Editor’s note: The following commentary was submitted by Dr. Jay Walshon for publication by the Westport Journal.
_______________________________
A brief summary: For 20 years the Westport Community Gardens were formulated and supported by town leadership, community organizations and Westport’s residents. In the shadow of Long Lots Elementary School, on a separately dedicated parcel of land, due to resident labor and funding — and the generous support and contributions of local businesses — over two decades it grew, prospered, earned recognition and engendered our pride.
Given its membership requirements and background vetting, it did all this without even a modicum of concern raised by officials, educators, parents, residents or police. Zero.
In the spring of 2023, secreted from the public, Jen Fava of Parks & Recreation decided to replace the community gardens with a Babe Ruth ballfield complete with bleachers, concessions and lights. It is apparent that this hidden intention was formulated in conjunction with First Selectwoman Jen Tooker and Supt. Thomas Scarice, who offered his chainsaw to assist in the CG’s destruction.
The only Long Lots option that would retain the community garden was rejected by the LLSBC. The necessity for an additional ballfield was cited. Again, this CG replacement plan was proposed without security concerns being raised by any town official, educator, parent, resident or police. None.
During the summer of 2023, when the public discovered this scheme, Jen Fava quipped: “Oops, I guess they found out.” The neighbors were angry and objected to this betrayal of trust. Baseball players asserted they did not support a Babe Ruth field and community garden destruction. Many Westport residents were outraged at Jen Tooker.
Led by Dan Pritikin and Joe Nader, some Long Lots parents scapegoated the gardeners — blaming them for delaying the project, for not caring about children and being dangerous with their “picks and shovel weapons.” Our Public Site and Building Committee experts requested involvement to help resolve the growing animus, but were repeatedly rejected by Jen Tooker, then disparaged by Mr. Nader in print. Attorney Weisman attempted reason and cogent recommendation to stem the rancor, but was similarly attacked. This unseemly vitriol continues to engender antipathy.
Jen Tooker offered to “Relocate the Community Gardens” to Baron’s South, as if it were merely moving wooden frames. It was recognized that “relocating” was equivalent to (and a euphemism for) “destruction” and having to begin anew. Town leadership didn’t care. It was also reiterated that the intended destination is impregnated with toxic contamination. Town leadership still didn’t care.
When the public requested a community discussion on this important issue with their elected representatives, RTM Moderator Wieser denied their right to be heard — thereby dismissing opposition via censorship, and relegating it to the “blogosphere.” Not only did town leadership not care, they instigated it.
Recognizing mounting P&Z opposition, in October Jen Tooker schemed to bypass their 8-24 approval process by going directly to a sympathetic BoF for funding, but once discovered and pressured by the P&Z via a letter addressed to Ira Bloom, this end-run strategy was abandoned. (Letter obtained via FOIA).
The likely rejection by the P&Z resulted in Jen Tooker postponing her 8-24 until AFTER the November election — causing a delay to the Long Lots project that was conveniently, but inappropriately, ascribed to the community gardeners to foment further animus toward them.
Due to the current P&Z’s concern for the Long Lots neighbors and their recognition of the community gardens’ and preserve’s value and importance, ultimately Jen Tooker modified her 8-24 to eliminate the Babe Ruth ballfield and retain the community gardens — perhaps temporarily until she could devise a different strategy to eliminate them.
It still remains uncertain whether the “crystal clear P&Z recommendations” provided during the agreed upon pre-approval determination will be ultimately honored.
Once the initial attempt to displace (thereby destroy) the Westport Community Gardens failed, declaring that it posed an intolerable security risk became the new strategy to eliminate them.
It is apparent that the Police Department and BoE were recruited in this effort. In December 2023 — SEVERAL MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PRC PUBLICLY DISCLOSED modified usage hours — in a letter Joe Nader informed the P&Z that access to the community gardens will be eliminated during school hours. How could Mr. Nader possibly know this back in December when this new access restriction was never disclosed to the public until April 3? One wonders.
Despite our town officials (20 years ago) collaboratively establishing the acceptable CG location with reasonable and responsible utilization rules (including security measures, background checks and hours of operation), despite the entirety of Long Lots’ faculty and our Board of Education leadership knowing about and voicing zero concern about the CG, despite Westport’s astute police force observing the utilization of the CG for two decades without expressing any security concerns, and despite 20 years of zero security issues, SUDDENLY the gardeners and dog walkers have become THE intolerable danger of the day. Coincidence? You decide.
Inflammatory sentiments such as, “YOU are dangerous so must be relocated,” “We will just take the land YOU invested in,” and “By not accepting our offer YOUR annihilation is YOUR OWN FAULT,” are shameful in their historical reminiscence and divisive intent. It served to spotlight a repugnant degeneration of community collaboration into factions, and the debased disposition of a few Long Lots parents to insult and tarnish good people under the guise of their children’s imminent danger and best interests.
