Editor’s note: Following is a commentary submitted by Dan Pritikin, a longtime Westport resident and Long Lots Elementary School parent.
__________________________________
You might have missed it, but there was a pretty important meeting on Monday evening related to the ongoing Westport Community Gardens saga. It was a long, informative and emotionally intense meeting, so I was disappointed that the details of it failed to make it into any of our local publications this week. Growing impatient, I’ve decided to take on the task of filling everyone in.
As you likely know, a few weeks ago, Westport’s Parks and Recreation Commission enacted a new rule prohibiting access to our public school properties during school hours unless you are a student, teacher, staff-member or invited guest on school business.
This rule came at the recommendation of our chief of police, the superintendent and our Board of Education in an effort to increase the safety of our students and staff. This is standard protocol across the country and, according to our police chief, Westport’s lack of such a rule was both archaic and unacceptable.
Of course, the immediate impact of this rule beyond the added security of our children was the inconveniencing of some residents who had grown accustomed to jogging, walking their dogs, etc., around our schools during school hours.
Naturally, this also greatly limited the hours the community gardeners could access the Long Lots property to tend to their plots, which triggered one particularly outspoken gardener to author a petition, demanding that our RTM either overturn the rule entirely or, at least, make an exception for them.
Once her petition received the required 20 signatures, the new safety measure was effectively put on hold until the full RTM was able to rule on it, a process that can take several weeks. And of course, before the full RTM can rule on it, three RTM subcommittees were required to review it and decide weather to recommend its approval to the full body. This initial subcommittee meeting occurred at Town Hall this past Monday.
It was a rather packed house in a tiny room. The petitioner prepared a power point presentation stating her case to the committees and the public at large.
Included in her deck were detailed photographs she had taken of various public schools in Westport, highlighting what she perceived to be security “soft points” that demanded greater attention than the hours of access. These photographs created a rather disturbing atmosphere, especially when juxtaposed with some of the harrowing comments from the public regarding school violence, lockdown experiences, shooter drills, etc.
Police Chief Foti Koskinas spent a little time explaining the reasons for the new rule. He acknowledged that he and his department were unaware that the gardeners had access to the school property during school hours and apologized for this oversight. Admittedly, I was pretty disheartened to learn of their neglect on this issue, but comforted that we were doing something about it now. Or at least trying to.
Unsurprisingly, when it came time to vote, not a single RTM member voted to recommend the petition be approved by the full RTM. It was at this point that one RTM member motioned to have the petitioner withdraw her petition.
In what may have been the most dramatic moment of the proceedings, the moderator looked the petitioner dead in the eye and urged her to withdraw, reminding her that this was a time sensitive security issue and that it was clear the petition was going to fail. The petitioner paused, appeared to consider the request and then refused, ensuring that this effort to protect our children would only happen on her timeline.
There were a few other important details the public should know that came out of this meeting.
As I sat in the audience, I realized most folks sitting around me were affiliated with the garden. This allowed me to hear the murmurs of acknowledgment from many of them that the garden was, indeed, destined to be relocated off of school property, something that has happened twice before in its history. In fact, even RTM member, Jennifer Johnson, speaking as a member of the public, I believe, conceded that the garden was not long for this location.
This prompted another RTM member to ask why we weren’t discussing a new location for the garden rather than this petition. Fortunately, a few other RTM members and even our second Selectwoman Andrea Moore spoke up, reminding the public that the town has indeed offered a new location for the facility off of school grounds, but they refused it. This is a revelation many Westporters might find surprising if they were simply taking those misleading “Save The Garden” signs at their word. The garden’s existence has NEVER been in jeopardy.
Also, many of us parents have urged the full RTM to hear this petition ASAP, as it is a time-sensitive security issue. The petitioner has indicated she is not “available” at an earlier date, so again, we’ll all have to wait on her.
Finally, the moderator of the meeting shared with us that she has recorded several instances just this past week of gardeners flaunting the current rule, prohibiting them from accessing the garden during school pick-up and drop-off times. No one from the garden group had anything to say about that.
