Editor’s note: The following opinion essay was submitted by Westport resident Eric Raphael for publication by the Westport Journal.
_________________________________
The proposed redevelopment of Parker Harding Plaza is back on the table after being shut down by Planning and Zoning late last year.
Planning and Zoning should deny the plan again, despite our town administration’s relentless effort to push it through. Not only does the new plan consist of the same basic design as the ill-conceived original, this time the proposal brazenly calls for ripping up green space in one area just to add green space in another, all while unnecessarily rearranging our parking real estate into less convenient sites.
Specifically, the updated plan would eliminate over 40 prime parking spaces in Parker Harding, spaces that are literally lined up with central downtown stores. This would admittedly pave the way for new green space in Parker Harding. And PHP’s lost parking would be “replaced” with over 40 new spots in the Jesup lot.
However, Jesup is farther from the heart of town and the new Jesup spots would come at the expense of Jesup Green space. So what are we accomplishing here — removing existing Jesup Green space just to add new Parker Harding greenery, and removing prime parking in PHP just to add mediocre parking down by the library?
It’s wasteful to swap locations for perfectly functional infrastructure, even if the expected impacts are neutral. But in this case, we’re facing inferior outcomes for residents and business owners.
Finally, we’ve heard talk about the Jesup Green loss just being temporary, to relieve parking conditions during PHP’s construction. However, if the green space lost at Jesup is truly temporary (some have expressed skepticism over this), it means Jesup’s substitute parking capacity is also temporary. That would make downtown’s net parking losses permanent, at odds with the town administration’s spin of incremental parking gains — a cornerstone of their updated proposal. Anyway you look at it, the plan appears to remain as deeply flawed as ever.
(While not on P&Z’s current agenda, the most recent DPIC meeting introduced the possibility of eliminating significant parking from Jesup to make way for a playground. This also contradicts the town admin’s stated intention to prioritize net new parking and underscores how today’s agenda before the P&Z rests on a slippery slope.)
Furthermore, while appreciative of much of the good work our public officials perform on behalf of Westport residents, as we consider the town admin’s case for PHP, it would be a disservice not to call out one seemingly disingenuous pretext after another to ram their proposal through.
In my opinion, the town admin has lost significant creditability in this regard.
For example:
1) Climate Change. Remember when doing away with the cut-through road was part of the deal? This was quashed after immediate backlash, but a revised proposal (also quashed) called for the road to be moved inward. While this would make more room for the admin’s green space, the public explanation was that climate change might otherwise cause the road to flood. Let’s be honest. Moving the road 10 feet inward would only add green space and eliminate parking — there’s no way it would stop an overflown river from inundating the new road.
2) Fire hazard. Like anyone else, I support adequate safety measures. But I question sudden concern about fire hazard after 20 years of status quo at PHP, especially when nearly every other Westport lot with retail stores has parking alongside the storefronts. Just look at all the nearest examples, like lots that service the U.S. Post Office, CVS, Trader Joe’s, Westport Hardware/UPS, Fresh Market, etc. That said, if we must cede spaces to satisfy the code, I’d like to see the specific statutes behind it.
3) Parking lot walkways are required for safety. I don’t see walkways in other parking lots. I use the PHP lot nearly every day, oftentimes with my kids. It feels as safe as any other. This looks like more propaganda from plan proponents. There isn’t a single PHP collision with a pedestrian on record.
4) Two-way corridors are needed to mitigate congestion. This is mistaken and would actually cause more congestion with increased competition for fewer parking spaces. Also, it’s rare to wait behind cars in PHP to begin with. And even on roads where two lanes provide opportunity for passing, drivers often choose to wait behind cars in process of parking. Finally, unlike parallel parking, it’s easy to quickly move in and out of PHP spots. Bottom line is that the PHP lot functions well with one-way lanes. We don’t need trade in for two-way lanes and then take on the bigger predicament of diminished parking capacity.
5) Parking space dimensions are not up to standard. Then why not re-stripe all parking lots? Every lot fails the 18-by-9 standard!
To sum up, we can spruce up Parker Harding without gutting significant parking capacity. PHP can be repaved, modernized, and improved in non-disruptive ways — e.g., charging stations, landscaping, additional picnic tables, benches etc. But we cannot afford to overindulge in or relocate green space at the expense of essential downtown parking. And we don’t need to because Westport has incredible greenery nearly everywhere else we turn.