The fact that far more concerning school access points from neighboring properties is acceptable, that Camp Compo provides uninhibited exposure to hundreds of children without a care, that “after-school” events pose a greater risk to children than when they are secured behind locked doors, AND the undeniable acknowledgement that had the CG parcel remained in private hands (private homes, 8-30g housing, a cemetery, a farm, an arcade … whatever) no one would care a whit about that parcel of land, illustrates the absurdity of this argument at its core. Any assertion that our resident community gardeners and dog walkers pose a unique intolerable danger is specious.
Everyone understands what’s occurred: With intention and determination town leadership lit a match and their supporters stoked the flames. When smoke was detected, instead of dousing it incendiaries were recruited. When the flames became intense, the Fire Department was handcuffed so that plans for a “controlled burn” could be invented. When the embers smolder, blame will be ascribed. After all ashes are buried, only fond memories, faded photographs and lingering resentments will remain.
Here is my take: Certain town officials conspired to replace the community gardens with a Babe Ruth ballfield, but were rebuffed. Parents are honestly and appropriately concerned about children learning in a suboptimal facility. Some parents are genuinely concerned that a fair adjudication of this issue might delay a much-needed rehabilitated elementary school and do not desire even a minute delay. Some residents believe that there is a better location for Westport’s Community Gardens — however these folks are also unconcerned that relocation will destroy the current award-winning garden, that the gardeners and leadership will disappear, and that there will likely be no new facility.
Many residents acknowledge that the current CG location serves as a much-appreciated buffer for the neighbors as well as having important ecological benefits. Most residents appreciate that decades of personal labor, sacrifice, commitment, stewardship, community integration and personal expense should not be wantonly discarded. And perhaps there actually are a few who genuinely view the CG as a security risk to the school rather than being a valuable early-warning adjunct it actually is.
During a public forum Chief Koskinas admitted that the gardeners ARE NOT his concern. In addition, he even asserted that the fenced and locked garden property itself was not his concern. He declared that it was the area where gardeners parked that could not be adequately monitored during school hours that concerned him.
THE PARKING LOT!
Creating a means to discern the gardeners (who Police Chief Koskinas declared were “good people” and absolutely “NOT his concern”) from villains is not an option Identifying badges are inadequate (because SROs cannot check them from a distance)? Having the vetted and identified gardeners become permitted “invited guests” that check in is inconceivable? Utilizing “identifying outerwear” (such as vests supplied by the supervising PRD or Police Department) is not reasonable? There is no agreeable workable solution? We cannot figure this out?
Public suggestions on how to secure the parking area (like they do at so many “vulnerable” facilities) were dismissed. Parking passes, video surveillance, security lift arms — none are sufficiently adequate at Long Lots? (I wonder why the gardeners cannot share “designated parking” where the faculty is permitted, but I digress). Further isolating the CG and parking from the school isn’t a possibility?
THE TRUTH IS that being completely security effective has nothing to do with the gardeners (who, remember, are “good people”) dog walkers, or even the parking lots. Unless I am mistaken, even with the proposed timeframe restrictions, anyone can walk (or drive) onto the Long Lots school campus and park anywhere, anytime. ANYONE. ANYWHERE. ANYTIME. These “restrictions” on gardeners and dog walkers might be symbolic and “feel good,” but they do not solve the problem at hand. Why? Because those with nefarious intent DO NOT “follow the rules.” It has everything to do with SECURING THE ENTRY. School doors are locked; the campus is not.
IF further security of Long Lots is the true focus, attention would be directed at securing its access points without “building a wall,” relying on “razor wire” or resorting to a “moat and drawbridge.” A variety of robust security gate, barrier (external and internal) and fencing solutions exist and are ubiquitously utilized IF effective controlled entry restriction is the true objective. Low-cost stationed entry personnel (need not be police) will suffice (until the architects solve the problem) IF complete protection is the actual immediate goal. In my mind, excluding “good people” (who actually DO serve as early-warning adjuncts) with “timeframe rules” as the means to exclude villains is either wishful or magical thinking. It merely punishes “good people” engendering ill will, while not solving the main problem at hand.
So why has our Westport Community Gardens issue come to this?
Lack of respect. Lack of value recognition. Lack of desire. Lack of motivation. Lack of vision.
Recreational facilities, Stepping Stones, arts curriculum, sports, etc. — ALL recognized for their value; therefore there is respect, motivation, desire and vision. Currently, there is little recognition or respect (by Westport’s leadership and most Long Lots parents) for the CG and the gardeners — therefore there is NO DESIRE to figure out how the CG and the LL School can co-exist. There is no inclination to protect the CG — if it was recognized important and valuable there would be. There is no political will to preserve this resource. Attacking, blaming, chastising and insulting has been preferred to collaboration and problem solving. How embarrassing.
