2. Regardless, your explanation for why so many parents on this thread have stooped to this egregious behavior is merely a hollow excuse that does not fly – and I imagine almost everyone outside your world finds this despicable.
Had your children behaved this way, it is certain their teachers would have scolded and stopped this – and no so called asserted “rationale” would be permitted justification.