This petition seems like it’s going to fail. It also seems to me that eventually while the new school is built, and there is no access to the garden for several years, most of the gardeners will realize that relocation was always in their best interest as well as the kids and the town as a whole.
The most newsworthy part about this to me is how the self-interests of a few are allowed to derail the needs of the many, especially when the many is mostly children. I feel like there should be more articles about that.
The matter of rules for the Community Garden was effectively litigated twenty years ago, when they were brought to RTM and approved. I should know, because I was on RTM at the time.
In the subsequent twenty years absolutely nothing has happened that has suggested that the Community Gardeners, in their location adjacent to the Long Lots school property, are the slightest threat to anyone.
It is fascinating that Saugatuck Elementary School and Kings Highway Elementary School are far more exposed to some public intrusion than Long Lots is via the Gardeners. Saugatuck El is way closer to Riverside Ave than Long Lots is to the Gardens. Given the terrain around Kings Highway School, it is completely exposed. And both have windows facing the streets.
Maybe it would be helpful to review some of the uncivil comments that Dan Pritikin has made about the Gardeners on Westport Journal. In January, he responded to the comments of one Gardener with, “Save your prayers. We’ll just take your land. Thanks.” Very civil of you, Mr. Pritikin. As in this mendacious op-ed, Mr. Pritikin seems to think that since the Gardeners have been displaced twice, it is fine to do it yet again. Tell me who is the selfish one here. Please.
He has also incorrectly asserted that the Gardens are on School property. As Assistant Town Attorney Eileen Flug made clear in April 2022, “Because the 4.3 acres that include the Westport Community Garden is not used (for school purposes), and has not been proposed or approved to be used, for school purposes, it is my opinion that, other than the 2.2 acre parking lot, the remaining 4.3 acres of the former Jaeger Property are not being used for school purposes under§ 10-220(a) and remain under Town control.
This is and always has been about sports fields and not the school. Once the Gardeners pushed back against 20-years of work for the community being destroyed for the benefit of the private sports organizations in Town (what I would think Mr. Pritikin would call “special interests,” the Administration began taking a “nibbled to death by ducks” approach to the Gardens. Okay, it’s not for a sports field, it’s for “staging.” And now we’ll invent a security threat.
Hopefully most citizens and most members of RTM will recognize exactly what is going on here.
The Community Gardeners were indeed offered another location. But it turned out to be the site of the town’s (totally illegal) dirty construction fill dump within Baron’s South – an abandoned public park in downtown Westport. The town’s own testing of soil there found state concern levels of several toxic chemicals -including hazardous breakdown components of DDT. The author of the test concluded that the dump wasn’t a threat to the public – as long as residents stayed away from it and didn’t disturb or otherwise have prolonged contact with the soil. The contaminated site, which abuts a residential neighborhood, is neither posted nor secured by fencing.
Regarding the garden leadership “refusing” the town offer. I don’t think we have any authority to refuse or accept an offer.
I personally said or did nothing to prevent the town from building a new garden. In fact, at the October meeting, I offered my full assistance in building ANOTHER, NEW garden at Baron’s South IF the site could be properly remediated for gardening. That’s what I said. Lou Weinberg said he would not be part of a new garden.
I did object to demolishing the existing garden, and still do… but did not object to building another new one. The town can readily do that with or without my endorsement or that of the current garden leadership.
So this fuss about “refusing” the town’s offer is a red herring. Go ahead and build it.
Meanwhile, I’ll be documenting the bulldozers over at Hyde Lane.
One would have thought that—=while applying for three brownfield toxic waste removal grants on land near “The Hamlet”—our administration would’ve applied for a much more valuable fourth: and made Baron’s South the passive recreation area so needed and designated by previous administrations…
Hi Chris,
If you ever hope to be taken seriously, I suggest you actually come to one of these meetings and put your money where your mouth is. We’ve all grown tired of your incessant repeating of the same falsehoods in these comment sections over and over, and perhaps if you attended one of thee proceedings, you could get your facts straight and finally get some rest. At the very least it’d be a hoot to watch you beclown yourself in person for once. I’ll happily save you a seat. And by the way, I said “we’ll just take THE land.” Not YOUR land. As in the TOWN will take the land to build the children a much needed new school. Tricky, tricky Chris. 🙂 You don’t get to get away with this BS anymore. Thanks for reading!
