Editor’s note: The following opinion essay was written by Westport resident Sandra Rose, and submitted to the Westport Journal for publication.
_____________________________
Seriously, what is going on?
The ongoing debate surrounding the construction of a new Long Lots Elementary School has turned very contentious, and I can’t stop from asking myself nearly every single day, “Why?!”
How have we let it come to this? Why must parents fight and beg for pragmatism and reason to prevail to protect their children from substandard learning environments? Why must the children, teachers and staff of Long Lots pay the price for the gross negligence of town bodies that allowed the school to reach this emergent place? Why are special interests getting in the way of an elementary school facility worthy of Westport’s reputation for excellence in education? How can this be such a divisive issue? What am I missing?
It’s widely accepted that LLS is old, outdated and at the end of its shelf life. The building envelope and the upper fields have remained relatively untouched for the last 69 years and the structure’s current state of disrepair is well documented.
At the same time, while the Westport Community Gardens have resided at the 13 Hyde Lane property for the last 17 years, they have moved twice before — first from Staples, and then from Wakeman, when the town and schools required the land for other purposes. What makes this time different? Why has an appropriate location for these gardens not been granted years ago? Surely the constraints of housing non-school affiliated organizations on school property are sub-optimal to begin with.
The preliminary plans presented by the Long Lots School Building Committee — an unpaid group of qualified professionals who volunteer their time — posited that the size of the new LLS construction project would require the gardens to at best be off-line for the two to three years of construction, or at worst, be dug up for installation of needed drainage systems and field space. Recognizing the great value of the gardens within our community, the solution that was offered was to fund the relocation of the WCG elsewhere in town. This would not only save the gardens from temporary closure, but would also have the added benefit of additional space. After all, WCG membership has reached capacity and could benefit from a larger plot of land that would grant access to more of the community. And yet, this solution was seen as unacceptable.
In the spirit of compromise a new plan comes before the P&Z committee this Monday, this time keeping the gardens on property — which requires the school — and town — to concede valuable field space that is used by thousands of students across Westport. Problem solved? Hardly. There is now internal communication within the WCG that deems this new proposal still unacceptable and calls on members to again ask P&Z to reject it.
Why is it that nothing short of leaving the gardens entirely untouched is seen as acceptable? There have been calls for redistricting, questions of whether a new school is actually even needed, threats of lawsuits, etc. — anything to place the onus of sacrifice squarely on the shoulders of our students, teachers and staff, and not on the community gardens. Again, what am I missing here?
So I ask myself — who benefits from the delay that our inevitable arguing will undoubtedly yield?
I think this is a question we would all be wise to ask ourselves. It’s hard to ignore the nagging suspicion that there might be political and/or financial aspirations and calculations at play. I just can’t help but think that we’ve been left to play checkers against one another while others are in the corner playing chess … using our children — and maybe even the community gardens — as pawns.
While we start to uncover what these ulterior motives might be, I ask that we please unite and get the 8-24 passed on Monday. After all, this is simply a question of land-use and nothing else. Let’s at least get moving to the next stage of the planning process.
There will be many more opportunities for us to revisit our arguments in the future as more detailed site plans become available. Let’s not cut off our nose to spite our face. Our kids and Westport deserve better.
Sandra Rose
Westport
Great op-Ed, Sandra! Thanks for speaking up for our kids.
Could not agree more. No more delays! We need to stop the finger pointing and come together for our community and school.
Yes! Well said Sandra. The level of politicking is insane. Pure incompetence if the 8-24 doesn’t pass.
