By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — A petition to the Representative Town Meeting asking it to reject a new Parks and Recreation Commission regulation restricting access to the Westport Community Garden during class hours at nearby Long Lots Elementary School, or to modify the rule, was voted down Tuesday night.
The outcome likely surprised no one.
The gardens are on town land adjacent to the Hyde Lane school, and their future is in flux for a variety of reasons, be it the school’s reconstruction or other factors.
The new security measure to prevent outsiders from school grounds during hours when classes are in session includes a ban on entering the fenced-off gardens from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. was passed by the Board of Selectwomen in April and endorsed by the Board of Education in closed meetings.
The petition asked that the RTM reject that regulation, or tweak the currently restricted hours, from 8-9 a.m. and 3-4 p.m., in effect during drop-off and pickup times at Long Lots.
“The Long Lots project, which could have been a collaborative project, has devolved into an extremely emotional matter, regarding a community garden versus an athletic field,” lead petitioner Toni Simonetti told the RTM on Tuesday. “The underlying reason is that the town is out of land and we have more demand than capacity for kids who play outdoor sports.”
“It has nothing to do with the school. But now, today, suddenly, we are being told the school grounds are not safe because of a longstanding adjacent town property, namely the community garden,” Simonetti said.
“I would like you to listen, to really listen, to a point of view that you may not agree with,” she said. “I am speaking for a group of petitioners who may be smaller in number than the many Long Lots parents that you have heard from, but they are no less important.”
She had several suggestions, including removing the school campus designation, retain the 20-year tradition of gardening hours, “and stipulate that the registered members of the community gardens are invited guests to the so-called campus …”
She suggested tabling the matter until a new school security assessment is completed, which she said has been put out to bid.
“Or, you can succumb to the trumped-up rhetoric that our children are not safe at Long Lots School,” Simonetti said.
She said all parents worry about their children from the day they’re born, and continue to worry until their last breath.
“That parental concern should not be exploited,” Simonetti said “And I believe it is.”
Board of Education Chairwoman Lee Goldstein said her board supports the new regulations.
“I’m a little gob smacked right now,” she said. “When the chief of police, who is tasked with keeping our schools safe — the kids, the teachers, the faculty, the staff — comes to us and say here’s my recommendation, here’s a best practice that every other school does, we just can’t have non-school-related people on school grounds.”
Long Lots parent Tina DeGroot said she and others were “horrified that a petition that requires only 20 signatures can hold hostage the safety and security of 1,300 children. And over 220 teachers and staff at Long Lots and Bedford.”
“Every day that goes by and the recommendation of our police chief and our superintendent is not implemented is a day too late,” she said.
“The presentation given tonight is one of the most disrespectful diatribes I have ever heard,” said Long Lots mother Veronika Tysseland. “She managed to insult almost everyone in the room … The democratic process is usually a beautiful thing, but in this case, it has failed us.”
“The person who brought us here tonight is a vigilante,” Tysseland said. “Simply put, she has the time and resources to …”
RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser banged his gavel soundly, something he does rarely.
“Ma’am, first of all if you could cut back on that, but second of all, the democratic process has not failed you, this is the democratic process,” Wieser told her. “We’re working through it and allowing you to speak so please try to do it with some civility.”
“Many of us have used Wakeman field and Staples for years,” said Jill Grayson, a resident since 1960. “You have to understand that some of the rules we want to implement affect those of us who are aging and old,” she said, referring to the new restriction on using other recreational properties on school campuses during class hours.
Most RTM members saw it as a slam dunk, once the safety of the children was questioned.
“You do not belong on school grounds,” said member Andrew Colabella, District 4. “That has been the environment since Columbine.”
A few RTM members said they agree safety came first, but regretted how the gardeners were treated.
A couple saw the process as flawed, and in need of further review over the summer, not a big ask considering the school year ends in a few days.
RTM member Seth Braunstein, District 6, said there’s been a lot of discussion about fearmongering.
“The way I see it, the real fearmongering is coming from Toni Simonetti,” Braunstein said. “The parents have a legitimate basis to be concerned.”
Wieser broke in.
“Mr. Braunstein, we want to stop making it personal,” he said.
Peter Gold, District 5, said he takes the safety of children very seriously, but didn’t like the way the safety regulation was written. He said with school ending in a few days there would be time to craft better legislation.
