Editor’s note: Following is an opinion submitted by Westporter Larry Weisman.
As Westport confronts the dual challenges of growth and affordability, we find ourselves at a crossroads. On one path, we could shape thoughtful, inclusive development that serves the needs of our community. On the other, we risk allowing large-scale projects to reshape our town in ways that prioritize commercial development over much needed affordable housing.
The proposed Hamlet development in Saugatuck is a prime example. While billed as a “revitalization effort”, I fear that it will transform Saugatuck into a venue more suited to visitors and luxury shoppers than to the residents who want to live, work, and raise families here
To the investors in the Hamlet—particularly those who live in Westport—this is a heartfelt appeal: please consider what you are bringing to the community you call home. You might consider using your influence to encourage the developer to reassess both the concept and size of the project. You are in a position to do something far more meaningful than building another high-end commercial destination. You can create something that aligns with Westport’s values—something that addresses our real needs, such as affordable housing and community-minded spaces.
In the context of Saugatuck there is no reason to fear Connecticut’s 8-30g statute. While imperfect in many ways, in this instance it may be helpful to facilitate a well-designed mixed use development in Saugatuck with the necessary infrastructure and transit to sustain it and provide real benefits: homes for teachers, first responders, young families and seniors/retirees and their children and grandchildren who currently can’t afford to live here, the very people who sustain our town and our young families who will build its future. At present, annual income of $116,400 qualifies a family of 4 for “affordable” housing.
Westport has long prided itself on being a forward-thinking, compassionate community. Now is the time for us as a caring community, and for the local investors in particular, to live up to that promise by confronting the tension between commerce and quality of life.
Aye, there’s the rub.
Larry Weisman
Westport, CT
It’s appalling to me that anyone with any decent moral compass can support the Hamlet as currently envisioned. Plopping down a crammed-to-the-hilt miniature Las Vegas strip with $900 a night hotel rooms literally a few yards from the main commuting hub of the community doesn’t in any way make Westport a better place to live. Our town leaders seem to think otherwise. We’ll remember that in November.
i had almost begun to despair at the dearth of reason prevalent in this and related discussions… but now, at long last, comes a chorus of reasonable voices. And an odd discordant one dismissive of the value of experienced Planning and Zoning commissioners as well as long time public servants and residents.
While I certainly feel a strong need to prioritize the preservation of the threatened William F. Cribari Bridge for both Westport’s identity and its residents’ safety, I agree with Larry’s plea.. and I offer a concordant plea: Understand and control the traffic streaming off I-95–work with state and federal decision making BEFORE you develop The Hamlet, BEFORE you replace the bridge and BEFORE you unleash the truck traffic that will make much of residential Saugatuck unsafe for pedestrians, school children trying to catch school busses, and bicyclists.
I, frankly, think anybody who wants to replace the bridge with the out-of-scale monstrosities proposed by CTDOT has little sensibility and less taste. However I with many others have been fighting CTDOT (so far successfully) for more than forty years and will, as they say, “Nevha Surrender.’
I have refrained from posing this question, but having heard the repeated negative vitriol I have to ask, Robbie, are you the same person who 20 years ago polluted the river,
https://www.westportnow.com/homeowner_arrested_for_oil_spill/
and now at age 55 are you telling public servants and volunteer municipal commissioners who offer their time and expertise freely to serve the public good to pack it in? That their service is no longer welcome? Do you really want to say this?
Ditto! Thank you Mr. Weisman. Perfectly said.
Larry is one of most knowledgeable and experienced land use attorneys in Connecticut, however, it doesn’t require his expertise to see the disaster (on steroids) that the proposed Hamlet will be for the Saugatuck Community. We can only hope that the project’s investors, particularly those who live here, will rethink what they are funding and heed his advice to withdraw the application to the P&Z while there is still time to alter course.
Ken Bernhard
Woods Grove Rd
Well said. Approving The Hamlet because of fear of an 8-30 project would be the height of insanity. Let’s embrace a well designed plan that builds appropriate housing in an appropriate place.
Thank you, Mr. Weisman for your smart insights about 8-30G and what it could become in Westport. We’re overdue for education and conversation on the topic. Saugatuck is the ideal location for an in-scale, mixed-use development with on-site affordable housing and there are experienced local developers who would love to do that project. Let’s hope your thoughts influence Hamlet’s investors, particularly those who talked about providing Westport with a gift and a legacy. ROAN appears determined to scare town officials into approving an over-sized, impractical, luxury-living complex at the expense of more traffic, congestion and absolutely no place to park. That’s not a gift and certainly no legacy for their children.