THANK YOU, Sandra for shining a much needed light so all of Westport can see there has been an ideal solution in place for quite some time now. A solution that greatly benefits both children AND gardeners! More importantly, thank you for bringing up the political concerns. As information has begun to trickle out about elected representatives here in Westport possibly looking to “torpedo” the project for their own political gain, I don’t think I’ve ever felt more helpless. Let this be the first of many public discussions about that alarming turn of events as well as a catalyst for even more parents to come together to fight for their children’s well-being and education. And just maybe when this is all over we’ll have an amazing new school AND greater accountability from our town leaders. Everyone’s paying attention now! 🙂
I’d just like to point out that this isn’t just about Long Lots students and families, but it’s also about Stepping Stones preschool kids (many with special needs) and Coleytown Elementary students and parents. It’s been frustrating to see these preschool kids get completely ignored by those opposing the new school.
It’s also fine for people to prefer to look out for their own interests. No one loves paying more taxes. Community Gardens are wonderful and I hope the town builds far more. It’s a shame they may have to be out of use for a couple of years.
If it comes down to it though, I’ll side with the kids.
Nobody is opposing a new school.
I have read comments from empty nesters and people who do not send their kids to Westport Public Schools, oppsing a new build. One who has a lot of sway in this town.
Stephanie, Some people may question if the school needs to be renovated or rebuilt. It is a completely appropriate question to ask and one people ask about their own property all the time. The actual people who we hire as contractors, architects, civil and building engineers will make proposals for what it best. Renovate or Rebuild is something we went through with Coley. It’s fair to ask and it shouldn’t hold up the project, nor does it mean someone opposes a “new” school.
Thank you for clarifying Lauren.
I am simply only talking about comments on social media from the loudest voices. I appreciate the debate over renovate vs rebuild and from what I have researched, rebuild is the most beneficial to learning and the kids.
I am glad that we can have civil discourse over this topic, thank you!
I fully support the new school, as does every one of my fellow advocates.
I am an empty nester, which you seem to hold in low regard. I do not have children in Long Lots School, yet I help pay dearly for this and all schools in Westport. I am a property owner here, and an elector. I am a human being. Apparently none of this qualifies me to oppose the building of an athletic field at the expense of a community garden.
I am in the majority demographic in the town of Westport. I love children and want the best for them. I hold no person in higher regard than another, no matter if they are 9 or 99.
I am opposed to ad-hoc land use decisions for more athletic fields when it does not serve the building of a school. I am opposed to having the town delay this project until after an election. I am opposed to the town holding the school hostage in order to build town athletic fields.
I fully support the building of a new school to include Stepping Stones, playgrounds and open play areas, parking and bus loops. I fully support twice-a-year field days on the lower fields. I fully support having a school in which staff and students feel safe, healthy and comfortable.
The garden is not even the point. Perhaps when you have been around this world a few more years, you’ll get it.
In your disdain for people who are not you, I point you to George Bernard Shaw: “Youth is wasted on the young.”
I have no disdain at all for empty nesters or people who send their kods to a private school.
I was simply making an OBSERVATION in comments.
I only want what is best for our schools and children.
It is pretty simple.
I mean no harm by my expressing observations.
The best to you as well!
Certainly our fellow tax payers have the right to comment on capital expenditures in the town. In fact, some have clearly voiced their discomfort with the price tag. Where it becomes an overstep is the insistence to get mired in the details. Relocating the current field – which is part of the existing school parcel – does not have a significant impact the overall cost of the project.
This is exactly the kind of head banging that is totally pointless. The back and forth is exhausting and none of us have the authority to make the decision. Our elected officials need to be the adults in the room and get this process going and stop us from hashing this out on the internet. It’s tearing us apart. Set the record straight on all the facts, keep the conversation and public comment truthful and on topic and let’s get on with it.
I am 52 years old! I have been around and lived all over! Thanks!
I do not know why you think I hate elderly or empty nester people. I do not. You said in a previous 06880 opinion article that most people in Long Lots are not school aged kids, correct? So the kids have no voice bc they are a “minority“ and empty nesters are a “majority“? Not vilifying here.. Stating facts only.
Again, I am 52, been around a long time, and will be an empty nester in five years! The future matters to me as much as the present.
What do you mean when you say, “ Your fellow advocates“?
