By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — A discussion between the Long Lots School Building Committee and members of the Westport Community Gardens grew heated Thursday evening.
Several garden members were troubled because they felt the committee didn’t appear to hear their concerns, expressed over several meetings, and was too focused on moving rectangles around on plans, as one person put it.
In regard to addressing the outdated Long Lots Elementary School, the committee appears close to pushing the button on its recommendation.
“The ultimate goal is to have a shovel in the ground by this time next year,” said committee Chairman Jay Keenan, who is also a Representative Town Meeting member from District 2.
The committee expects to decide by the end of the month which of six plans for the Hyde Lane property reviewed Thursday it will recommend, and then likely request that an 8-24 report (required by state statute, to review changes to municipally owned properties) be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Keenan acknowledged that, while still awaiting cost estimates and some other information, such as a ballfield-use report from the Parks and Recreation Department, the renovate-the-existing-building, and renovate-with-additions options were likely to cost more than new construction, and take 30 months to complete as opposed to just 18 for a new school building.
The committee noted it is looking at all the options, exercising due diligence in undertaking a feasibility study to see what might and might not work.
Other bureaucratic steps to follow include approaching the Board of Finance and the RTM to request funding for the next planning phase of the project.
Of the six plans reviewed Thursday, the renovate and renovate-with-additions versions appeared dead in the water.
That left the new construction versions in play. But a couple of those would locate the new school very close to neighbors, which committee member Don O’Day, RTM District 3, noted would not be taken lightly by other town bodies, notably the P&Z.
One would put a new school where the community gardens are now. Another would put a baseball field where the gardens are.
Only one version, dubbed “C-alt,” would keep the community gardens undisturbed.
John Suggs, a former Representative Town Meeting member now running again in District 9, took issue with the planning process.
“The timing between when you intend to go to the RTM for the first time,” he said. “When you stated that you intend to do that in November, the RTM November meeting is a lame duck meeting, and it’s especially troubling for me because I am a candidate for the RTM and one of the reasons I’m running for the RTM is because I want to protect the gardens.”
“Believe me,” Suggs said. “The voters are going to be speaking out on this.”
Gardeners’ concerns caused something of a ruckus.
James Mather, who said he has lived in town almost 30 years and has never gotten involved in local politics, appeared upset.
“Your casual indifference … that this garden is a potted plant that can be moved around is so offensive to everyone in this room that you’re enraging people,” he said, borrowing an earlier quote Miggs Burroughs on another forum. “And you need to hear that feedback.”
“These people are all volunteers,” said a woman not involved in the gardens. “I think you have to treat them with respect. Try to control your emotions.”
“What are you talking about?” asked his wife, Karen Mather.
“We’re not here to get yelled at,” said Keenan, who has stayed after work sessions to answer all questions.
There might be something of a culture clash.
While Keenan and other committee members might strike some as let’s-get-this-done engineering types, the gardeners have spent two decades working the soil with their hands.
“I think people have this big concern that 25 years of hard work, thousands of dollars … is going to go away,” said gardener Andrew Gentile.
The committee members say they must do their best for the town, and the gardeners have invested years of farming and money in what they love.
Committee member Srikanth Puttagunta said he’s a home gardener and CEO of a sustainability company.
“We’re intelligent, we’re here, we’re listening,” he said. “Is the only way I can justify to you that I am listening to you and appreciating your position is if only I agree the garden must stay where it is, no matter what?” he asked.
“Nobody does not think that the gardens are amazing,” said Liz Heyer, an ex-officio member representing the Board of Education. “If that has not come out loud and clear then, for me, I’m sorry about that.”
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 35 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
I find it interesting that Parks and Rec STILL hasn’t provided a usage report for that baseball field and yet preserving it (moving it on to the Community Gardens) seems to be the preferred choice of committee members. Why?? What if it is later found out that it is used very little as a baseball field or more often used for soccer?
This process has been opaque from the beginning, I suppose I should say at least from the middle since all discussions and planning were happening completely behind closed doors before June.
I haven’t understood the fixation the committee has on a brand new giant baseball field. I assumed since it was so integral in these plans that there must have been a demonstrated need for it, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I expected that the committee would have done some sort of research to truly understand the demand and utilization of the existing fields in Westport (and of course share it with the town). Instead we’re nearly at the point where the committee will make their final recommendation, and residents are seeking this crucial information on their own.