Correction Mr. Prikitin. Let’s get our facts straight;
1) Gardeners objected To building a spanking new supersized non-school athletic field NEXT TO a new school for the children.
2) I objected to the sudden imposition of a new rule 20 years in, disproportionately penalizing gardeners … a rule that was imposed just after gardeners objected to the new non-school athletic field to be installed over the garden but cloaked by the need for a new school for the children.
3) Chris Grimm had attended many public meetings long before you became activated in this matter, and was also involved as a town rep in setting up the original community garden rules.
4) The meeting you write about also included a scolding by the meeting chair directed toward gardeners. This was the utmost disrespect to prior generations of parents, who had every bit as much to worry about when raising their children and many of whom buried a few in their lifetimes. Today’s young-pup parents crying “woe is me” is an affront to all those who forged a fine (and unfortunately entitled) life for you.
Toni,
That you see this new rule as a penalty to the gardeners more so than a safety measure for the children speaks volumes to your unfortunate priorities. Please withdraw your petition. You seemed to acknowledge yourself at the meeting that it is effectively DOA, so all you’re accomplishing is preventing the people we’ve entrusted with protecting our kids from doing their job. It’s not too late to do the right thing.
Dan
I want nothing more than the children to be safe at Long Lots.
For starters, I recommend installing a tall, locked, fence/gate at the unimpeded access to the school playground, where Bauer Place ends. I would do that yesterday.
I truly do not believe the proximity of the gardens, the nature of the activity, or the fully identified group of gardeners pose an untenable risk to the school children. The gardeners are nowhere near the building or the children. They do not wander aimlessly around the school property during school hours, as suggested by one parent, and to my knowledge they do not attempt to enter the school building.
After 20 years of peaceful cohabitation on town property, the garden is suddenly subject to a new rule — a rule suddenly and coincidentally imposed after gardeners objected to plans for its destruction.
I note that there are elected officials and town employees who have gardened, and still do, at the community garden without having raised objections about this over the years.
I also note there is at least one very vocal LLS parent on the board of the Westport Soccer Association who would like nothing more than to have a soccer field instead of a community garden.
Everyone wants to use Sandy Hook as the measuring stick when discussing school safety. The Sandy Hook tragedy changed EVERYONE, and it still shocks us today to think about it. Not one of us can understand the palpable pain felt by the families of Sandy Hook, though it still breaks our hearts. In the DECADE since that teen used a gun from his home, numerous security protocols in our schools have been implemented and made them safer.
Dan, with all due respect I want you and your family to be safe, in schools and everywhere. I do worry about the unfenced back of the school, and I worry about the racism, antisemitism, and bullying within our schools. I worry about Jimmy Izzo’s fact that 38% of Westporters own guns. That scares me.
But promulgating fear is not the answer. I won’t be coerced by bogeymen who use fear to subjugate the citizenry. And in such an egregious way.
I hear you and I understand you. But, I ask you to look to the kindest part of your soul and ask if you really do believe that I do not care about others; that gardeners do not care about the children. How many people do you know like that?
Dan, the gardeners and the garden is not stopping any school from being built, but it’s very clear this new rule is yet another attempt to push the gardeners to another location IN ORDER TO BUILD A BIGGER FIELD !
That’s sooooooo clear.
Everyone remembers the gardeners being offered barons south toxic and poisonous land., which apparantly gets nominated for everything, including town hazardous material dump, and rumour has it, maybe even the new police and fire facility. It would cost millions to remediate that soil.
The facts remain here.
Why should they move ?
Because you want them to ?
Great reason not to !
You just want a bigger field ! And you won’t be getting one. And nor do you need one and nor do the rest of us want to pay for one !!!! Not when there are 21 other unused or underused perfectly adequate fields in this town, that the residents already paid for. So no ! We DO NOT want or need a 22nd. How about all of you demand that parks and rec do their job and maintain the fields we already have. But instead this town just lets everything go to crap, then builds another new one somewhere else.