Toni – you keep referring to the fields not serving the school in anyway; despite knowing very little about the day to day functions of the school. Good news is that those of us who spend time at the school know that isn’t true. Furthermore, the replacement fields are specifically requested in the Ed Specs put forth by the BOE. Page 36, paragraph 7. So please, tell me again why they are an “ad hoc” land use decision?
And since you love to end every one of your latest comments discussing wasps in the school building, might I suggest that maybe they are coming from the community garden? After all, your brightly colored roses, dahlias, zinnia, echinacea, sunflowers etc……are mighty attractive to them.
Yes, there are people opposing a NEW school!
I’m sure that there are some people in town opposing a new school, but to portray it as being the Gardeners is simply wrong. Their message has been pretty consistent.
Who are Toni’s “advocates“? What is she referring to when she says that?
The problem is not lack of support for a new school. There is near-unanimous support (though there are dissenters as to how and how much). The problem is the town’s obsession with athletic fields that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCHOOL.
The town is covertly appeasing private sports clubs to build a non-LLES related supersize multisport field, one which does not currently exist onsite. Drop the field nonsense and the school project moves forward swiftly, as it could have months ago.
Please don’t say, “but kids play there.” IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LLES SCHOOL BUILDING. Isn’t that your priority?
Don’t say, “But we need the whole campus.” This is not known. There is no staging plan. There is no drainage plan. There is no site plan. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION AND DRAINAGE PLAN WILL BE at this point in time. The school committee flubbed this big time when they put forth make-believe plans. There are no such actual plans and there won’t be for months,
The town could have sailed through a PZC approval last October if it was just a school proposal. The first 8-24 was delayed until December, after the elections, when a new PZC was seated.
The Dec.18 PZC meeting would have likely resulted in a resounding approval if not for the unrelated athletic fields.
Build the school. Stop complicating the project with athletic field nonsense. This has nothing to do with the garden, and everything to do with the town’s refusal to focus solely on a much needed school,
In the meantime, I would think about relocating the kids before someone has an allergic reaction to a wasp sting,
Bravo on totally undermining your already counter-factual argument by ending it with a heartless dig at the teachers who bravely spoke up at the BOE meeting about the state of the school.
Dan, Dan, Dan
One just need look at the dozens and dozens of letters to PZC and other public comments by parents to think that the children are in jeopardy every time they walk into that school. Go read the letters Dan.
Why not Write to the Connecticut Department of Ed and Department of Administrative Services for complaints about the health and safety of the kids while in that school building? I’m not blaming the staff; I am horrified by the stories they tell of what goes on in that building. It should be reported to the state.
Why fall on your sword for a multisport field that has nothing to do with building a school but everything to do with well-funded private sports clubs? Build the school! Build it now. Put down your sword and think about the kids.
Again I ask, who is delaying the project?
PS I might think you’d try to find out how many children there are actually allergic to stings.
Toni. Thank you for showing your concern for the kids! Perhaps I had you pegged wrong. One thing you could do to really help the cause is to stop advocating against their best interest. I look forward to working together on this!
Build the school. Build the playgrounds. Build Stepping Stones. Build a parking lot. Build a bus loop. That is what the students of LLES need and what the Board of Ed spec’ed out.
Build it. This is the priority and this is for the kids. This is what most taxpayers will likely support — a +$20k per student spend each year for each of your children. How much more support for the children do you want?
I await your angry response, as I’m sure you have one.
Flashback to 2018 CMS crisis when Robert Harrington was against a “monster” BMS. Maybe we can reuse this petition for this crisis. It has already 787 signatures. Thank you Robert!
https://www.change.org/p/westport-s-board-of-education-various-funding-bodies-stop-bedford-monster-school-urge-westport-s-board-of-ed-to-reject-1300-students-bms
The 8-24 is simply a question of land use. It’s asking that Terrace 1 (where the gardens are now) be re-zoned for the gardens + the relocated “upper fields”. The upper fields are being lost to the new school footprint and need to be relocated on the property. It’s as simple as that – there is no athletic field nonsense.