For a multitude of reasons, gardens on school property are growing exponentially across the country — reportedly there are now over SEVEN THOUSAND! Why? “Community gardens can enrich academic learning, nurture relationships, and create positive neighborhood environment that enhances students’ lives outside of school. It improves the value of surrounding real estate, decreases vandalism and crime, reduces stormwater runoff, provides habitat for pollinators and other wildlife, and contributes to participant’s mental and physical health. When community gardens are located on school grounds, community members actively engage in the organization and maintenance of the garden (provides the essential attention when school is not in session which significantly aids in its continued success), and creates valuable intergenerational connections where adults and children develop mutual respect. Having adult community residents in the school garden decreases theft, vandalism and crime.” It has been proven that having a school garden located on school property is a primary determinate to its success.
WESTPORT HAS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY that deserves serious attention. IF the CG was recognized as being valuable, then our community would be determined to protect its existence rather than encourage its destruction. It is difficult to believe that in a $100 million project any architect and developer couldn’t figure out a way to satisfactorily resolve any PARKING LOT or CAMPUS SECURITY concerns that our community might have — or ANY other security issues identified. All it takes is desire, motivation and vision. And LEADERSHIP.
In addition: The CG is not only an award-winning “facility.” It is comprised of caring residents who are available and willing to incorporate their knowledge and time into the school curriculum, which so many schools find extremely valuable — particularly valuable to elementary students and children with special needs. BUT it takes is desire, motivation and vision — and LEADERSHIP. With Stepping Stones’ relocation this is a unique opportunity that should not be squandered.
Might I respectfully suggest stopping the ongoing destructive strategies and vitriolic insults directing our community toward fractionated antipathy, and instead turn toward collaboration, brainstorming and utilizing the expertise of the architects to solve this very finite problem. The RTM should take the lead on this with their Education, P&R and Public Safety committees, and in the process, heal our community. Together we can, and should, figure this out. What a great opportunity for us to work together as a community!
I implore the RTM to transform the current course toward destruction, and replace it with determined resolve to figure this out.
Unless, of course, the actual leadership agenda is to destroy the CG regardless.
Srikanth Puttagunta, Long Lots School Building Committee Member: I have tried to avoid responding to these articles, but this opinion piece is factually incorrect in nearly every way. This response are my words and hasn’t been reviewed by any other committee members.
I will not be following up on this post and the LLSBC is moving forward with the design to get this exciting project completed for the town. Thank you.
“Oops they found out”or “I guess now they know” in Jen Flava’s email way after the plan to remove the Garden’s was hatched without their knowledge makes it undeniable that
our administration purposefully did not reveal their ultimate intention of
Comadeering town land next to LL for
a 21st ball field buried in the plan for a new or renovated school.
Also,can you provide a timeline for when the neighbors were in fact brought into the info conversation regarding the fact that your proposal will have their properties abutt a large turf field with lights, bleachers and concession?
How soon before Jen Flava’s email
discovery which finally triggered public knowledge of the destruction of the Gardens at the expense of a controversial need for a new ball field of that size?
Finally it seems to appear that i,and others,will still be able to cut through Saugatuck and Kings Highway school property at will to get to the post Rd on the other side? If this is in fact true with the new “safety” ruling how does this not pose more of a threat than Gardeners who go through background checks?
To propose a contaminated alternative sight for a new Garden, then take away the ability to access the Garden newly squeezed back into LL, in prime planting and harvesting seasons no less, was and is insulting and disrespectful to town citizens.
How can you even imply the Gardeners were treated fairly when your committee and our Administrators did not contact any member of the Gardens in the pre planning and planning stages to inform them of their probable doom before Jen Flava’s “oops”?
This disregard deserves consequence and remediation in my opinion.
I do not recall “numerous” discussions with gardeners.
I do recall attending nearly every one of the committee meetings (including those you did not attend) since the plan was forced out of the closet.
I do recall closed door meetings with parents that I was not allowed to attend, nor were they noticed. Two meetings with abutting neighbors were not open to the public, off the record and forbidden to be recorded.
The committee never convened a meeting with garden leadership. The FSW convened such a meeting, once, to inform of her decision to shut down the existing garden and build a new one elsewhere, at which I objected to closing the existing garden (and still do).
You will not rewrite history on this. The destruction of an exquisite community garden and its family of gardeners will forever be a stain on our town’s history, under your watch.
It is hard to argue with an opinionated piece that is full of inaccuracies, false statements, and conspiracy theories.
The security of the school is paramount. And that’s why we can’t let this sort of reasoning overtake the conversation. We can’t allow a minority of people hijack the process for their own interest and agendas at the expense of the greater good of the community. There is a reasonable and practical solution here. One just needs to accept it.
Congrats Joe on being elected “co-leader” with me in one of the largest local political conspiracies in history. I think our first order of business is to invite some of these folks to these meetings so they can better inform themselves on the issues and get some questions and concerns answered. I don’t expect to see many of them though, as truth and reality would be too disruptive to their positions.
Jokes aside Dan, this sort of attacks are typical of folks who have lost their argument. The other clue is when someone needs to go at great length to distort the facts. Those lies have been debunked numerous times, and yet they still want to perpetuate them. It takes a village to counter this toxic and divisive mindset.