This is so true Carole, and it is also why this may end up in the courts.
Judging my the attitude of the board who will decide whether this gets a green or red light, I believe, going to court might be the only option left.
Add me to the list of readers who agree that Larry Weisman’s commentary and suggestions are true, wise and important.
I hope the developers and investors are listening.
I suspect many of the “local investors” committed to their investment in 2021 or 2022, before they knew the the full and actual scope of Roan Development’s 2025 building permit application. At public P&Z meetings, we have heard some of those investors comment that they were supporting the hamlet because they wanted it to be part of their legacy as a Westport family. Well, the way it looks now I think the legacy that would come from helping to build multiple five-story, densely packed buildings and a massive underground stacked valet-operated parking facility in Saugatuck, is not a legacy that would bring civic pride.
And Larry is correct; there are many 8-30g projects in Fairfield County, and Westport, that are not oversized, and not despised by their neighbors.
The Roan principal’s have lot’s of choices and options. Frankly, when it comes to legacy and reputation, they have more to gain, or lose than anyone. Let’s hope they do the right thing!
Rick Smilow
Westport, CT
Agree 💯. Thank you. P&Z please take careful and thoughtful consideration. You are also residents of our unique and special town. Lead with courage. .
With all due respect, Mr. Weisman, these are privately owned properties of long-standing Westport residents. They are neither Longshore nor Barons.
It is astonishing that so many who have not paid into these properties for decades feel entitled to attempt to influence what multi-generational local families choose to do with their investments.
Furthermore, younger residents are advocating for a mixed-use development including a boutique hotel which are becoming the modern equivalent of Airbnb.
Folks on the “18th hole” might consider they’ve had a full round in Westport with all its benefits and now it’s time for the next group, not a popular thought, but it’s obviously true.
Having chatted with slice property owners in the area most prefer higher-end options with affordable units offsite, as this contributes more to the state-mandated quota and would benefit the town more than on-site units. and build property values in the slice.
Perhaps the Coffee-AN property should be developed under 8-30g regulation with multi-story units, all affordable. How’s 300+ one and two-bedroom units sound? It is an ideal location within walking distance to Main Street and close to Merritt.
As always it was nice seeing you at the meeting and hope you are well, Robbie
Trashing the longstanding — and in some cases elderly— residents of Westport as has-beens is rude and cruel. You’ve done this on multiple occasions. Please stop. The long-tenured residents of Westport built this town, paid for the schools you send your children to, and are every bit entitled to a sat on the quality of life here. Not all of us are trying to make a buck on The Hamlet. Please stop disparaging the people upon whose shoulders you stand with such arrogance.
Trashing the longstanding — and in some cases elderly— residents of Westport as has-beens is rude and cruel. You’ve done this on multiple occasions. Please stop.
The long-tenured residents of Westport built this town, paid for the schools you send your children to, and are every bit entitled to a say on the quality of life here.
Not all of us are trying to make a buck on The Hamlet.
Please stop disparaging the people upon whose shoulders you stand with such arrogance.
Whether or not these properties are privately owned by town residents is irrelevant to the debate over their future commercial development. It is not in any way “astonishing” that other town residents are voicing their opinions and concerns over such a large and impactful project. Furthermore your assertion that the portion of town residents whom you have deemed over the hill should cease with their efforts to shape the community within which they reside is highly offensive.
To follow Mr. Guimond’s golfing metaphor….I think he’s lost his ball, among other things…ageism has no place in this discussion.
What does have a place in the discussion are kudos to Larry and others who have supported the idea of a moderated development in the Saugatuck neighborhood. I have a feeling that the elected P&Z commission hasn’t given the professional planners who make up our P&Z department the latitude to actually do what they are good at…planning.
Joseph Strickland, Jr. AIA
Tony’s so rattled she clicked twice, and if you think I’ve stood on your Tony shoulders, you’re delusional.
In general, thinking someone nearing 90 has the same interests as a family in their 40s with young kids is unrealistic.
It’s like the last wave of presidents—too old to connect with the masses. BHO was the perfect age to achieve goals suited for his generation and the next. JB couldn’t accept it was time to step aside, and now look at the mess we’re in.
