To the editor:
There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the fate of the community gardens in the context of rebuilding Long Lots Elementary.
At the last Board of Ed meeting on Oct. 19, there was an amended motion regarding the preservation of the community gardens that was defeated 4-2. If we had been seated on the Board of Ed, we would have voted in favor of that motion.
We believe it is appropriate for Board of Ed members to take a holistic view on all decisions that come before them and consider the interests of all constituents.
Board of Ed members are not advocates for any particular group or cause, but need to consider the entire electorate. To claim otherwise, as our campaign rivals have done, strikes us as deceptive and characteristically manipulative. It is yet another excuse or tactic to dodge a tough decision.
We see the community gardens as one of the wonderful amenities within Westport that make our town such an attractive place to live, work and raise a family.
What we have witnessed in the last weeks and months is how deeply valued this particular amenity is for so many Westport residents. It is in our collective interests to protect the community gardens, and we agree with those board members who seek a viable solution that preserves the gardens while completely meeting the needs of our school system.
Jamie Fitzgerald and Camilo Riano
Republican candidates for Board of Education
Thank you for endorsing the continued existence of this irreplaceable community asset!
How convenient! Two weeks before the election, you agree witb gardeners , climate change, experiential learning, holistic views, and Jews!
Wowie!
Ok, seriously now. Why now?
Walks in the gardens- SEL
Mindfulness in the gardens – SEL
Clinate change teaching and gardening
Holistic learning and caring – DEI
These Republicans sure know how to time things!
Pawns arw not just pieces in the game of chess.
Camilo and Jamie, how about a garden for ALL Westport schools and a gay pride flag like is outside of Temple Israel?
Stephanie, You wrote EXACTLY what I was thinking. Thank you.
“how about a garden for ALL Westport schools?”
I don’t understand your comment, given that the three Democrats at the BOE meeting last week refused to take a position opposing replacing the 20-year-old Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve with a Babe Ruth-sized Little League field. The Democrats effectively said “no gardens for ANY schools.”
I support building as new school. I’m a Democrat who doesn’t share the social viewpoints of the Republican candidates for BOE. But if the Democrats lose votes because of their endorsement of the LLSBC plan, that’s on them. I mean, Robert Harrington, a Republican on BOE, wouldn’t endorse the LLSBC plan, but the Democrats did? Actions have consequences.
(This is oddly reminiscent of the early days of the Save Westport Now movement. When the Democratically controlled P&Z was consistently pro-developer. Then pro-preservation Republicans were elected and gradually P&Z evolved to become more protective of the interests of residents. Similarly, two seated Republicans on BOE and two Republican candidates for BOE have taken a “don’t destroy the Community Gardens” position. I’m not going to criticize that position just because I don’t agree with every single one of their other positions.
The Democrats will lose some votes because of that vote. Some voters will stay home because of that vote. That’s on them. Actions have consequences. “Earth loving Community Gardeners are our natural constituents who will always vote for us no matter what we do” is a horribly presumptuous attitude toward voters.
Is the role of the Board of Ed to control the community gardens? I am so confused. How is the gardens part of the Board of Education purview? I thought the purpose of the Board of Ed is to serve the schools and students.
Please clairfy….
I understand that you are confused, so I will try to help you to understand.
The LLSBC was tasked with fulfilling the Ed Specs that they were given to them by the BOE. When the BOE gave them those specs, there was an expectation that the Gardens would not be touched. The Committee was never tasked as the “Long Lots School Building and Parks & Rec Facility Relocation Committee.”
As the process continued, the LLSBC presented five possible plans which all impacted the Gardens dramatically. At a BOE meeting, the Chairwoman actually asked, “why did you add this to the plan” under whose direction?” Pretty sensible questions. Jay Keenan mumbled something about seeking the input of others – something completely outside of the purview of the LLSBC. One BOE member (I can’t remember which) referred to the LLSBC’s actions as “sneaky.”
In the last month before the most recent BOE meeting, there has been more and more local outrage. Especially as it was learned that discussions went on between LLSBC members and those involved in private sports leagues, well before those involved with the Gardens were given the slightest idea. The LLSBC devised a plan to serve sports leagues as a throw-in with the building, even budgeting the fields as part of the building process.
A little moral courage from the BOE and they would have said, “we didn’t ask for this, we won’t support it. We asked for a school, and one option does allow for a school and no disturbance of the Gardens.” Unfortunately, the BOE chose the path of expediency rather than the path of doing the right thing.
Remember that when the Community Gardens were first established, the BOE had a LOT of input into the rules of operation of the Gardens because of the proximity of the Gardens to the School, even though it is on Town, not School, property. It is disingenuous to say “we want input” early, and “we absolve ourselves of any responsibility” now.
The Gardens can be a tremendous learning tool for the students of Long Lots. We see Gardens in other communities embraced in just such a way. The BOE could easily do that. They could say, “we don’t need a Babe Ruth-sized baseball field at an elementary school.” The Democrats on the BOE chose to not do so. And think about the message that it sends to the children about how little respect we Westporters have for the environment, when the bulldozers come to destroy twenty years of work and replace it with an astroturf field. Are those the values you want taught to the children?
I appreciate that you really, really want the Democratic candidates to win reelection to the BOE. I get that. But they need to own their vote – they can’t have it both ways. And your multitude of comments on 06880 (and here) show that same lack of ownership and makes the comments come off as blind partisanship, nothing more or less.
I hope that helps with the confusion, here.
Thanks.
I support what the parents of Long Lots students want! That is where my vote will be
I think they want a new school. But I don’t hear any of them saying they want to destroy the Gardens.
This is absolutely not school versus gardens. But the BOE has effectively decided that they would rather just go along with the ballfield scheme to expedite the process, rather than simply doing the right thing.
But if word comes out that they were part of the scheme (noting your “why does BOE have anything to do with the Parks & Rec process” question) BOE is going to come out of this looking terrible.
I am doing my due diligence and asking young parents with kids at long lots which plan they agree witb. Not getting anymore contentious than that.