This is a comprehensive summary and historical record of:
· the disfunction of a town government;
· a lack of checks and balances given the predispositions of decision makers;
· a lack of will by those elected to adequately represent an important constituency of neighbors, elders and others;
· and now a coordinated police-state maneuver of instilling false fear to subjugate citizenry.
Meanwhile, Town Rep Lou Mall accused me and gardeners of diverting law enforcement resources away from their duty to protect the public. Clearly not our idea to raze a tranquil community garden that has no history of consuming law enforcement resources. I continue to believe a new school can be built without disturbing a single Community Garden plot. Just direct the architects and builders to do it.
In his soliloquy on who should be held accountable for crimes against children, Mr. Mall made no mention of the thousands of car owners who continue to leave their car doors unlocked, often with the keys inside, unnecessarily diverting thousand of hours of police resources. Or those who ignore stop signs, cross the double yellows, or race past school buses discharging students.
In the end, there is not one person I know who would act to endanger the wellbeing of children, or anyone for that matter. Yet the hurtful, ill-conceived accusations continue to be hurled at this gentle, peaceful and fully identified group of gardeners.
I’m sure we’ll see more of that right here in just a few moments.
David Floyd, Chair, Parks & Recreation Commission:
As discussed in nearly EVERY public meeting of the PRC, LLSBC, & P&Z, the proposed athletic field on Tier 1 is merely a REPLACEMENT of the currently existing fields (minus the baseball field) which will have a school on top of them. Is there an analysis that the Town can afford to LOSE athletic fields? Hint: the Town has been installing turf fields due to the overuse of fields.
Mr. Floyd: This was YOUR predisposition.
No town-wide field usage data is available. A town-wide field study is desperately needed, as stated at many of the meetings you mention. In fact, two of our P&Z commissioners have long mentioned a need for a holistic look at field usage and I believe they intend lead this effort. By the way, turf fields can be dangerous to the environment, our drinking water, and our children. Lighted fields go against the desire for a DarkSky initiative. Please do not imply that all these issues were resolved. Many questions remain.
If it’s now being spun as “merely a replacement field” then why does it have to be so much larger than any elementary school field needs to be and with bleachers, lights and concession? What am I missing?
As for an analysis I do believe your analysis for the dire need of a new field had many disturbing holes that are yet to be factually documented and still controversial as well as our town’s poor maintenance record that have the Westport Soccer Assiciations pay to play organizers pushing for this new turf “elementary school “replacement field”? It still needs to be explained how a BOE mandate to
replace an ailing school building grew to encompass said field without the BOE’s knowledge,as we have learned, nevermind the pesky Gardensr’s and public at large?
Hint ! Do the study on field usage that has long been demanded by the residents of this town.
Until then nothing can be resolved. Maybe that big field a handful want, can go at longshore.. plenty parking being created for the inn at longshore, at tax payers expense. It might even have a nice view.
How perfect to place a big field there.
Thank you, Dr Walshon, for not only making the impassioned plea for common sense, but for documenting a horribly flawed process.
To Mr. Puttagunta, I would suggest that the failure of the LLSBC to produce detailed agendas or minutes effectively covered up knowledge of their plans from members of the general public that would be impacted.
To Joe Nader, I would note that the ball field advocates are the ones who hijacked a school building process.I guess when it’s for you it is for the public good and when it is for someone else it is a “special interest.”
Dr. Jay this is a great, and accurate piece highlighting the lack of transparency and the skullduggery which took place over a period of years with regards to the renovation/rebuilding of the LLS.
Thank goodness for FOIA.
Without any shadow of a doubt this and all our other schools have been let get into dispicable shape through gross lack of maintenance. These were solid and perfect buildings before they were let go to hell.
I wonder if we can blame this too on the gardeners.
The same exact reason the fields (20) are in poor shape.
An inability of this town to “maintain” them. Why ? Because that costs money.
Problem is, everything has to be maintained from a bicycle, to a car, to a house, to a field, to a school, to a road and to a parking lot.
When they are not maintained they fall apart.
This is not new news. It costs money to build and money to then maintain.
Has done since the beginning of time.
What I am most confused about with regards to the new “rule” is how the construction of a new school can occur with students still attending the existing school on the premises shared by both existing school and construction site.
Surely we will now have up to 100 construction workers with access to the “property” during the hours of 7-4pm.
Everybody in town knows the reason for this “rule” is to bully the gardeners into moving. Good luck with that.
The gardeners have never been a concern, not in 2 decades. Not one incident in 20 years. I’d say that safety record speaks for itself. Not to mention their presence as an early warning is certainly reassuring to me.
I look forward to hearing how far far more vulnerable schools are going to be secured.
I also presume that the students of long lots will be moved to an alternative location during construction.
As this rule means without a shadow of a doubt nobody ( including construction workers, architects and contractors ) can be on the school property during the hours of 7.30-4.