My statement is fact; you don’t have to like it. It wasn’t disrespectful to Mr. Weisman, who has helped me 20 years ago and whom I always acknowledge when I see him. That said, just because it triggers you doesn’t mean the issue should be ignored.
These developments, while not perfect, are meant for the next generation, period.
Most people are scared to address it, and that’s unfortunate.
Having a commissioner in his late 80s weighing in on pivotal decisions is foolish. I’ve witnessed other commissioners forced to bring him up to speed on several occasions for info covered multiple times. The frustrated looks on their faces was telling. I’ll go further to say he was placed in the seat at P+Z as a guaranteed NO on most applications, especially the Hamlet.
Anyone living outside the Slice who thinks our neighborhood should be planned with a ton of affordable housing has forgotten how the Slice has been dumped on for generations.
Put 200+ units above Coffee An and see how much support you get from Ken, or over by Compo, or on the island or a halfway house next to Ricks 10m dollar estate.
So please stop. Its time this prime, privately owned waterfront real estate is brought to life with mixed use and real river engagement, not just apartments with first and second level parking.
You won’t have to live with that, but we will if this isn’t passed.
Its not so much prime waterfront as it functions as our transportation hub. Just as in biology, each organ supports the other. By your logic we should put up ritzy hotels at compo… thats progress.
No, real progress is some housing for people who work in town.
Its a traffic nightmare, this meeds to be solved first from a planning perspective. What Roan wantsid downtown Derby–that is the waterfront they could develop.
Westport is a complex system, every part needs to work together. We have a shopping district called downtown. We have train station area that needs better parking and traffic flow to support public transportation for the wider community.
Every hotel in westport has gone under because it is a place to raise children.
Nothing in Hamlot is for children.
Toni did not click twice. She merely corrected some typos in her first comment.
Then reposted it.
First I’ve ZERO sympathy for the property owners who either inherited the land or bought it for half nothing, when I might add it was zoned for far less. So cry me a river.
The fact that PZ in what was stunning poor judgement bent over backwards for this group and basically wrote the text amendment FOR them or just took theirs and used it to write the text amendment, and with this particular project in mind is outrageous !
They did not come with any 8-30g and they in fact struggled to get enough investors because I know several very wealthy folks they approached who wanted nothing to do with it.
In the end they have a bunch of townies many quite likely present or past town officials/workers who all committed half nothing to the project.
A bit like crowd funding…
That was their first mistake. Hard to keep a lot of investors, many of whom are likely out of their league, happy, when you over promise.
It would not surprise me if some of these, not savvy investors are the reason it’s getting bigger and uglier by the week.
Next, my children, 4 of them, all live in the slice, and do not want this monstrosity,
I live in Saugatuck and I do not want this garbage development here.
I use the train and I do NOT want to compete with a bunch of valets for a parking spot.
I do not want offsite affordable housing esp when it is more than likely going into some already affordable units. If it is offsite it should be 30 million in affordable units. This offsite to save the developer money while they threaten 8-30g is insanity.
And TBD is rubbish !
Nothing should be TBD.
It is a licence to rob !!!! Conditional approval is rubbish !
No interest thanks.
I don’t want my tax payer money funding brownfield remediation at my expense.
I don’t want to wait a minute longer at a traffic light on my commute home because of 1000 more people an hour using this as a destination.
I don’t want people being ferried out to some island on a Saturday or Sunday because some nouveau riche elitist is being spoon fed excursions and pretending they are on vacation in Cannes.
I’d love to know, ( though I have a suspicion), who in town told them to threaten an 8-30g which roan has ZERO interest in, to scare the residents.
Not half glam enough for them. Of course I’m sure some of the 2-bit investors are encouraging it. Again, . don’t invest if you cannot afford to lose the money..
first lesson in investing.
This project as it stands is DOA.
But it always was..
lot 7, lot 8… can they and PZ get anymore desperate.
Neither PZ nor the selectwoman can promise them a hair of railroad parking.
First come first served, and no emptying garages out into the railroad”commuter” parking ahead of morning commutes.
The arguments about parking were hashed out and we were LIED to BLATANTLY about 2 years ago. And all those letters can be FOIA’d and all the recordings of meetings are available.
Even with an FAR of 1000-1, and a bonus if they needed it of
1300-1, they still cannot make it work. FAR Necessary for this project is 1000 -20
They have zero staff and zero patron parking.
Their project is removing almost 200’parking spots.
There’s no marina, so no real connection to the water.
