
By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Transit Committee of the Representative Town Meeting on Monday voted against recommending the full body approve funding for a redesign of parking at Jesup Green.
It was the second week in row the overall plan to remake downtown Westport’s parking areas and Jesup Green encountered opposition.
A week before, the Planning and Zoning Commission gave the plan a frosty reception and continued its discussion.
Monday’s single agenda item for the Transit Committee was a request by Public Works Director Peter Ratkiewich for $630,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funds “for the design and permitting of the redevelopment of Jesup Green and the Imperial Lot.”
At the end of the meeting, a motion was made to recommend the full RTM pass the funding from a federal ARPA fund.
It failed in a lopsided vote with Andrew Bloom, District 1, and Ross Burkhardt, District 3 in favor.
Melissa Levy, District 2; Chairman Richard Lowenstein, District 5; Ari Benmosche, District 8; Rachel Cohn, District 8; Jennifer Johnson, District 9; Sal Liccione, District 9, and Peter Gold, District 5, voted against.
Various iterations of parking improvements and ideas of bringing grassy areas rather than asphalt to the riverfront have been pondered for decades.
But recent plans by the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee, to carve out an uphill chunk of Jesup Green for use as 40 parking spots to replace those lost in bringing Parking Harding Plaza up to modern standards, to some sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard.
That second phase of the plan would build a new terraced lot on upper Jesup Green, felling several tall trees, while about half of the existing Jesup parking lot, between the green and river, would be transformed to green space. That would net about 850 more square feet of green area than exists now, Ratkiewich noted.
Ratkiewich took time to detail the logistics of upgrading the town’s parking lots, and the sequencing needed. And, he noted, in a potential third phase, Jesup Green could actually end up much larger if the upper portion is restored after Police Department headquarters is relocated, and much of the lower lot is converted to green space.
At a joint meeting of several RTM committees March 19, the Finance and Public Works committees voted to endorse the ARPA funding for the parking redesign initiative.
The Transit Committee held off on a vote that night at the urging of member Jennifer Johnson. She said the committee should meet again, in person, before deciding. A majority of the committee agreed, and Monday’s meeting was scheduled.
On March 25, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard an 8-24 request brought by Ratkiewich on behalf of First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker. The application asked the commission to sign off the plans to redevelop the Parker Harding and Jesup Green parking lots.
An 8-24 review is required whenever a municipality wants to significantly change the use of a publicly owned property. Without a positive recommendation from P&Z, the plan can’t move forward.
The P&Z’s discussion was less than receptive, and it continued the matter to its April 8 meeting. Whether a vote will be taken that night is yet to be seen.
“I feel like the green space that is there is good,” Benmosche told Monday’s Transit Committee gathering at the Westport Library.
‘The $630,000 is not being spent wisely.’
ari benmosche, district 8
He said he did some polling with people in his district, asking if the town should spend $4 million switching green space from one side of Jesup Green to be closer to the river, and why.
He said his mind could still be changed, but also questioned shifting Jesup Road, which he said appears to have recently been redone.
“I don’t see how building a green closer to the library — and I’ve walked around this thing for like hours, I’ve been walking around all day, I was there right before this meeting — there is green space there I see like a slew of granite benches, and what do I see? Nobody there,” he said.
“So why moving the green space over there create more people to use the green?” Benmosche said. “So, for this reason, I think that I said right now, the $630,000 is not being spent wisely.”
‘We really could have something that really could be a dramatic improvement on what people would experience in the downtown,’
ross burkhardt, district 3
Burkardt said that after seeing the phasing, and the potential in a phase three, he thought it worthwhile for the planning.
“I think that if we get that, we really could have something that really could be a dramatic improvement on what people would experience in the downtown,” he said.
Liccione told DPIC Chairman Randy Herbertson the public hadn’t really been able to participate in that body’s meetings.
“Your DPIC meetings are at 8:30 in the morning,” he said. “I would formally request that we have a couple of night meetings.”
Herbertson said public input was sought at charettes later in the day, and would be again.
Liccione also said he thought it “disingenuous” for Herbertson to tell P&Z members at last week’s meeting that they could come to the DPIC morning meetings.
“That’s not my call, Sal,” Herbertson said.
Johnson again suggested a parking deck at the Baldwin Lot off Elm Street be considered to address the downtown’s chronic parking issues.
Herbertson’s assertion that such a deck could cost up to $80 million, which would be just shy of the new Long Lots school, came under scrutiny. He said that figure was based on a Fairfield project.