There is also no need to conflate Jesup’s potential development with Parker Harding’s preservation. As a separate subject, we can maintain Jesup Green or consider repurposing part of it for additional parking (as opposed to replacement parking) either now, or as needed in the future to accommodate a growing population.
The P&Z hearing will take place tonight at 7 p.m. The public may attend via Zoom and offer testimony during the meeting. Written comments may also be received prior to the public meeting and should be sent to PandZ@westportct.gov by 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting if intended to be distributed for consideration by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Written comments received after 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be entered into the record, but will not be distributed until the next business day.
I say again as I have been saying for many years, the solution to the downtown parking problem is a modest parking structure on the Baldwin lot to restore 40+ spaces lost in the PH redo. Perhaps 3 levels, invisible from the street, within easy walking distance to Main St., without the need to use Jesup Green for additional parking. It’s a no brainer.
I also agree with Larry. Working with the natural lower topography on the Baldwin lot would allow a two level design solution; a lower level hidden from street view with a second level at grade level elevation that would double the number of parking spaces in that location.
I have also advocated for many years, converting the poorly utilized, unstriped, parallel parking spaces on Main Street starting from the Post Road heading north to Elm Street, be redesigned for a 60 degree, nose in parking design solution on one side of the street. Given the traffic flow on the street is one-way, this is an ideal solution. I think you would find a substantial net increase in the number of spaces with this solution.
I would also include more street trees and seating areas which would also act to slow down vehicular speed. Most importantly, I would also include the installation of parking meter kiosks to help pay for these improvements and future maintenance. We charge for railroad parking why are we not charging for parking on Main Street ?
If the 60 degree angle parking solution on Main Street is deemed to be too radical, then at the very least the Town should stripe the parallel parking spaces for efficiency and add the parking kiosks to generate revenue for maintenance.
~ Joseph Vallone
Once again, we should defer to the expert planners on the Town staff and vendors rather than opinions when considering what needs to be done. If anyone chooses to look at the DPIC website, we’ve displayed a succinct strategy for three years that includes five key pillars, with parking and pedestrian access on the top, but closely connected to sustainability and flood resiliency. As stated countless times, just restriping PH will lose significantly more spots than the current plan, and it cannot be done outside of code. The upper Jesup plan is not “temporary”; it has been in the master plan for years and is just being accelerated to alleviate concerns about parking inventory. To be clear, any plans for a much-demanded Jesup playground will not impact parking inventory and will be a part of the next design phase, with many opportunities for public feedback.
Randy,
When you say the “vendors”, do you mean the merchants ?
Because 95% of the merchants do not agree with this plan.
The parking lot can be restriped if Planning and zoning choose to do so and bypass code.
Several very experienced P&Z commissioners have stated as much in public.
It is called “maintenance”.
The one way angled parking spots at Parker Harding work perfectly well, and have done for decades.
I have never so much as had a door ding on my car while parking there because the spots are angled.
As for congestion the loading zones which “somebody” decided could become all day parking after 10am make absolutely no sense, considering merchants do not arrive to work until 10am to receive shipments.
The design is seriously flawed and will cause chaos.
The plan for lower jesup, we all know factually will show further parking losses, adding to the lost 35 spots at Baldwin, the lost 22 spots on church lane ( more than half the year)
So you see for a plan getting rammed down everyone’s throat, which does not work AT ALL, it forgot its key pillar, parking.
What you should have done was shown an increase in actual realized and usable parking in “now” time, before attempting to remove parking.
“Show me the money”,
Show us the increase and build it, not in green space like jesup green our beloved town green.
You would do well to read these 2 articles.
WESTPORTS BOOM STRAINS PARKING
WRITTEN 37 years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/22/nyregion/westports-boom-strains-parking.html
And a Dan woog article written in 2015.
WESTPORTERS URGE RESTORATION OF TRANSIT FUNDS
https://06880danwoog.com/2015/05/04/westporters-urge-restoration-of-transit-funds/amp/
DPIC chose to ignore all of this and barge ahead with a flawed vanity project plan which as allllll the merchants have told you will destroy their businesses and their livelihoods, not to mention Main Street.