“I think that closing the campuses is a good thing to do, I don’t think that this regulation does it in a way that’s effective, and I think the regulation should be rejected,” Gold said “This would give us two months to come up with a better regulation.”
“I’ve listened to the arguments put forward by the police chief in support of this new rule, in my view they have not made their case,” said member Clarence Hayes, District 4.
“I am so devastated by tonight,” said Jennifer Johnson, District 9. “It’s just so sad.”
“I do trust our Police Department but when it comes to this garden, I think we can have both,” Johnson said. “I just don’t understand this, can’t we find a solution?”
The vote to reject the regulation, including Westport Community Gardens hours, was 4-29, with Clarence Hayes, District 4; Peter Gold, District 5; Dick Lowenstein, District 5, and Jennifer Johnson, District 9, voting in favor.
The vote to modify the hours of community garden access fell by a 2-30 vote, with Hayes and Johnson voting in favor and Lowenstein not voting, apparently having felt deprived of a chance to propose an amendment on another procedurally difficult night.
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.
It is about time to have enhanced school security at Long Lots. As parent, I did not want the deterrence and detection be weakened by giving an exception to a small group that is sharing the school perimeter and parking with the school. Watchers and SRO should be on the look out as soon as a car pull in to one of the school entrances, and having unnecessary additional traffic during school hours dilutes deterrence and dilutes detection. Every second counts in those moments.
It is currently not possible for someone to access the athletic fields at Long Lots, including the lower fields that are further away from the school than the community plots, during school hours. Why should there be any exceptions afforded to other users? This new regulation is about school security. There is no conspiracy theories and secret plots as the petitioner alluded to in her statement. In fact, the potential of losing access was already discussed in the first P&Z meeting where the 8-24 was initially reviewed. This was back in December. It should be no surprise to anyone except those who have ignored the facts and put their interests first.
We have the school and the police asking for these measures to improve the school security. As a parent, I have much more at stake. Police officers who respond to a threat have much more at stake. The school staff who take on protecting the children have more at stake. For those who don’t have much at stake can wait till the school is dismissed to go on with their access to recreational activities.
Joe – whats the security plan when construction starts and there are many construction workers coming and going all day? There is a database for the community garden users, as they all had to pass background checks. Do you really think construction companies are going to do background checks for all their workers? Seriously, what is the plan? Be consistent then, otherwise the real reason for doing this will become obvious to all.
The security plan during construction has already been discussed in public meetings. There will be fence around the construction area, and access to the construction area will be separate from the school grounds. While the community gardens members are only checked against the sex offender registry, the construction workers will have a full background checks. While members of the community gardens had (but no longer do) access to school grounds to go to their plots during school hours, a construction worker will not be going anywhere near the school perimeter, and their business is with the construction site. From a security perspective, deterrence and detection can still be enforced on the school perimeter while construction is in place.
The real reason for this new regulation is to enhance school security.
I suggest you take a walk down to the end of Bauer Place . . . and then tell us again how it’s all about the safety of the Long Lots student. That is an actual, technical, legal, school ground perimeter. Secure that perimeter.
Toni, that perimeter is no different than any other perimeter. Even prior to yesterday’s vote, a breach of that perimeter would have triggered a response. Prior to yesterday’s vote, access to the parking lot was open to people who were not going to the school, and hence weakened the first layers of school security to deter and detect threats as quickly as possible.
Except that it is wide open; no fence, nothing at all to prevent access to the playground and rear of the school.
Joe Nadar, Please explain how the construction workers will be nowhere near the school perimeter? They will be working on school property. The gardeners are gardening on adjacent property. Its very sad for those those of us that have lived here a long time, and do have school age children, some of whom were elementary age during Sandy Hook, to watch this unfold in the name of security. School campuses should be closed during school – period. Always should have been and should be going forward. Dog walkers, of which I am one, don’t need to be on school property during school hours. However, the gardens are not on school property. And one only has to look at a map to see how much closer private homes are to the school perimeter than the gardens are. And how much closer major roads are to SES and KSH. So is your only concern about the gardeners that they have to park ON school property? What about if a neighbor on Bauer Pl allows the gardeners access from their property? Are you ok with them being there then? If not why are you ok with the businesses that literally surround our other elementary schools?
Again, the construction site will be fenced off and they will have separate access to that site. Outside of construction workers, no one should have access to that site. The rest will become the new school perimeter, and construction workers should have no business in that area during school hours.