If the answer to the above is that they will be on a “guest list” then there is no reason why gardeners post construction cannot also be on a “guest list”
I also suggest that PRC starts to do its job, and every field in town be assessed and maintained since Westport appears to be on an unlimited spending spree of gargantuan proportions.
And while they are at it, any field that is underused, should be turned into other extra added community gardens.
This town should have a community garden goal adding as many gardens as we can. After all it appears money is no object.
I believe there is a waiting list for the only Westport community garden, so clearly plenty demand for many more gardens to be created. Wonderful opportunities for resident tax payers of this town to enjoy many many community gardens, not just the one adjacent to the long lots school.
I think the residents of this town would support this use of our tax dollars.
Thank you once more Dr Jay for your fact filled, and accurate opinion piece, highlighting in particular the appalling treatment of the gardeners and members of Westports only community garden. Not to mention the tax payers of this town.
Chilling to say the least.
That very question about the construction workers on campus was asked and answered at this last meeting. If you truly are concerned and/or confused, attending and participating at these meetings can go a long way to helping you. It has certainly done so for me.
Yes I realize it was asked. But the answer was absolutely not satisfactory in any way shape or form !
If a bunch of contractors workers can be present on the school grounds with children in class then there is no reason on the earth why the gardeners cannot do the exact same thing
Dan – we all have neighbors with kids in the schools. We don’t need to hear from you and your friends to know what’s going on.
Might I suggest that you Google “westport coach arrested” and then get back to us about how the gardeners are a threat to the children. “Soccer coach arrested for indecent exposure (to women and girls).” “Wrestling coach arrested for narcotics possession.” “Swim coach arrested for raping a child.” Sounds like the people who have direct contact with the kids are the ones you should be focusing on, rather than creating phantom threats from those who aren’t near the school. If you are concerned about the safety of the kids. I hope this doesn’t confuse you.
I anticipated that I would be derided by the usual suspects for taking the time to write this piece, with its focus remaining ignored by those who remain so invested in disparaging those who have differing perspectives to bring to the conversation. I did not attack the LLSBC in my article, nor have I ever accused them of “conspiring with nefarious intent”. Whether or not this occurred IS NOT my current concern. My cliff notes summary fairly depicts what we have witnessed and endured over the last 9 months – and portends the imminent destruction of the CG. My piece was written with optimism that there is a still time for our community to forge a better way forward.
It is easy to summarily deflect by alleging “inaccuracies, false statements and conspiracy theories”. I understand that it is anathema to believe that local leadership would indulge in political underhandedness, scheming, mendacity or collusion. It was VERY disheartening for me to confront this reality when discovered – especially since our Town leadership are fellow residents and good people whom we respect and often owe a huge debt of gratitude to. However when that does occur, blindfolds are not useful, or appropriate. In this instance, the twice suggested “Autopsy without blame” (i.e. a root cause analysis) is a recommendation that I’m confident will never see the light of day.
I had no intention of belaboring any of my overview observations. However as I am being accused of invention, you are invited to query our First Selectwoman about the “warning” letter she received from the P&Z, via Ira Bloom, at 9:48pm on Friday night October 20, 2023 – and then inquire as to who she IMMEDIATELY corresponded with at 10:53pm (it was not Attorney Bloom – THAT correspondence took her two days).
As I suspected from the above comments, meaningfully addressing school campus security concerns appears not the primary goal. There are means available to discern the gardeners from villains, and we all know that. And I imagine that immediately providing Chief Koskinas with an adjunct school access point security person at Long Lots would be FAR more impactful and less expensive than “relocating and reconstructing anew” our Community Garden. The BoE is considering a $30,000 expenditure just to house student cell phones, but funds for a stationed security person is not worth the money?
i remain hopeful that our RTM and Board of Education will see sufficient merit in my suggestions to explore them. As I said, all it takes is resolve, vision, and leadership direction & collaboration with the chosen school architects. It certainly merits a community discussion at the RTM. If it is impossible, so be it. But at least as a community we deserve to try.
When Jack Hanna decided to write the forward to my children’s book, he explained the reason why. He said:
“Jay, I have found the following to be true:
People protect what they love, and
People love what they know, and
People know what they are taught, and
People are taught what we believe to be important.”
The safety of our children is important. No one disputes that. But there might be a means to provide/enhance that without destroying a valuable, under-appreciated, and educational resource in the process. We just need to recognize that to be important as well.
I have the FOIA’d documents referenced above. After the town attorney forwarded to the FSW a draft letter of admonishment from the PZC chair about faults in the process and protocols for the municipal improvement request, she forwarded it immediately and only to the Police Chief. Why the Police Chief?
Actually, this information was already mentioned in public meetings back then. Enough with this nonsense.
And one more thing, pointing the fingers at parents with a clear attempt to intimidate them and make an example of them so others do not have the courage to speak up, is not only bad form. I would ask that you redact your article and remove the parents names, unless you would like to be accused of libel.