The views are pathetic,
The landscaping a joke.
Nothing green will live in the shadows of those buildings anyway.
The tbd on affordable housing is ludicrous.
The affordable housing being allowed to be offsite is a disgrace.
The traffic “improvements” are non existent.
And I’ll bet you they will all be to benefit getting their patrons into their garages..
the rest of us will be stuck honking our horns and frustrated.
None of this is for Westport. It is for money.
It is no legacy, it is an OTT, lame, new money, no taste, Disney world for wannabes.
When words like “curated “ and “world class” and “polo games”, are being thrown around you just know you are getting saddled with a bunch of losers.
Let them build an 8-30g. Go ahead. Try.
We need the moratorium anyway, so we can stop these developers in their tracks.
you had me me at Waiting ONE MORE Minute to drive around saugatuck….already a terrible and unecessary headacche .
How will our Emergency Services get to us when theres a 300 person wedding and 47 cars waiting to be valet parked???? What happens when Waze directs 95 car and truck overflow through to the bridge??
Nobody seems to address the very REAL traffic issues this little slice faces daily. I don’t see how anyone with a brain isn’t losing sleep about the safety risks involved here . SCARY.
Yeah, I was not talking about myself; I do not have your kind of ego. I was talking about most of the rest of Westport who are the real role models for citizenship. Take a breath and look around you.
Yes yes yes!
I’ve been saying the same thing: The Hamlet as proposed is all about making Westport a “destination” for out-of-towners and not about revitalizing an area for residents.
Thank you Mr. Weisman for your excellent commentary.
It appears that the Hamlet is confronted by the Circle cle Hotel situation in Fairfield. We tried repeatedly to have the developers reduce the size of the project for the reasons cited here. They answered with a far bigger 8-30g application than was approved by planning and zoning. Be aware that your pleas for reason can go sideways, as ours did. Good luck.
Raymond Wilhelm
Fairfield
(ex-Westport, 1977-2006)
In fairness Raymond I’ve followed that story.
Correct me if I am wrong but the developer is not building the 8-30g and nor would they ever have.
Sure they presented one to give it legitimacy but they did not plan on doing it.
Nothing like as profitable. It was purely a scare tactic.
First 30% of units have to be onsite affordable with all finishes and size the same as market rate units.
A minimum of 15% of those units must be at 60% of AMI, and I imagine potentially all 30% could be forced to be at that 60%.
The developer was never doing it.
But your PZ caved.
Also remember the terrain and the conditions are far more difficult to work with in Saugatuck.
The property owners are asking a kings ransom for the properties. 8-30g does not get built where properties are this expensive.
The developers do not want to have to build parking for each building at ground level because they want mixed use as it is far more profitable. Far higher rent psf.
So between the 150 units they will need to provide onsite at 60% AMI, with the exact same fit and finish as market rate units, I suggest there’s not a snowballs chance in hell with current interest rates and tariff uncertainty that a 500 unit 8-30g is being built there.
They will also still need to build in 700 -1000 parking spaces, not because 8-30 g mandates that but because they won’t be able to sell or rent them otherwise.
An 8-30g is simply not sexy enough for these elitists.
Nor is it profitable enough.
Well said Larry, thank you. Thank you Toni, Ken and Rick as well. The previous P&Z commission expended tremendous efforts to convince Westporters, the Hamlet was a better alternative to an 8-30g.
As someone in the affordable housing industry, I find the threat by the Hamlet developers to construct an 8-30g project on their site unrealistic, although it would be welcomed solution.
What Saugatuck needs is housing people can afford to live in and retail, not an ill-conceived and dubiously financeable, “Disneyport” for the uber privileged.
The only folks who would, and are, benefiting from the Hamlet project are the fees generated for the attorneys, the consultants and the sellers of the land.
Rarely discussed, is the extremely heavy lift required to develop an 8-30g on these parcels, given the egregious land acquisition costs.
Think about this for a moment; if the developers threaten to develop (500) apartments under the 8-30g, they would be required to produce (150) of those units as deed restricted, to be leased at the STATE MEDIAN Income, (extremely low rental rates) not at the Area Median Income, which would bring substantially higher rent levels.
All (500) units, by law, must be constructed using the same materials, finishes and design standards, meaning granite countertops and high end finishes in ALL (500) units.
Should the Hamlet developer attempt to employ the Town regulation of; being permitted to construct the affordable units off-site, I am unable to identify any site in town adequate in size to construct (150) units of deed restricted housing?