Since we don’t have this vital information, we instead need to rely on our observation skills. I attended middle school in Stamford, and back then little league was much bigger than it is now. They had (and still have) two full size baseball fields, which were occasionally used by little league then but were primarily used for students to run laps around, play capture the flag, and play pretty much any sport other than baseball. I drive by that school frequently today, and in the last 10 years utilization for the purpose of baseball has gotten so low, that they’ve actually been able to build a garden for use by the students in the outfield.
I’ve watched it grow over the years from a few pumpkin vines to a full fenced in garden, and I have to admire the school’s willingness to adapt what became a wasted space into a thriving garden space for students. As the effects of climate change become more forceful, we need to be thoughtful about mowing down beneficial green pollinator spaces. The idea that we would take out one of those spaces to create a pesticide filled dead zone, with no ecological benefit, to favor a sport that’s declining nationwide, is devastating.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that a new baseball field would rarely be used (clearly not by the students), and that the committee and Selectwoman Tooker are planning to push this plan through before elections, to take away any chance Westport residents have to make their voices heard with their votes.
The Department of Parks and Rec and the appointed P&R Commission have been suspiciously silent, invisible on this inflamed issue that falls squarely in their lap. They have been asked repeatedly by not only citizens but also elected RTM member Sal Liccione for answers. Crickets! Why?
Dear Town Residents:
We continue to try to find a path forward that gets a new school built while simultaneously keeping, in their current state, the 20-year old Westport Community Gardens and recently established Long Lots Preserve, a model of suburban open space rehabilitation.
It definitely can, and we believe should, be done.
The Board Of Education wants a new and improved Long Lots Elementary School. It is needed. The specifications given to the Long Lots School Building Committee‘s include play areas and fields adjacent to the new schools, gymnasium and cafeteria. In one of the likely scenarios, that puts the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve a couple of hundred yards away.
The Board of Education and the Superintendent have reiterated that at no point, did they discuss utilizing the property that the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve sit on. In fact, the Garden and Preserve were seen as a welcome buffer between students, new construction, and the residential homes to the south side of the school.
Only during a recent Board of Education meeting did it come to light that the decision to consider covering the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve with a ballfield came from the Chair of the Long Lots School Building Committee.
Finding a new spot for the gardens will essentially kill them. Many of our gardeners are up there an age. Starting all over again after 20 years is, for many, untenable. It is also a slap in the face to 20 years of hard work, over 100,000 volunteer hours and incredible dedication to environmental stewardship.
You are not going to find a new location for the Long Lots Preserve. Hundreds of native trees, shrubs and wildflowers have been planted there. The biodiversity on this property is amazing. The place is brimming with life. On a planet that seems to be falling apart at the seams, putting an environmentally sterile ballfield over an ecological preserve just doesn’t add up.
There are proximately 20 fields in town. There is one Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve.
We certainly wouldn’t be looking to cover the only ballfield in town if the Westport Community Gardens were having a school built on them.
We need a community garden as a diverse asset in town, serving part of our diverse population and their interests. We need green open space provided by the Long Lots Preserve as we try to maintain a healthy environmental balance in the face of rampant development.
We need ballfields for kids to play on as athletics are an incredibly important part of growing up.
We do not need a Babe Ruth sized baseball field covering the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve. It does not serve the educational or recreational needs of the students at Long Lots Elementary School. It is not part of the Long Lots Elementary School. What we need is for the Department of Parks and Recreation to come up with equitable resources for the playing fields that will be lost during the construction of the school.
The gardening community and their guests (your neighbors) and the other entities that have been involved in and benefit from this property, including the Westport Garden Club, Grow a Row, Eagle Scouts, Girl Scouts, SLOBS, resident neighbors and dozens of organizations and businesses in town, are not selfish for wanting to protect this absolute gem. This is not “me” versus “we.”
Thank you for reading this.
Louis Weinberg, Chairman
Westport Community Gardens
Director, Long Lots Preserve
Thanks, Lou. This sums up what I believe is not only indifference to the need for open green space such as the gardens and preserve, but also the well represented desire of electors who have had to insert themselves into this very-not-transparent process.