Oh please ! Get a grip !!!!!!!! Nothing libelous in any article here..
what’s so pathetic is you guys on your bully boy pulpit ignorantly distorting the truth to try and recruit support.
And I will repeat what I said !
THERE IS NO WAY SHORT OF 10 “security people” and endless vetting of documents daily that IF this rule is enacted that school can be attended during construction.
That would be the epitome of double standards, and I for one as a tax payer in this town and a mom of 4 will not stand for it !
If construction proceeds with this rule in play and kids attend the campus, then the gardeners post construction who are Westport tax paying residents cannot be treated differently.
This rule is a JOKE. And it’s backfiring on you.
Oh and you most certainly had back room conversations about it.
They likely went something like this
“ oh we plan on screwing over the gardeners by not allowing access”
DISGUSTING AND OUTRAGEOUS !
But keep going and you will have a big fat lawsuit fighting the presence of construction workers on campus.
This is gone beyond the realms of town civility..
don’t forget who is paying for this school !
Mr. Nadar,
I have never, and will never, discourage anyone from making their views known. I encourage everyone to do so regardless of their position on issues. Expressing opposing viewpoints is the hallmark of a vibrant democratic process. AND people who do take the time to express their opinions should not ever be cowered into hiding their identity; on the contrary they should proudly acknowledge who they are and/or represent. In fact, when giving public testimony it is usually a requirement – when writing it should be the same. I have been victimized and unjustly accused by people in power in an attempt to silence me – so I am quite sensitive to this. Censorship, even by subtle means, is offensive – something our current RTM needs to understand. And if I err in my assertions, I am willing to publicly apologize or make corrections when appropriate.
In addition, although I might at times dislike some views being expressed, and may disagree with their veracity, I actually greatly appreciate that you and Mr. Pritikin have been vocal and very clear/consistent in your opinions. I much prefer to hear how people truly feel to those who remain silent – or worse, duplicitous. I actually applaud you and Mr. Pritikin for being the spokespersons for others who might not want to get personally involved; I know that most people rather not. I’d like to assume that you also applaud those who similarly express opposing viewpoints or bring differing perspectives.
Having said that, I would at least hope that you can get past the emotion and find at least some merit in what I am trying to accomplish. IF there is a better way forward (and I say IF) – one that will eliminate the rancor that is unnecessary and destructive, one that potentially resolves the real issues at hand without punishing good people in the process, one that might improve relationships and safety concerns, one that might help address Police Chief Koskinas’ concerns, and one that has potential to enhance educational curriculum in the fashion that it has in so many other communities – don’t you think that it at least deserves exploration? Is it not possible to work together as a community to do better? I have ZERO interest or intent on delaying the LL project; I’m confident that my recommendations will not do that. It is far better for perceived “opponents” to work collaboratively because all parties generally have valid concerns worth respecting.
It is unfortunate that, in my perspective, as I summarized, on multiple levels the Town’s leadership has disappointed Westport’s residents. I have never faulted the gardeners, the neighbors, concerned taxpayers, sport enthusiasts, the police department, or the upset parents for how this has played out. Had THIS witnessed divisiveness, vitriol, animus, resentment, malice and antipathy ever occurred in private business, the responsible company leadership would be at risk and likely replaced. It was unnecessary, it was avoidable, and it was inexcusable.
There is a reason that round tables work far better than long rectangular ones.
Again, since you don’t have any proof for the claims you made against the parents, you are advised to redact and remove them. The fact that now there are others (see comment above yours) accusing secret backroom conversations inline with your article is evidence that this is libelous.
lol. You might want to look up libel laws in America, Joe !
Get off your bully boy pulpit !
In fact you should really pursue an rtm position next round. I think you would fit in extraordinarily well with some.
Meanwhile, check out libel laws, and let me know how that works out for you.
It would appear that the double standard sought by these desperate individuals has been silenced with the promise of a law suit !
If construction workers can be on the campus even for 5 minutes then so can the gardeners, who are Westport residents. Tax payers.. paying for the school.
So here’s the dilemma of the soccer folks.. ..
the students now need to move. Oh no . How tragic ! How inconvenient. Because of their insistence of this “rule”, to bully the gardeners, they’ve got themselves into quite the knot, one that a judge will clearly see for what it is. No gardeners, no construction workers. Yeah ! You don’t get to have your cake and eat it.
Not working out quite how they thought it would !
What’s more, I would like to know, how since the horrible Sandy hook tragedy, and the general almost matter of fact way in which this “emergency rule”
was portrayed, as needing to happen with immediate effect, whose head is going to roll for incompetence ? Because somebody’s must ! Nobody noticed the peaceful gardeners tending their plots who are now being treated like members of a death squad.
If in fact nobody can be on campus during the school day, INCLUDING BUT MOST ESPECIALLY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, then what is the plan for a replacement school premises during construction. Where are the children going to go ?