“I have a very tough time considering the $630,000,” Johnson said. “To move forward without that analysis of what structured parking would mean, putting concrete where concrete is now, I know it’s a third-rail issue, but we never contemplated the idea of putting parking on Jesup.”
“Jesup is a town green,” she said. “There is some indication it might be deed-restricted.”
A few members of the public spoke.
Bob Jacobs asked Ratkiewich if the Baldwin Lot is ever full.
Ratkiewich said there are usually spots available, except during the holidays, when all lots are full.
“To me, tends towards let’s leave things the way they are,” Jacobs said.
“I say leave Parker Harding as it is, and don’t rip up Jesup Green,” said Mike Treadwell.
Joseph Vallone, a local architect, said he felt Ratkiewich has taken an unfair beating over the loss of spaces in the Parker Harding plan as required by modern mandates.
“I would say that it is important to capture that green space along the river,” he said. “And I do think it is important to do a Parker Harding lot over, and lose those spaces.”
But, he said, that replacing those spots across the Post Road really wouldn’t work.
“People who are going to use the stores along Main Street are really reluctant to jump across the Post Road …,” he said.
Vallone also liked the idea of adding a deck to the Baldwin lot.
“I think the idea of adding that deck on the Baldwin Lot makes a lot of sense, given the natural topography of the site that it would actually feel almost dead-level with Elm Street,” he said.
The committee votes are just recommendations — the full RTM can take any action it sees fit.
The full RTM will discuss the $630,000 ARPA funding on April 9.
But questions remain.
Will the P&Z pass the 8-24 at its upcoming meeting?
If it doesn’t, and RTM goes ahead and funds the ARPA money for the designs, might that $630,000 be squandered if the gatekeeper P&Z later says no?
Stay tuned.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 36 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.


Please do not pave Jesup Green. Given the track record of our town, we destroy green space; we don’t recover it. The loss of green space in Westport is alarming. And in this case it doesn’t solve the problem.
Further, the loss of parking for downtown merchants is unacceptable. Respect the merchants and their employees.
As for how the $400 million capital projects grand scheme relates to the paving of 33% of Jesup Green…
Well, Billy Flynn said it best:
Give ’em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle ’em
Give ’em act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give ’em the old hocus pocus
Bread and feather ’em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
Give ’em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture ’em
How can they hear the truth above the roar?
Throw ’em a fake and a finagle
They’ll never know you’re just a bagel,
Razzle dazzle ’em
And they’ll beg you for more!
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler
When you’re in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder
They let ya get away with a murder
Give ’em the old
Razzle dazzle
To clarify: By commenting “Leave things as they are” I meant leave the Taylor lot intact while Parker Harding is under renovation instead of eliminating half of Taylor and adding parking at the top of Jesup. Swapping concrete for green and green for concrete makes no sense. We should explore the cost of adding a deck or partial deck on Baldwin, see how much additional parking is needed after Parker Harding is finished and plan accordingly with a realistic budget for Baldwin (and perhaps more visibility on the relocation of the police station) in hand. Preserving and energizing Jesup as our town commons is a core goal of the DMP and should be top of mind in our planning.
I think the potential of putting a one level structure above the Baldwin lot should be considered. What is attractive to me about the idea is it would follow the natural topology, not sacrifice green space and could be built in stages. For example, a structure for say 100 cars could be built to directly offset the loss of spaces in the other lots. I seriously doubt the $10 million figure.
Regarding Jesup, unless the mature trees are sick, they should be maintained. It took a long time to get this big. Once alternatives like a parking deck is in place, then consideration can be given to converting part of Jesup to green space.
The information I had about parking structures is incorrect; it is more likely that a structure would cost in the range of $10 million. Also, please note that the Department of Public Works, not DPIC, is bringing forth these options. We are here to support the process.
Hold on just a second. You are the head of the DPIC, so we’re presuming a minimal level of expertise here. And you stated in the meeting that a proposal that you oppose, that you now say would cost $10 million, would have cost $80 million in order to publicly dismiss that suggestion.
Can I ask what expertise that you bring as the head of that committee and how you could just pass along a suggestion that a parking project would cost 8-times what you now say is a more accurate estimate. I mean, double might have been a reasonable margin of error. Eight-times seem to be far beyond that. I mean, that seems like a wildly inaccurate figure for one to not even question it before foisting it upon a concerned public.
Thank god there is some more sense prevailing.
I understand that this is the transit committee of the rtm making their recommendation to the rtm.
Generally in fact I believe the rtm always prides themselves on listening to the committee within the rtm and their recommendation.
I look forward to the same next week.
This plan is a sham.