The land use proposals are not concrete plans – there are no dimensions – it’s squares on a page. This is simply a zoning issue that must be resolved before the next stage of planning can begin. Let’s pick back up this conversation when site plans are complete.
There is no rezoning question. The Terrace 1 zone is residential. The athletic fields are not school facilities. The school, playgrounds, and parking are school facilities. Those are the facts. Please stop delaying this school. Build the school. Leave non school matters for another day.
This narrative is mind boggling to me. The school in terrible shape. Those of that have lived here for many years and had our kids in public school have lived through this in town. Why after Coleytown did it take until 2023 to start working on a Long lots plan? People should be angry its gotten to this point. People should be even angrier that when charged with a feasibility study the LLSBC proposed a new school and the building of a major league ball complex on top of the community gardens. That had nothing to do with the elementary school. If it wasn’t for all the extras thrown in the proposal would have been moving forward.
Why with all the cries of move forward for the kids are we not doing what is needed to move forward more quickly? The Planning and Zoning committee had concerns and rejected the proposal that was only brought forward in Dec. This new request doesn’t even address those concerns.
You would think by reading this that the gardners are holding this up . They are not. There is also nothing to hold up. There is no site plan, no building design, no drainage plan and no architects, contractors, engineers and other professionals with a plan. As others have explained so well, move forward with the school. Then the professionals that we hire will determine what is needed. If they decide they need the land currently housing the gardens then so be it. There is no such plan or determination.
I understand being so upset about the state of the school and demanding that it move forward as quickly as possible, but please start considering what that means and who is involved in that and who is not. It’s not about the gardens.
Great comment, Lauren.
The LLSBC basically ignored the concerns of P&Z, counting on a week of manufactured outrage as a reason that P&Z would suddenly change their minds.
The concerned parents of Long Lots students should urge the Administration to stop wasting time and put together a school plan that P&Z will support, not holding hostage the project for the benefit of private sports leagues.
What plan will the P and Z support and why?
Stephanie
They would have already approved a plan on Dec.18 had it not been the unrelated athletic fields and intensification of use. The school, play areas, Stepping Stones, parking lot and bus loop would be approved in a nano second; the PZC chair said as much.
The athletic field moving to Terrace 1 & 2 is the root of the land use problems. Neighbors there do not deserve defacement of their homes by this intensification of use in what is and has been a residential zone.
You have to ask, why won’t the town let this move forward by deferring replacement of the fields that do not serve the day-to-day operations of the school, is not under the governance of the school district, not paid for in the school budget, and is used primarily by the special interest private leagues?
I’m truly sorry if you don’t believe this, but these are facts.
The plan that included the school, playgrounds, Stepping Stones, parking lot and bus loop. This would have been approved in October.
It’s the athletic fields, intensification of use, and negative impact on abutting neighbors that holds this up. It was the make-believe staging and drainage rhetoric (now retracted) that has experts scratching their heads. And it is the Superintendent inciting parents’ emotions about the condition of the school yet declaring it “safe” when challenged.
The problem is certainly not the garden.
Make believe? I think you played make believe yourself when you made uo the democgraohics of age of Westport.
You also made up that I dislike people because of age or being an empty nester.
Children benefit from ball fields. That is a fact too.
Just seeing your question now. P&Z was pretty clear that they were concerned with the increased intensity of usage near the neighbors.
I really didn’t see much of a change in the new plan that addressed that concern but, of course, I’m not on P&Z.
The irony of people attacking the gardeners is that P&Z’s concerns (at least the way I read them) were much more about the impact on neighbors.
You can criticize or praise it, but the Administration is putting forth the slightest change to see if it will get approved, rather than addressing head-on the concerns. If it gets approved, good for you. If it doesn’t, don’t blame the gardeners – they aren’t the ones submitting the plan.