You best remember that the merchants pay enormous property taxes for the priveledge of renting at enormous expense their spaces on Main Street.
90% of main streets and downtowns leases are NNN. This means on top of their rents merchants pay their portion within a building of the property taxes..
we are also all paying over 20 years at monstrous expense for the hideously ugly red brick pavers which someone installed along with street lights.
Just to give you an example.
Nomade, and other tenants in that building will/and have been paying $100,000 dollars for JUST the red bricks in front of our space.
I could have imported beautiful antique Belgian pavers for a fraction of the cost.
So let’s be very aware here of the dynamic.
Merchants pay, and pay A LOT, certainly their fair share to have a very large say in what happens in the town they have businesses in.
We were NOT consulted.
You had the nerve at the last DPIC meeting I attended to disparage the staff, and I believe your words were in a nutshell.
We don’t care about the staff… this is about residents and visitors,
Well I have news for you staff need parking too.
We asked you and you assured us you will tell us where 1200 staff are going to be directed to park.
Until you do so, I sincerely hope that our expert Planning and Zoning commissioners will request that information.
What is the point of a vibrant, busy downtown, and nowhere for staff to park.
Staff MUST be able to park in a safe and accessible place.
Comes to my next point.
The imperial lot.
This is and always was a no brainer to be done first.
Fix it, its decrepit, as acknowledged in your glossy DPIC brochure, put on a shuttle bus like was there 37 years ago called the shopper schlepper, and especially for anybody going to the jesup area of downtown including of course staff it makes so much sense.
Why does practicality have to go out the window for the order in which these projects is done.
I suspect it is because of the farmers market, and as much as we all love the farmers market, their opinions do NOT trump those of the property tax and rent paying merchants., , not even close.
They are “guests” on a Thursday in the imperial lot which you have yet to address where you expect staff to park on a Thursday when the market is on during peak busy Thursday hours.
Your glossy brochure mentions all sorts of elaborate and expensive ideas for the imperial lot, and all sorts of trade fairs, and private events with covered electrified pavillions and bathrooms.
Either the imperial lot is resident and staff parking or it’s not but make up your mind. It needs to be available from 8/10am-6 pm for parking. With a shuttle bus laid on.
I expect the planning and zoning commission will be very interested in hearing exactly what parking capacity for existing needs will exist at the imperial lot.
And why this not being fixed first.
https://www.downtownwestportct.com/progress-reports
Find the watercolor pic of imperial and read the right hand side description of the vision.
At the very least, the plans for lower jesup, should absolutely be laid out in black, white and green before you can expect the commissioners of P&Z to award an 8-24, not in full knowledge of the rest of the plans.
Talk of barges( which is ludicrous) when we already have a parking problem, makes zero sense.
Why would you add more businesses to an already under enormous pressure downtown.
Short of creating 1000 more parking spots there is absolutely no sense in barges !
Your plan sounds like it is literally out to destroy existing businesses.
I wonder how basso, and restaurants close to the library will feel at lunch time when you talk about creating a barge which will put further parking pressure on a ticking time bomb.
Again, this lower jesup plan needs to be seen and digested and debated by most especially the merchants.
Blacktopping the upper portion of Jesup Green, as currently proposed, is part of the 2015 Downtown Master Plan?
Well said Eric,
This plan is a horrible one.
And if the administration is so concerned with flooding and sustainability, and maintenance, then this kind of parking lot is what we need, because we do know the town doesn’t like to maintain anything.
Solution:
https://www.truegridpaver.com/resources/projects/
Truegrid, made in America, and in business over 20 years.
A perfect solution to help with the flooding on the lots.
Should have been looked at years ago.
Bye bye standing water, bye bye pot holes, and hello practically zero maintenance.
Lost in the shuffle is the 2015 RNA Plan for Jesup Green which was done at a cost if $250,00, approved by P&Z and which was to have been implemented by the DPIC. What’s up with that?
It makes little sense to tinker with Jesup Green until we know what will become if the police station., just as it made little sense to resurface the Baldwin lot before we have agreed on a downtown parking solution. Let’s not make that mistake again.
The P&Z would be doing Westport a favor by rejecting the current proposal so as to provide additional time for answering the questions posed above and exploring our better options.