The gardens are located on the same lot as the school. The entrance to the community gardens is through the school parking lot. There is no access to the gardens except through school grounds. And by the end of this year, or early next year, construction will start, and the gardens will not be accessible at all during the 3-4 years of construction.
Here’s the really dumb thing about this. We had the exact same points made by the exact same parties (just different people filling the roles) when the original Garden regs came to RTM twenty-year-ago.
Al Fiore said what Foti said. Elliott Landon said what the current Education advocates says. Neighbors, parents, and gardeners all made the same case. RTM weighed the different opinions, balanced everyone’s interests, and passed regs that have worked, without fail, for twenty years.
I’m not sure when RTM collectively lost its common sense. Andrew Colabella mentioning Columbine? What the heck does that have to do with the Community Garden? What is the specific event that you are trying to prevent with this restriction? Seth Braunstein saying that someone who wants the Gardeners to continue to have the same access that has worked without incident is “fear mongering?” Are they all completely dense?
The most on-point sentence in the article was, “Most RTM members saw it as a slam dunk, once the safety of the children was questioned.” Because nobody has to show an actual threat to anyone’s safety, they just have to say there is one and RTM members will check their brains at the door.
Andrew Colabella’s comment about Columbine is astute. Security concerns considered today by school and police departments include the weight and fact of the over 400 school shootings and many other attempted shootings which have occurred in U.S. schools in the past twenty years.
Westport was safe. Low crime. Except near Compo where the public {non residents} could get a bus to drop them off for a day at the beach. Check the WPD records,Andy. Home break- ins ,car thefts are highest in areas where non-residents stroll by. The gardeners do not pose a threat to the school. But welcoming the flotsom and jetsom who want to drink champagne on a beer budget is a very viable threat to public safety.
Affordable housing should be awarded to individuals who have no criminal records and have encountered a sudden loss of income{ loss of a job, death of a spouse,divorce} to give them a helping hand for a year until they get back on their feet. It should NOT be a generational lifeline. In that way,more deserving people could benefit each year.
I’ll welcome your reply, but Andrew’s comment about Columbine is idiotic when you consider that the Columbine shooting took place five years before the original regulations for the Community Gardens were passed. We knew about Columbine. It wasn’t relevant then and it isn’t relevant now.
If you can tell me how many of those school shootings were staged from Community Gardens, I’d love to know.
I think it is fair to say that a far more dangerous place for Westport children is standing anywhere in between a news camera and Andrew Colabella, who seems to specialize in bringing attention to himself.
And as I have said elsewhere, in the twenty years that the Garden regs have worked perfectly well, three Westport sports coaches have been arrested for felonies, included two charged with crimes against children. Seems like a more direct concern, don’t you think?
The debate was not whether the gardeners are a threat. And no one is making that claim. It is about school security and how the new regulation strengthens school security by limiting access to school grounds. Stating that nothing happened in the past 20 years is not a strong argument for not taking these measures today, especially when school shootings have worsened in the past 20 years, and all schools in the area and in town have stronger school security measures that what we had in Long Lots.
Joe, you can Patricia answer for herself. No need to be paternalistic and insert yourself here.
I’ll pretend you are being sincere for the moment. That nothing has happened in twenty years is strong evidence that the rules have worked as intended. When you compare Long Lots to Kings Highway and Saugatuck, it is far less exposed. You haven’t made any coherent case for how Garden access, on the adjacent property, makes the school more vulnerable in any meaningful way. The Garden is further away than the public sidewalk that passes the school.
If “school shootings” are the fear that is driving this, maybe you can why a (potential) shooter would enter the grounds and move further away from the school, into a Community Garden that would seem to have a largely obstructed view? It makes absolutely no sense. It made no sense twenty year ago. You obviously avoided the point that Columbine was five years before the original regs were passed. Kings Highway and Saugatuck have windows facing the street. Don’t they concern you? Fear mongering indeed. I guess we had more sense twenty years ago. Or we didn’t have people who want a soccer field where the Gardens are – certainly none who lifted a finger to improve that property.
“No one is making that claim” is… well, I’ll just say you are mistaken or haven seen some of the outlandish letters that were sent in before some of the meetings that have been held. One person mentioned the Israeli-Gaza conflict as a reason to limit access to the Gardens. You can’t make this stuff up.