And as I have said time and again, if the Administration keeps pushing plans that are beyond the necessary scale, even if they pass the appropriate boards, the $100 million expenditure will be petitioned to a referendum. Who knows what will happen if that happens… except more delays of building the school. And even if that ultimately passed, there are inevitable lawsuits from aggrieved parties. That held up lights at the Staples football field for three years. And this is potentially way more disruptive to the neighbors, here.
It is far better to attempt to build a consensus than to attack everyone who might have concerns beyond your own. And claiming that people who have additional concerns are your opponents isn’t going to bring them into the fold.
It was and is always about building the new school as quickly as possible.
We will call out any self interest, whether it is the Westport Community Gardens, or someone putting their political gains ahead of the health and safety of Long Lots children and staff.
And we are definitely not interested in finger pointing and blaming, which is another distraction to what really matters here.
We need to get shovels in the ground by the fall of 2024.
Joe – if that is the case, then why was last week’s outrage targeted at the Gardeners rather than at the Administration that created the ball field plan that wasn’t part of the ed specs?
It seems the goal of the delay was to stoke public anger rather than revise the plan to address the concerns of P&Z. It seems to be that the “new” 8-24 will be either rejected or bifurcated. I hope that doesn’t lead to more finger-pointing at the Gardeners, when they didn’t have a hand in the plan.
Stephanie – while I am sure there are individuals in Town who oppose the building of a new school for any number of reasons, just as I am sure that there are Long Lots families that would like to protect the Gardens in the process, the “formal” position of the Gardens has been unwavering in support of a school rebuild. To suggest otherwise is to simply continue to attempt to vilify an innocent party.
That said (and I don’t have kids in any of our schools) a consensus building process would have been helpful here. Local taxpayers contribute $22,600 to educate every child in Westport. The proposed $100 million Long Lots plan will be the largest project in the history of Town and will raise everyone’s taxes 3.5%. Enlisting rather than alienating people without skin in the game would have been a better idea than pointing fingers as soon as P&Z started asking questions.
No more delays. I am not vilifying anyone. My parents are empty nesters! I will be an empty nester in the near future! I am simply making observations based on facts, not emotions. I am reading the comments to get clarification on the facts. I am doing my due diligence and research .
Please understand that children are the ones being vilified here. Adults are just taking their positions.
What matters most are the facts.
Who is vilifying children?
Please expand on who has vilified children. Or is this a misstatement, perhaps?
“Parents for a New LLS” do a pretty good job of vilifying others.
Joe, I commend your involvement in the school and I’m sure you know just how badly the school needs to be redone (new or renovate). Can you please address the points raised here by Chris Grimm, Yulee Aronson, Toni Simonetti, Jay Walshorn and myself.
I continue to see in these comments a narrative that the gardners are holding this up but no one addressing the real questions raised about what actually is is holding this up. You say you’ll call out any special interest group but where’s the outrage about the ballfield complex that was raised in the fall from LLS parents? I’m a baseball mom , of a kid that plays on that size field, not a gardner , and I was outraged at the proposal being anyway tied to LLS. Again, we desperately need better baseball fields, we may need more soccer fields, we don’t need them at LLS.
And for all the Robert Harrington bashing, he was the one calling this out in the fall – that this would be delayed by the over reaching and parks and rec land grab. I am concerned that this group of highly motivated parents of current and future LLS are not putting their energy in the right direction. This is a LONG way from getting shovels in the ground and people are either misunderstanding that or willfully ignoring that , but I don’t understand to what end. Why aren’t you more concerned with how to get this through the approvals process? The gardners are not part of the approval process !
Ok, how do we get through to an approval? What does it take? Who decides on the final “approval“? Do the gardeners make the final decision on the school build plans?
Lauren,
To be honest, how can we have a constructive discussion if we are in disagreement with the most basic facts:
1) Is the garden part of the same property as Long Lots Elementary School? Answer: Yes; refer to the 8-24 application which was submitted for the whole property.