Point being; the Hamlet developers land acquisition costs make an 8-30g project difficult to pencil out.
I would call their bluff and if by some miracle, they can make an 8-30g work, we need the housing and retail far more than we need a Disneyport.
Joseph V. Vallone, A.I.A.
A fantastic and informative comment Joe Vallone.
Thank you.
And this tells everyone it is time to GET RID of the town regulation which has NO business being there – permission to construct affordable housing offsite. Who voted for that ? Why would they ?
In what amounts to far far more modest buildings, often already affordable,to begin with, thus adding NO value, the developers profit skyrockets and the quality of the interior and exterior of many of such units is borderline ghetto !
That regulation is bizarre, questionable and needs to be immediately reversed.
I’d like to know the rationale for its being passed in the first place.
Because it benefits ONLY THE GREEDY CONTRACTORS.
And by MILLIONS
And here is the biggest coup for them. Town regulations for offsite affordable housing are so SHITTY, that in my opinion , any old crap is acceptable. So the units are nothing compared to what they would be if they were onsite.
I’ve been in a couple such units.
They are nothing short of dumps. They are certainly a far far cry from the units which are being built onsite, also able to avail of all amenities.
And that’s the town regs ! To allow contractors to put the affordable component somewhere else in order to placate obnoxious elitist buyers of their units and keep what they “appear” to consider the “great unwashed” away.
A them and us “disgrace”
I do not consider anybody the great unwashed, but developers clearly do. Or they think their buyers will.
And to add insult to injury many off site units being built were already affordable before. This helps nobody !
It is a joke of a regulation as is the latest sham of a text amendment being continued tomorrow, at a PZ public meeting,, one which will have far reaching consequences, and is another developer prize.
There are multiple developments coming up which, will benefit massively – tens of millions of xtra $$ in developers pockets- should this preposterous amendment be adopted.
The only real objector at last Mondays meeting was commissioner Calise. Commissioner Calise also had many doubts he expressed before Hamlet closed for deliberations and he voted NO, in line with the massive and overwhelming majority of this town.
It is time to get out of bed with the developers, so to speak, and think about the voters in this town.
This practice of “helping” the developers must be struck down.
It will mean certain death to many such obnoxious developments, such as the hamlets latest bluff !
Because bottom line developers DO NOT want to mix affordable housing with luxury.
This is truly a case of adding insult to injury. Not only is “affordable housing”, a concept wherein one gets to live where they can’t afford but it continues to evolve into now the requirement of being equal in all respects (granite countertops, etc.) lest you be reminded that you really aren’t paying for this as are your neighbors in the building. Furthermore, we are told state median income will be a determining factor which will definitely result in the need for “deeply affordable” housing. Alarmingly, we don’t know what residential area the off-site housing will be but it is starting to look like the housing “projects” of the big blighted urban areas. One last thing, can everyone knock it off with the “enriching” adjectives describing low income housing. It isn’t enriching anything. It is , in fact deriching the town and that is the point.
I agree with Larry – a mixed use development to benefit many stakeholders. I am confident that the P&Z can bring ROAN to the table. And ROAN can benefit from the give and get of negotiation.
This is a tremendous opportunity for Saugatuck to benefit. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water until we have explored every opportunity to resolve our housing, parking and traffic needs while improving Saugatuck’s commercial and retail scene in a manner that we as a community find acceptable.
Mr. Weisman, I wholeheartedly echo your sentiment.
To the Hamlet investors—many of you have said, “This isn’t perfect. I’m not in this for the money. I want to create a legacy.” These statements carry weight. And it acknowledges what many in our town see: flaws in this project that don’t align with the community’s needs or values.
So why accept imperfection when you don’t have to?
You have the ability—and the responsibility—to shift course. To create something truly lasting. Westport is a suburban community where people come to raise families, enjoy accessible transit, and live in a space that balances charm with livability. We don’t want to lose train station parking to private developers or have more congestion from an overbuilt area with luxury events.
Instead, imagine a right-sized, mixed-use development that reflects what this Transit-Oriented area should be: connected, community-driven, and inclusive. It could be a smaller Hamlet or a mixed-use project under 8-30g, with 70% market-rate units (which would naturally command higher value due to their proximity to the station) and 30% affordable units, which could enrich this area. Both of these would boost home values from what the neighborhood is today and foster local commerce, while meaningfully supporting Westport’s goals.