If the general safety of the children is what matters to you, you should be more concerned about those who actually have committed offenses against the schoolchildren in the last twenty year and who have actual access to them on a daily basis? But you have avoided addressing those issues too.
It would be great if you can keep your comments on the central point without degenerating into attacking the other person’s character and pushing false equivalences. The opportune time to debate this was in the RTM meeting. I was there along many other parents. If this decision was important to you, why didn’t you show up and present your arguments?
Yeah he’s not coming, Joe. Because he doesn’t really care about any of this. He just wants to be king of the Westport Journal comments section. This is basically the whole town vs. 3 people. And that’s it. At this point I’m wondering if Chris is a real person or a parody account.
Parody accounts? Interesting.
Enough.
Why didn’t people show up? They did. For 12 months they’ve been thrown to the lions.
Why were they silent on June 4.
BECAUSE OF THE VICIOUS PERSONAL ATTACKS LEVELED AT THEM FOR OVER A YEAR AND WERE ALLOWED TO BE SPEWED AD NAUSEAM AT THIS MEETING.
And because I said what they wanted to say. I don’t care what you say about me; I know who I am, and the people I care about know who I am. To me, your mean words are just that. (Unless, of course, it is legally libelous, which I will challenge).;
The prevalence of mean bullying behavior among children starts in their homes. That was on full display.
Many of those who spoke at the RTM are mean-spirited, myopic, and poor examples of humanity to the children they claim to care about.
It seems you all have stepped into a bubble of selfish ignorance and can’t get out.
Case in point:
The secretary of the private, well-funded pay-to-play Westport soccer organization spoke up to put their special interest in sports before the wellbeing of citizens:
Hypocrisy is another.
Case in point:
At least two residents (including an RTMer) successfully nixed plans to put in pickleball at the Hunt Club for fear game noise would annoy them . Yet they don’t give a damn about abutting neighbors to the proposed intensification of use at Hyde Lane.
In my remarks, I said the garden is dying from a thousand paper cuts. What I should have said is: it is being bludgeoned with a thousand blows to the head and heart by people who are modeling the very behavior of which they falsely accuse others.
Joe, please shut down your bubble machine. It’s over, you win, and you will always be wrong about this.
Go, enjoy the spoils, the bounty you and your mates have blundered.
Signed,
”Crazy” Simonetti
aka “Doesn’t give a sh*t about children”
Toni, your words are pure hate and resentment against the parents who are simply standing up for the school. I think you have reached the bottom. Don’t go blaming everyone else, and no wonder you are alienating even those around you. It is time for an honest self-reflection. This is not the end. You just need to shift your perspective. If you can’t do it, let others lead the way.
Keep trying Joe. I do not need your arrogant advice on how to live my life. I do not need your approval. Oh, and by the way, I do not need a community garden. You seemed to have missed that point.
I didn’t miss the point that you do not need a community garden, and I certainly do not miss the point that many members do need the community gardens. Unlike your fearmongering message that this is the death of the gardens, the Westport community gardens will remain in Westport. There is a place in Westport for a new school, enhanced school security, sports fields, and a community garden. Perhaps not in the exact way you expect it to be.
Joe, I’m sorry you take this personally, but from your ongoing comments over the months, I personally see you as someone who wants his soccer field and that is all there is to it. The safety argument was a recent invention that came up after Town’s reversal that the Gardens would remain at Long Lots. (We obviously haven’t met IRL) but I’d have some personal respect for you if you acknowledged your agenda. I mean, in one of the comment threads didn’t you try to explain that Scarice’s “chainsaw” comments didn’t mean what the Garden advocates said, even though… they were pretty clear, right? Any time the hands have been caught in the cookie jar, you’ve tried to explain it away, while seemingly vilifying the gardeners.
I knew the points would be well covered in the meeting without me being in the room and smelling the mendacity.
You duck and cover when more obviously direct threats to the children are pointed out to you, which suggests that their safety isn’t one of your bona fide concerns at all. And no, I actually don’t think that you think the Gardeners are a direct threat to kids, but I think you probably think it is a better strategy to present them as a potential threat in order to smooth a path to getting the ball field that you want. In some ways that makes your words worse than if you actually did think they were a threat.