2) Why does the garden need to be involved in Long Lots Elementary School when the Ed Specs did not mention anything and the BOE has no jurisdiction? Answer: The LLS building committee was appointed by the first selectwoman and established by the RTM. LLSBC used the Ed Specs to come up with several feasibility plans, and recommended a new school building. With any construction, the whole site needs to be considered, and the LLSBC is representing the town which owns the property.
3) Should we renovate or build as new? Answer: This evaluation was already part of the charge of LLSBC, and LLSBC recommended a new build over renovation.
There is no need to keep going ad nauseum if we can’t even agree on these basic facts. And like Sandra said in another comment: “Our elected officials need to be the adults in the room and get this process going”.
This is correct. Everyone re read Joes comment. It is and has always been this simple to understand. And anyone who chooses to try to over complicate the matter is doing so simply to serve their own agenda. An agenda that involves delaying the rebuild by any means necessary. As this “debate” rages on more and more regular concerned parents are familiarizing themselves with these basic facts and are voicing their shock and disgust. Saying you’re “for the new school” is meaningless if your actions betray your words. So keep saying that, garden advocates, we’re all paying attention now.
Exactly! Bravo! People must do their due diligence!
Joe,
1) It all part of the town property. But has been explained here in detail they were not charged with improving our fields for park and rec. The ed specs were about the school. Because thats what they proposed does not mean it was their charge.
By doing so , some have been warning for many months that this would complicate and delay the project to have a broader scope. Exactly whats happened.
2) The land that the gardens are on may have to be used for drainage, or staging but no one knows that yet. Again, has been stated here time and time again, we are in the premature stages and it is being misrepresented to the LLS parents that we are near ground breaking. We have no design , no building or site design, no civil engineer analysis, drainage, flood, conservation, The LLSBC was charged with a feassbility study and that is all. There was no need whatsoever to propose a major league sized field sit on top of the current garden site. It would not have replaced anything being used by LLS students.
3) Yes, they recommended a new build. May very well be the right answer but it is reasonable to question alternatives for such a massive project.
Why are the LLS parents not outraged over the field and land use issues bogging this down?
Lauren,
1) I think you are not aware of the sepration of duties between the Board of Education and the Town. This is mandated by the State. The BOE can only express its needs through the Ed Specs. But the town, through the LLSBC, needs to address the construction of the new school (designed from the Eds Specs), and also consider the impact on the site. Since the new building is planned over the upper fields, the site lost heavily used fields that the town must address. You cannot just disregard the need for the fields in the process.
2) LLSBC did not propose anything that was not there already. They tried their best to rearrange things so everything fits after the new school is built. The first 8-24 application from December did not include a large Babe Ruth baseball field. The revised 8-24 application simply makes this explicit, and keeps the gardens on the same property. The charge of the LLSBC did not limit them to how they saw fit to build the new school. There is nothing illegal with what they did. If you haven’t any concerns, please send an email to the town’s attorney to clarify this.
3) Sure, it is reasonable to question. But did you inform yourself about the facts such as the conditions of the building. This is all described in the feasibility study. I know the LLS building probably more than any other parent because of my volunteering in the Tools For Schools. I would have been surprised if the LLSBC came back with a renovation as the recommendation. The building foundation and structure is compromised. It would have been a major and expensive undertaking to patch it up.
As mentioned by Sarah in previous comment, the Ed Specs does mention the multi-use fields.
Sarah Morrison on January 22, 2024 at 12:02 am
“Furthermore, the replacement fields are specifically requested in the Ed Specs put forth by the BOE. Page 36, paragraph 7.”
I have read some comments from some gardeners who do NOT want a new school built. The comments opposing a new school build seem to be coming from very loud voices who either do not have kids in the Westport Public Schools and send their children to private school, or, from empty nestsrs.