There is not only one solution for this land—unless, of course, the developer has a singular outcome in mind. And that appears to be the case. ROAN seems fixated on profit margins, even as residents voice their concerns. Despite their early promises to enhance and connect with the community, they have failed to engage and to respond to valid questions about scale, purpose, and long-term impact.
This isn’t about being anti-growth or anti-ROAN. It’s about building the right kind of growth. One that reinforces what Saugatuck and Westport already are—and what they aspire to become.
To the investors: Changing the direction of this development isn’t weakness—it’s wisdom. And it’s a legacy the entire town will remember and celebrate.
Michele Paquette
Westport, CT
It was a big mistake for the PZ to change the regulations 2 years ago. They are in complicity with dr Frankenstein (Rone).
Either way parking needs to be the priority for our transit hub. No way around this. Legal action brewing — civil action.
The baby needs to thrown out with the bathwater–sorry.
Also, now it is about the slimy tactics they used — and their greed.
We need to roll back those regs and send em packing.
If westport signals that it is up for sale to any sleezy developer all will be los, we need leadership now more than ever.
All the comments have been insightful.
As a trained and experienced planner and a building rehabilitation specialist with the South Norwalk Redevelopment Agency prior to becoming Westport’s ZEO/Zoning Administrator, I have much to say on the subject of the redevelopment of Saugatuck. Out of deference to the venue, I will limit my comments to a single but most important point.
Zoning without planning is folly.
In the past few years, it’s become de riguer for zoning amendments in our Town to proliferate like litter after a circus comes to Town.. Watching us lose control over prudent and statutorily supported development inspired me to quip that we needed a new welcome sign at the Town boundaries: “Welcome to Westport, where we zone to suit.”
As an example, while the P&ZC initiated “Cottage Cluster” regulation was being considered a while ago, I asked if the staff had drafted a layout of the permitted development using one or two of the eligible Town owned properties as a demonstration site to assure the regulation “worked.” “Oh no,” came the answer, the tone rife with condescension. “We don’t do that. We wait for an application to be submitted and if the regulation doesn’t work, we’ll just amend it.”
Granted we largely have the state lawmakers to hold accountable for this “no planning, just zoning” form of zoning regulation, the seeds of which are found in our affordable housing laws. FYI: 8-30g is the entire body of affordable housing law — not just the small, threatening section everyone knows by reputation. The section of 8-30g that allows an affordable housing developer to propose set-aside developments that violate existing zoning regulations, by extension obviates the planning behind those regulations.
Nothing in our Plan of Conservation and Development urges or encourages housing density 10 or 20 more times that of the underlying district, and/or gargantuan developments located less than 50 feet from small, naturally affordable single family homes. One doesn’t need a degree to understand the concept.
Nevertheless, to attribute this “no planning” approach to the adoption of all new zoning regulations is to run amok of Section 8-2 of the CT General Statutes, attached for anyone interested.
Planning requires the closest study of land possible —infrastructure, existing and historic land use, current trends in traffic, property values, existing and potentially viable density, future land use in the area, etc. etc. etc.
If planning is an essential first step to adopting zoning regulations, then it’s logical that missing the first step is as dangerous and foolhardy as leaving out the first step in the construction of a staircase.
If we continue to neglect the fundamentals of good zoning provided by planning first, we may as well write our zoning regulations on an Etch-a-Sketch and make decisions by throwing darts at a dart board.
P.S. The Saugatuck area proposed for the Hamlet has grown in value courtesy of the amended regulations. That makes it far less desirable as an 8-30g appeals application than anywhere else in Town. A shame, because we could really use more affordable housing.
Gloria Gouveia
Westport, CT
There is another aspect.
The proposed budget for the deal. Its not workable. Totally irresponsible for the town to even entertain the idea. How much over budget did the former ymca go… that cost 50 percent more than origially projected. The size and scope of Hamlot contains hidden rounding errors of 10s of millions at least. These people dont know what they are doing. To risk our town so that they can roll the dice on real estate flip is insane– for the ymca we had Waldman assuring us all would be well and aligned with Westport’s vision. And though i did not like moving the ymca out of downtown, david dispayed leadership qualities.
But this, Im sorry, i dont feel reassured that it wont be a disaster—aside from the overly dense vision and misalignment with Westport, they are not qualified to carry it out.
Case in point they didn’t reveal themselves–or their true intentions…