I look forward as a tax payer to hearing what the plan is. And as a tax payer I do want and have every right to know the plan !
Incidentally I spoke with a parent with children attending long lots, who told me he is bewildered by the rhetoric of this group, he said long lots is wonderful and he sees nothing whatsoever wrong with it. At least nothing some maintenance cannot fix. Of course this town appears allergic to maintenance of any kind.
Again, why this is a new build and not a renovation is dumbfounding..
the most expensive school in America, I’m hearing..
and by the time it’s finished probably by a country mile.
For the last couple of weeks I’ve driven by the beach and seen school buses parked with school children (presumably on a science field trip) along the shore. The beach isn’t closed. The public is right there. I see no police. I’m curious why Joe and Dan aren’t outraged by the safety threat to the children who are completely exposed to the public. What does Foti think of these trips?
Not surprised Dan and Joe have not answered how the Gardeners are more of a threat to children than sports coaches, who are in direct contact with children, when Westport has actually had sports coaches arrested for felonies (including those involving children).
The place to debate this is in next RTM meeting. You are welcome to join the debate and make your public comments.
In the meantime, I will leave you with this: If the community plots were located in a different place, will we be having this level of scrutiny? And would the decision to enhance school security have passed with virtually not much objection, similar to how the 3 RTM committees unanimously rejected the petition to change the new security rules? If the outcome would be different based on the location of the community plots, then something went really off the tracks here, and a course correction is needed to bring back soundness and harmony in the community.
Dr Walshon, you are absolutely spot on.
By the way, I attended a RTM Committee meeting months ago and publicly bet everyone in the room, the Long Lots Building committee was absolutely going to hire the same architectural firm that produced the feasibility study, to be the architectural firm to design the new school, despite seeking other proposals. Of course I was ridiculed. However, you all know who you are…. you all owe me a dinner.
Oh it was a predetermined outcome the tax payers all have to now wear. But then it was obvious from the start !
Mr. Walshon,
Here is the proof that the access to the gardens during school hours has been discussed in public back in P&Z meeting of Dec 18. Fast forward to 2:55:21 in the public recording at https://play.champds.com/westportct/event/458. Listen very carefully to what the chief said back then.
It is clear that your accusations in this opinion piece is based on falsehoods, and the main objective is disinformation. Many parents who have become vocal and started to speak up have done so because of these tactics to mislead.
Mr. Nadar,
Thank you for providing the citation re: the restricted access to the Community Gardens that you were basing your assertion upon. That is helpful. (Incidentally, although you seem to have believed otherwise, I never stated that you were part of any “secret” meeting regarding this).
At your suggestion I took the time to review what Chief Koskinas actually stated at that December 16th meeting – ALL of what he stated; not just “cherry picking” his comments.
Note: Although Chief Koskinas is often given what he asks for or recommends, Westport is still not a police state; he must go before the appropriate Town bodies requesting approval, AND the public gets to weigh in on all decisions that are beyond his purview. Hiring additional security officers and modifying public access to Town property is not his decision. Therefore, unless actual decisions had been made in violation of proper procedures, any assertion to the P&Z in December that access to the Community Gardens “during school hours” was a fait accompli was at best a “premature” assertion due to unfamiliarity with Town processes and procedures. However, unlike you, I will not label your assertion as being an “intention to mislead”.
In fact, the effective decision to eliminate access to the Community Gardens from 7:30a to 4:15p on school days was not made until the PRC’s April 4th meeting, and only after an in depth discussion that I will not go into here, except to reiterate that Chief Koskinas continued to laud the gardeners and reiterate that the primary concern was the shared parking lot. “Simplicity” and “uniformity” across all schools became paramount – although even PRC commissioner emphasized that Long Lots was sufficiently “unique” that it deserved special consideration for a more tailored approach.
In addition, the PRC agenda item that was noticed merely stated: “To take such action as the meeting may determine relative to revisions to the Parks and Recreation Rules and Regulations Governing Use of Municipal Beaches, Yacht Basins, Longshore Club Park, Park Areas and Recreational Facilities as it relates to access of recreational facilities on Board of Education campuses.” This was NOT an appropriate notice in that it did not notify the public of what the PRC was about to decide. The Connecticut Courts frown upon such a vague agenda warning: “…did not warn of the action taken rescinding votes passed at a prior meeting…” 13 CS 116. Hence the residents who walk dogs near Staples HS were quite justified in voicing their anger and dismay that they did not know what was about to be decided. But that is a separate issue.
I find it pertinent that despite #1, every single year the police has never requested eliminating access to the Community Gardens during school hours.
I find it pertinent that despite #9 & #10, it actually does not require a “new facility” to institute “best practices” – yet since 2012 (Sandy Hook) no one believed the gardens posed a threat.
I find it pertinent that in #3 Chief Koskinas recognized that “fencing” will provide sufficient security for the school during construction. So it begs the question as to why an effective security barrier at the gardens would not similarly provide satisfactory security.