It needs to go, show us parking first and without tearing apart already perfectly lovely green space in order to hoodwink the P&Z into siding with this anti business and anti merchant plan.
Second floor retail, along with 35 spots lost in the Baldwin lot, add to that 22 spaces( yes I counted them) lost on church lane because the FSW closes it 7 months a year in order to double the size of the businesses on church lane AND put more pressure on parking as if it wasn’t already a monstrous issue.
Parking and merchants are at break point.
Barely out of covid and the town was bringing this catastrophic plan to us. Merchants who barely survived the pandemic and now this…
When it was met with opposition, people said.. ohhh it’s the usual .. well no it’s not the USUAL.
It’s a hard NO !
Show us parking first.
Build parking garages, fix the imperial lot, put on a downtown property tax paid for shuttle.
Spend some of the 10 million in property taxes paid in the downtown.
Then look at green space.
Show the staff where to park because we are all scratching our heads.
And then tackle the green space.
Show us a plan that works in PH.
Not one with no loading zones, perpendicular parking in tiny car spots.
PH is dangerous my foot !
It will be far more dangerous after this Barbie world plan is attempted.
MAINTAIN, the parking lot.
It works perfectly well.
Minus the decrepit state it’s been let get into.
But that is not the merchants or the residents fault.
That was the plan all along..
let it go to hell then talk about how terrible it is..
a bit like the school.. when you let something go into horrendous disrepair by not spending a dime on it, this is where it ends up.
It has functioned beautifully all things considered for decades..
you want it prettied up, then show us and DO the parking first. We don’t trust you.
We know it will never ever happen.
The school is number 1 and behind it I suspect is coleytown.
So anyone who believes a word out of dpics mouth about the next cherry picked phases is smoking the drapes.
It’s never going to happen.
We need a sensible plan well thought out IN the correct order.
Parking then green space.
Stakeholders-
Merchants and residents
Library
Levitt
Farmers market..
Yes that should be the pecking order here.
There is no downtown without the merchants
There is no downtown without the residents.
Pity nobody spoke to the merchants before going down this crazy road.
Pete ratkiewich clearly does not come to the downtown. He is doing what he is told. If he did come downtown he would know how hilarious his statement was about parking.
And there being plenty of it.
How then yesterday at 11am on a Monday was there 1 spot left in Parker Harding yesterday.
As for the cost of a parking garage going from 80 million down to 10 million..
seriously ?
Do it first.
Get it built.
You want green space show us parking first.
As a resident, I have zero interest in coming to the downtown to walk the river.
And if I have only 3 hours to spend now in the downtown, I’m spending it at a restaurant and then shopping with the minute time I have left.
There will be zero time to sit on a bench or go for a stroll .
In the meanwhile plenty space to walk on the beach.
Wow, great clarity Mary!
You are so right about how the town neglects upkeep, then next thing you know they need to spend millions.
The more I think about the 500 million they want to borrow, the more I realize it is unnecessary. If people just did the regular maintence they are paid to do already, the town wouldnt have to borrow a dime.
Im not against capital improvements, however, in this climate of deception I believe the residents should band together and back off these projects.
Long Lots is basically a cement building, doesnt degrade. Put a new roof on, change the air ducts. Its an elemetary school not Saddam’s golden palace. Summer is coming, a lot can get fixed in two months without students. Get creative.
They had this forum recently about ways to borrow money. They should have a forum about ways to save money. Get creative.
It is a disaster how all of these projects have been approached, deception and disinformation, gasliting.
The simple fixes that would make a huge difference never get done. I had to do the weeding at Parker Harding. The weeds were 6 feet tall. The town employees must have been directed not to touch it.
These parking proposals coming from the DPW are actually crazy—one after another. Eliminating the cut through was the red flag. I understand Randy is probably just trying to use his branding skills to help—he is helping the wrong people–he must be from out of town.
Manipulation it feels like.
Yes Mary, counting the spots taken away is the way. Who benefits from all these proposals…hmmm…I wonder.
Of course, the biggest mistake was rezoning Saugatuck.
I figured out the best way to frame Westport to guide its future… Westport is for kids…parents for whom their children are the priority…that is the Westport vision. Watch all the fancy hotels close within 2 years.
Here I am on assignment in California and I have to think about the weeding in Parker Harding–
Although I understand that the Town of Westport has an ever changing variety of needs and priorities,
I cannot help but wonder about the logic of using ARPA funds for parking lot designs instead of defibrillators for the Fire Department.
Gloria, I was just thinking the same thing.
At the PH charade last night, we heard how important “safety” is to the FSW !
I guess safety doesn’t include the purchase of much needed defibrillators.
Unbelievable