The Committee SAYS they care, they listen, they garden. Yet there has been no visible effort or action to answer the many questions raised about why new athletic fields take precedence over the single and beloved community gardens and preserve.
Also, LLS neighbors concerned about problematic water table issues have gotten no concrete answers to their concerns.
Why, why, why, why, why?
To Srikanth Puttagunta I would say, the space being used by the Garden and Preserve should never have been under consideration in the first place. Every governing body in Town was involved in their establishment twenty years ago. I can’t fathom how the LLSBC would take it upon itself to reverse that decision and years of precedent. Yes, it will go to other parts of Town government for approval, but who suggested the land grab? You’ve put the cart before the horse here.
Hey, it’s me again…
I forgot to mention that the Westport Community Gardens and the Long Lots Preserve are now partnering with the Westport Public Schools to provide a plot (growing space) at the Westport Community Gardens and conduct field trips to the Gardens and Preserve. This will serve the educational needs of grade 2 and grade 5. This is just the beginning. This is not a ploy to save the gardens and preserve. We have been looking to build this relationship since we started as a community garden 20 years ago.
As I mentioned in a much lengthier comment on this blog (in a previous story), the educational opportunities presented to both Stepping Stones and Long Lots Elementary School students, as well as the rest of the district, are unlimited.
There are dozens of studies that show that incorporating gardens and open space in school curriculums increases student engagement and increases test scores. Communities around us, and across the state and country, are doing it. We should be too.
Thank you for reading this.
Lou
So many great points Thane makes in this article, as well as the comments. I too wonder about the validity of data coming from Parks & Rec, or other town departments, when the process has not been transparent. Love this comment about James Mather, who said he has lived in town 30 years and has never gotten involved in local politics, appeared upset.
“Your casual indifference … that this garden is a potted plant that can be moved around is so offensive to everyone in this room that you’re enraging people,” he said. “And you need to hear that feedback.”
And John Suggs, a former Representative Town Meeting member now running again in District 9, took issue with the planning process.
In the interest of historical accuracy, what I said was that I have lived in Westport for “almost thirty years” – my wife and I moved here in early September 1995.
Also, while I am happy to own my comments at the meeting, the original authorship of the “potted plant” analogy rests with Miggs Burroughs in a comment on a different blogpost – I just liked it and I did acknowledge I was quoting him at the meeting, credit where credit is due – Miggs is Mozart in this story – I am Salieri LOL
Story updated, thank you.
James Mather stated: “I’m just shaking my head at this mind-boggling process where the outcome seems to be predetermined whatever Westporter’s think and the rules of the game constantly change to rig the result that a few people have predetermined. The public is owed more transparency than that as our tax dollars will pay for the project.”
James, unfortunately in Westport (and I presume in many if not most Towns) this is not a unique situation, as paternalism is wedded to the politician’s soul.
In my limited experience, the RTM moderator requesting those who wish to petition the RTM “to respect the process” far too often means the following:
After a year of work the LLBSC will present a recommendation into the approval pipeline. To paraphrase the mantra generally asserted by Town Hall: “there will be ample opportunity for resident commentary at each stop along the approval pathway” – i.e. at the various Commission & Board silos where the LLBSC will make their presentations.
However, residents understand that the opportunity to provide “comment” (by written communication and/or oral testimony limited to 3 minutes) IS NOT anywhere equivalent to proactive transparency and actively inviting resident participation into the investigatory, deliberative and decision-making process – i.e. a “seat at the table” for residents to participate in the decision-making. That omission is not accidental.
The approval process pathway our RTM moderator referenced usually goes as follows:
Conservation: These fine people ensure that any proposed project conforms to the environmental impact rules, regulations and laws. They DO NOT consider whether or not a project is something that the majority of Westport residents want…they say that they must stay in “their lane”.
P&Z: Likewise, the members of the P&Z ensure that any recommended project conforms to Westport’s rules, regulations, ordinances and laws. They might discuss the fact that many residents abhor a project; however ultimately they generally say that they must stay in “their lane” for fear of appearing capricious in their approval decision-making. In other words, if it “checks all the regulatory boxes” they too must stay in “their P&Z lane”; it is for another silo to determine the “value” or “desirability” of the project.