Just have to look at the disgraceful state Parker Harding was purposefully let get into !
Safety has never ever ever been an issue regarding the gardeners presence at the school. Not in 20 years has there been a single incident. In fact if a gunman were to come on the premises it is highly likely that a gardener present might be the first one to dial 911. ! If I were a parent of a child at that school, that is how I would see it.
So this new rule is utter BS, as regards the background checked residents of Westports community gardens members.
Everybody in town knew perfectly well these last 20 years that the gardeners have been present during school hours. Lol…
It would be IMPOSSIBLE not to know.
So let’s throw out that claim instantly.
This is ANOTHER attempt to bully the gardeners to move.
Do remember Dan ! I’m not sure if the gardeners would have grounds to sue the town but I know the neighbors DO !
This whole school build and its timeliness relies very much on the neighbors co operation, and feeling “comfortable” with the positioning of the community garden buffer etc… and you had best not forget that.
Any law suit brought by an abutting neighbor could delay the school build by years ! Not months, years.
None of us want to see that happen.
I’m surprised that has not occurred to you !
Or are you just too arrogant to care.
Here’s another one of Dan’s greatest hits:
“I got some news for you. ANY type of adjacent facility that shares the grounds with the school presents itself as an unnecessary opportunity for people who wish to commit violence against children.”
Gardeners want to commit violence against children? Or someone who wants to commit violence against children will head to the Gardens first? When the Gardens are on the adjacent plot on the opposite side of the parking lot from the school? Just as Riverside Ave is closer to Saugatuck El than the Gardens are to Long Lots, Hyde Lane is closer to Long Lots than the Gardens.
Maybe you can spell out the likely scenario that concerns you and tell me how the Gardens enhance the vulnerability in the slightest, when the school is surrounded by public streets and sidewalks, houses, woods, and ball fields. Your claims are absolutely preposterous.As I said, Garden rules were carefully deliberated twenty years ago and nothing in the subsequent years has suggested that they aren’t working. You are hyperventilating about something that has never created a problem.
While this all seems pretty self evident to me, as I mentioned above, the Chief of Police went into great detail at the meeting to explain why this rule was absolutely essential. I really think you could better inform yourself on all of this and get up to date if you made some time to attend and participate. Here’s a link to the general calendar: https://www.westportct.gov/about/advanced-components/meeting-list-calendar Hope to see you there!
Dan – twenty years ago when RTM approved the rules for the Gardens we listened to a variety of opinions on the matter. Al Fiore (Chief, at the time) expressed opinions similar to Foti’s. School Superintendent Elliott Landon expressed his, from a School Administration perspective. Parks & Rec representatives expressed their opinions. Potential users expressed theirs. Neighbors and parents expressed theirs.
RTM didn’t represent one single interest. Rather it balanced the concerns and the interests of all parties. We recognized that Elliott would never want anything near the school – that was him simply representing his constituency. We recognized that Al was representing a “if you want to eliminate every single solitary and remote risk” you might do things a certain way. We heard the measures P&R used to limit access. And we applied measures of common sense and reasonableness in adopting measures that have worked for twenty years.
Foti is doing the bidding of the First Selectwoman here. He’s supporting a solution in search of a problem. Police Chiefs do that. It makes their lives easier. Fortunately they aren’t the policy making body in Town.
Maybe you can “better inform yourself” by looking at the meeting minutes that established the rules that have worked for twenty years.
Chris, thanks for the background. All of us at this past meeting were pretty focussed on 2024 and the unique security and safety challenges children face today. A lot has changed in the world in the last two decades. If you came to one of the meetings perhaps you could get yourself a little more up to speed on current standards and practices. Most parents were shocked to learn that this garden was open and in use during school hours and disappointed to find out the police had no idea either. I’m sorry that you feel this is part of some grand political conspiracy. But again I think if you got more involved you’d see this is just parents advocating for their children’s safety and our local leaders trying to do their jobs.