I find it pertinent that regarding #11, the actual “pattern” of concern does not really mandate the new restrictions upon the Community Gardens.
Chief Koskinas stated: Best practices would dictate that during school hours there’s nobody on school grounds that has access to the school or school perimeter THAT IS NOT PART OF A PROGRAM THAT IS SANCTIONED, OR RUN BY THE SCHOOL. Our community garden IS already officially “sanctioned”, and the participants are vetted and declared not dangerous people. How difficult would it be for it to also be part of the school curriculum?
For many reasons the number of Community Gardens on school property is reportedly increasing; therefore other elementary schools have seemed to figure out how to deal with congruent security concerns. All I am suggesting is that if Westport values what we already have, we should spend a modicum of time figuring out how to encourage the school and gardens to coexist and take advantage of what we already have available.
Chief Koskinas was clear that the Gardens and the gardeners ARE NOT his concern. It was the communal parking lot and potential difficulty in monitoring the area – although acknowledging that the adjoining properties are never monitored. Since we are spending $100 million it is certainly possible to have any school design incorporate a satisfactory resolution to Chief Koskinas’ security concerns.
The thrust of my article was not the WJ assigned headline; rather it was an appeal to stop the vilification and instead use our ingenuity and resources to preserve the Community Gardens and better utilize it as part of our school curriculum.
Regarding being intentionally misleading:
Repeated vilification that gardener’s are dangerous individuals and pose a threat to the school? See # 6,7 and 8. Why has this been so viciously asserted?
One last comment: Because so many parents are fixated on destroying the Community Gardens using active shooters as their basis, here are some facts and perspectives for you to recognize:
In 2021 there were 18,932 deaths of children aged 1-18.
3,597 died by guns. 3,408 from cars. 1,990 from abuse (>5/day) 1,515 from cancer. 1,325 from drugs. 1,136 from suffocation. 945 from drowning. 35 from school shooting.
I AM NOT minimizing the tragedy of school shootings. I am putting this in a greater perspective. While awful, these are rare events,, but need to be taken seriously to prevent – but prevent by effective means. For reasons discussed elsewhere, this restriction upon the gardeners is likely to not be an effective prevention against active school shooters.
However, parents and teachers need to understand this fact: Of the 3,597 gun violence deaths in 2021, 1,078 (30%) were SUICIDES – and white boys accounted for 700 (65%).
AND the proven root cause for many suicides and school shootings was bullying.
35 from school shooting. 1,078 from suicide. Bullying.
From what has been reported in Westport, we have meaningful work to be done.
Mr. Walshon,
Your central argument in your opinion piece is that the new security measures are a ploy to destroy the community gardens, and was a secret that only a few people knew about. I have provided clear evidence that your accusations are baseless. As you have heard in that recording, the new security measures were discussed openly and in public way back, even in the first P&Z meeting. You no longer have credibility in your statements. Why should we continue to pay attention to what you have to say?
Furthermore, since Sandy Hook, Connecticut has passed new legislation to improve school security, and the building committee will need to comply with the new school security guidelines in order to secure state funding. While you have interest in inaction because school shootings are a rare event, the majority is in agreement that minimizing the threat through deterrence, detection, delay, and defense is critical piece of school security. These new measures is simply bringing Westport up to the best practices that are already widely implemented in neighboring towns in Fairfield county and beyond.
Mr. Nadar
As much as you’d like to repeat it, that was not my central theme. Although the modified hours might become the death nell of the CG, and given Jen Fava’s initial attempt to co-opt for a Babe Ruth ballfield many residents believe that this was intentional, my plea is for reconsideration on how these two entities can coexist and compliment each other as CGs do in other communities.
I fully understand that you and others do not believe the CG belongs in that location. However many others in Westport and around the nation disagree with you.
If there is a way to satisfy Chief Koskinas’ security concerns around the CG we should explore that. You don’t seem to want to even consider that.
That’s your prerogative. It is clear that you just want the current CG gone.
As long as WCG acts as if the community plots are sacred grounds, there is no way for the two entities to coexist. We have heard enough about these wild conspiracy theories and secret plots. As parent, I want to make sure that the school needs are met first. I do not see a single athletic group complain that they are losing access to fields during construction. I do not see a single person object that they don’t have access to the school athletic fields during school hours which is already in force. A person cannot go and kick the ball during school hours on Long Lots lower fields that are furthest away from the school. For gardeners to access their plots, they need to enter the school perimeter and park on school grounds. That diminishes two key aspects of strong school security: deterrence and detection.
I want the community plots to thrive in Westport. I don’t see how they can thrive on school property. To have kids community gardens on school property, it needs to be under the control of the school community so that there are no conflict of interests as we have experienced for the past year. The school needs have to come first, and whoever shares the lot with the school has to be on board as well. The WCG has proven time and time again that they want to put their garden first and above all else. Honestly, how do you expect this to work when they are in direct conflict with a school?