The Board of Finance: In the past the BOF chair explained that the role of the BOF is to determine 3 things: A) Is the money for something that Westport needs? B) Is it something that Westport can afford? C) Is there “value” in the request? Whether the money is for something that Westport residents actually “want” has been a historically ambiguous criteria because, without a referendum, that criteria is open to interpretation, manipulation and “crony influence”. Also, for the BOF to deny a “Selectman’s supported” request takes a courage too often absent from these decisions. And once again, the BOF chooses to “Stay in their parochial lane” – finance. In this instance, no one will deny that a new school is necessary, that Westport must afford it, and that a new school will provide immense value. Whether or not a new school is something that the Westport residents desire will likewise be uncontested. However, for the BOF to deny the LLBSC’s request would be tantamount to significantly delaying the residents this needed new school AND probably result in taxpayer cost inflation. As has happened before, it is likely the BOF will approve the LLBSC request and “punt” the Community Garden’s collateral damage to the RTM, stating that questioning the LLBSC’s thought-out recommendation and the fate of the Gardens is not “under the BOF’s fiscal purview”.
The RTM: So then it becomes the responsibility of the RTM to either over-rule the BOF and thereby deny the BOF’s approved appropriation, or endorse it. I’m not certain, but a rejection might require 70% of the voting RTM to accomplish. Although the RTM’s “lane” IS broader than the others, it’s uncertain that the RTM will have the fortitude to deny any First Select-person his/her desire. In this instance: The supporters for athletics will make their case. The supporters for prioritizing education will make their case. Supporters of retaining the Gardens will speak – although their case has already been sufficiently aired. Perhaps even some proponents of “relocating the gardens” might speak. The P&R director will likely speak – but it’s likely THAT support will be nailed down by her employer. Private phone calls, arm twisting, and even partisan influence can occur despite the RTM allegedly being “non-partisan”. A vote to overturn the BOF decision will require RTM’ers believing, and publicly asserting, that they know better than the LLBSC membership comprised of intelligent, thoughtful, and caring fellow residents who have voluntarily dedicated a year or more of investigation, evaluation, deliberation and contemplation. “Trust in our Town officials”, and the “Benefit of the doubt” is a mantra frequently articulated by RTM members. AND again, an RTM vote to deny at this “eleventh hour” will have the same delay and inflationary repercussions – something RTMers are understandably reticent to do.
The BOS: Like an attorney examining a witness before knowing the response, it is bad policy to pose a project unless the votes are assured, because to be denied is an embarrassment no politician wants to endure.
Too often the remnants are the individual process silos pointing fingers at each other, each one deflecting accountability, and denying their own responsibility. And to those angry with the final BOS approval, the LLBSC will simply state: “WE did not make the decision – we merely gave our recommendation as charged to do”. THAT is how the process is formulated.
My point is that IF the Community Gardens are to remain intact, the time is NOW to obtain that assurance. Once the LLBSC’s final recommendation gets injected into the “approval process”, it usually rides a train where, despite some bumps on the rails, the tracks are generally downhill.
This situation is just another example that the “process” the RTM moderator references and promotes is often a seriously flawed charade feigning resident involvement. Not always, but too often, as “desired” projects frequently get deftly shepherded around and through any encountered resident resistance.
The only other option is to force a Town referendum, which has its own difficulties and outcome uncertainties…but at least with a referendum you might know what the “majority” desire.
The cry “remember in November”, thereby implying that Town oversight and accountability must take place “at the ballot box”, is far too inefficient and blunt an instrument to be immediately pertinent and impactful. Issues and projects come and go, the bluster subsides as “news cycles” pass. To be efficiently effective there needs to be a method of holding Town Hall officials more contemporaneously accountable. The RTM is considering a revised Citizens Review Board to provide residents immediate oversight of our Police, Fire and EMS providers. Personally I have zero concern regarding our Fire and EMS providers, and the conduct of Westport’s admirable police department is rarely at issue. Far more pressing, and generically relevant, is providing Westport’s residents contemporaneous oversight of our Town officials regarding transparency, conduct, information, responsiveness, and proactive resident involvement. THAT is the only way to ensure our residents meaningful accountability and a seat at the table.
But until such time, elections are an important means available. If this issue (not just the fate of the Community Gardens but the PROCESS as it often transpires) is important to you, at least hold the current candidates accountable for the Community Gardens’ outcome.
Dr J