Do you know David Sharpe? In no way would I accuse anyone in the soccer establishment of enabling his behavior, but how did this guy, later arrested for exposing himself to women and girls, get hired as a high school soccer coach? He must have known many people in our youth soccer community. How were people who are, now, so concerned about the Community Gardeners, so oblivious to this person hanging around with school children? And should I trust their judgment as to what best protects the safety of local children? I think that is a pretty reasonable question.
Finally, I believe it is your pal Dan who has basically said, “if you have to move the Gardens anyway, why don’t you just leave the property and start over somewhere else?” And reward this deplorable attack on people who were just trying to mind their own business and live their own lives for twenty years? You have to be kidding. I think you should be reminded of what you are doing here, every step of the way – and the people of Westport should be reminded, too. They’ll be reminded when the neighbors sue Town over a new Long Lots building plan and they will be reminded when taxpayers petition the expenditure to a referendum. And I think that is completely fair.
Chris, you are wrong again that I take your attacks personally. I am merely pointing out the fallacies and the weak methods you are using to make your point. Attacking the character of the other person is one of the weakest form of a discussion. It just shows that you do not have any strong arguments to make. Bringing up false equivalencies is another weak approach.
For your reference, the chief of police brought up the review of school security back in the first P&Z meeting in Dec, and it was definitely not after the P&Z decision to keep the gardens on the same lot.
And you can rest assured that if the Soccer association was objecting to the new school building, I would have stood up to them as well. But they are not. So no need to make up your own theories about what I am fighting for. I am standing up for the school. Period.
The Westport Community Gardens do not own their plots. Neither do the sports association. And the community gardens are certainly not going away, and no one wants them to go away. We want the community gardens to be part of Westport. The main focal point we disagree on is whether the existing gardens are untouchable. And I don’t think anyone can make that case. And that’s why the discussion and the arguments have gone sideways. When you can’t make a strong argument against the needs to build a new school, or the new security measures, the approach has been to find another target to attack, such as the ball field, made up conspiracy theories, and secret plots.
Twenty years ago, Superintendent Landon stipulated security measures pertaining to the community gardens which were based on what were then current security measures.
Since that time, perimeter security practices and technologies have been revised in response to hundreds of acts of violence attempted or perpetrated on school grounds since 1999.
How would the community respond if violence occurred and it was found that the police and schools did less than what was best known to protect students, staff and parents in the schools?
Given adequate resources (which is a huge problem for most towns and cities), each community decides how best to safeguard the health and safety of its residents.
You presented a choice in your comment – does Westport want to keep its children safe from shooters or from pedophiles? That is called a displacement defense; an attempt to redirect the reader’s emotional reaction from one subject onto another person or object.
When making policy, for responsible community leaders, its never a question of sacrificing the wellbeing of one person to benefit another, or to protect against one threat while leaving residents exposed to another potential harm.
And public discourse about matters such as how best to protect schools and to support contributing residents such as community gardeners, those decisions that will affect the life, pleasure and safety of residents for decades to come, only remains productive when the discussion is civil and transparent, and residents treat each other with kindness, respect and regard.
Kindness goes a long way, Chris.
Patricia – it is more the defense of “let’s be realistic here instead of stirring hysteria about something that has worked great for twenty years.”
If you don’t think that the original attempt to take the twenty-year-old Garden space and turn it into a Babe Ruth sized ball field was sacrificing the well being of one group to benefit another, I have a bridge to sell you.
Yes, kindness goes a long way. Maybe you can tell me how the people who have accused the Gardeners of having a “private club” and being a “special interest” and have done nothing but attack the Gardens, despite the Gardens having taken a “let’s grow together” and “build the school but protect the gardens” approach are acting “kindly.” When Dan Pritikin said “well just the land” was that a practice of “kindness.”
Just this week, Jeff Speck, national “urban planner” addressed an audience of 250 at BMS pounding the table on his vision to retire the car keys by making Westport more walkable and bike friendly. Tooker wants stripes on every corner for crosswalks. Traffic will soon be paralyzed once the new affordable housing units are crammed to capacity.But we should assume every ambulatory citizen / bike rider who blows into town is an upstanding citizen living out their truth in support of Westport sustainability while we treat the community gardeners as potential threats to public safety. We are planting the seeds of our own destruction by welcoming criminals like Sherline Lorius to suck off our collective teat but our own home grown gardeners are endangering the safety of our schools.
Carolne,
What do you love? What makes you happy? Your words are what I want to protect my children from.