Dan – I live the Long Lots district so know plenty of parents in the district. I just don’t know any who seem borderline hysterical about this.
Might I suggest that if you were less condescending in your comments, other people would be more interested in what you have to say. Heed the words that Robert Harrington shared with you, you know?
I’m sure I’ll be letting you get the last word here, but maybe you can comment after you’ve read the minutes from twenty years ago. And maybe you can put, in your own words, the heightened threat from the Gardens today, that wasn’t there yesterday, rather than just posting links to other people’s thoughts.
Thank you Dan for taking the time to write on this important topic.
Toni’s petition to restore the hours of gardening without restriction can be accomplished in a different location that does not share the property with a school. As long as the garden remains on the same property, the needs of the school must come first, especially in security and safety matters.
It is unfortunate to see that a small group of people are at work to diminish the school security for the sole purpose of pushing their agenda and interests ahead of the most vulnerable community of school-aged children.
There is a reasonable and rational solution to stop this perpetual division and untangle the conflict of interests at play. We can find a more suitable place for the community plots where Westport residents can access without any restrictions, and where more space is available to grow the Westport community plots. A few gardeners have rejected this solution, and instead insist on the status quo. It is high time for reason to overcome irrational and dangerous behavior.
Joe, you and your soccer organization have access to so many ball fields already, as opposed to the single Community Garden that we have had in Town for twenty years.
Since there are 20+ ball fields already, maybe you should find a new location for yet another ball field, rather than vilifying the Gardeners and pretending that they are somehow a threat to children. Think about someone other than your own group for a change, maybe?
Obviously, if you were being asked to relocate after twenty years, you wouldn’t think that was a “reasonable and rational” solution, would you? You don’t even want to be without a single field for the length of the construction project. Talk about selfish.
Attacking your neighbors as if they are a safety threat is a bad look. “Irrational and dangerous behavior?” Children are far more likely to be victimized by sports coaches than the community gardeners who don’t go near them.
https://www.hallinjurylaw.com/blog/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-sexual-abuse-in-youth-sports/
Chris,
With all die respect, tou just hijacked an opinion piece on Dan Woog’s blog about the dangers of cell phone use by kids and school and anonymous reportingnof bullying in our schools. You literally do NOT care about anyone but yourself, certianly not the kids in Wesrport. We are getting tired of it all.
Stephanie – actually I responded to Joe’s comment on the phone thread that somehow twisted it into being about other activities on school properties. I suggest that you read those comments again.
And Stephanie, we are very tired of your vitriolic hysterical nonsensical outbursts. Really ? Enough already.
Irrational ? Dangerous behavior ? Are we actually referring to the community gardeners here?
Because the only irrational and dangerous talk I am hearing is from you !
Really get your head out of the rock it’s under, and listen to yourself.
What are you talking about ?
Really ? Explain yourself to a fellow tax payer. Because I’m on the hook for all this unnecessary expense, along with thousands of others.
And I happen to be a gardener albeit not at the famed and award winning Westport community garden, but I garden.
It’s quite therapeutic, I think you might enjoy it if you tried. You certainly could benefit from it judging by your anger and vitriol, directed at a peace loving community of gardeners. Incidentally,
Is community plot being phrased as an insult ?
It sort of has a demeaning small man sentiment to it, like it makes you feel better by attempting to insult the community gardeners.
Get over yourself Joe, and remember, no gardeners during business hours, no construction workers, no if ands or buts !
Let’s see you and your soccer organization go and explain that to the parents of long lots when the kids are being moved to an alternate location for 2-3 years.
🤔
Might have to pay to play somewhere else.
The way this discussion is being conducted is really off putting. Even if we agree with the points someone is making, it would be terrible to associate publicly with someone comporting themselves in such an aggressive and divisive manner, with name calling, demeaning and snide comments, and such a superior attitude.
While politicians may live in a winner-take-all environment, we don’t. Everyone here is still your neighbor and will remain so for longer than our kids are in school. Stop aiming for what will be a Pyrrhic victory and compromise.