We need to realize that most people move to the suburbs for school systems first and foremost. Who would move to a suburb with a zoned school in disrepair? Are plants more important than children? Let’s be honest here. Also, athletics are very important in this town. I never even knew that the gardens had already been moved twice! Who decided placing a public commubity garden on school property was a good idea?
See my response above. Your facts are wrong and your disdain for elders is repulsive. Oh, and I know of not one gardener who is opposed to remediating the school.
I have No disdain or disrespecr for any elder! Stop! Stop it! I have elderly parents! I am almost 52 and will be an empty nester soon! Stop!
I am only stating facts bassd on reality if comments I am reading.
Stop making me out to be an ageist! Stop.
Stephanie,I don’t see any opposing a “new” school. A “new” school could be renovated like CMS or rebuilt. Many people, including myself who is a baseball mom and not a gardner opposed a major league size field being built on top of the only community garden in town. A babe ruth field is not used by LLS – period. If space is needed they should remove the baseball field entirely from that property. The gardens are not on school property. The community gardens, the park and rec fields and the school are all on town property. And no one knows what space is needed to do what with the new school until further in the process. This is misdirected outrage and the wrong people !!
I am not outraged. The people opposing the new build seem to me to be the most outraged. I simply want what is best for children, their education, and their enjoyment. That is just my two cents. I am not outraged though.
Stephanie, you asked “Who decided placing a public commubity [sic] garden on school property was a good idea?
The answer is former First Selectman Diane Farrell. See https://www.westportnow.com/community_correspondent_report_gardeners_organize/
Thank you for this op-ed. I do hope that everyone can come together and rally for a plan that compromises and works together to build a new school while also retaining the gardens and fields. The latest plans seem to meet the P&Z’s last set of concerns and questions. The gardens can remain and will be a nice buffer between the fields and the back neighbors, there still is a good sized field for our sports teams and most importantly, there is a new school for LLS students and the preschool.
I know not everyone is going to love the location of the gardens, or that the field isn’t exactly what they wanted, or there isn’t enough parking etc. However, compromises need to be made in order to get this done and I truly hope we can reach a sensible conclusion at the upcoming P&Z meeting.
I would also like to address a previous point about why wasn’t this talked about more when CMS closed. For many people new to this discussion, it might seem this way, but there are those of us (myself included), who have fought for years and years about the failing issues with the building. Countless parents, members of the PTA, administrators, teachers, and members of other town boards like the RTM have been screaming at BOE meetings for over a decade. I was part of a group who walked the 2018-2019 BOE through the building to show them the issues, which included water incursions but also inappropriate space issues like special ed teachers giving amazing services in the tiniest spaces. I also spoke up in Feb 2020 when the facilities team tried to push off maintenance of the LLS windows once again despite the newest windows being installed in 1979. When I showed examples of water in classrooms in 2019, I was told maybe we need to buy more expensive calk. So there are plenty of people who have spoken up and made these issues known way before now. I am tired and sad that we are still debating all of this in 2024. We all want the same things or we should. A new school for our elementary and preschool students, a plan that works for the neighborhood, a space for the community gardens, and a field for sports. The current plan has all of these components this so please let’s rally together as a community and make this happen.
Thank you for speaking up on behalf of our kids. They need the school resources- building and fields for their play- that they deserve. The LLSBC has done a good job of finding a compromise, now let’s work as a community to move forward!
Sandra,
With respect to your question;
‘The ongoing debate surrounding the construction of a new Long Lots Elementary School has turned very contentious, and I can’t stop from asking myself nearly every single day, “Why?!” ‘
Answer; Because from Day#1 of this feasibility study, it had already been decided by elected officials that the gardens must be relocated offsite to capture space for additional ballfields. The process through which the feasibility study was obtained has been flawed for several reasons. The community has never been engaged in any meaningful way. Meetings were held yet never recorded for public record either with written minutes of every meeting, nor with an audio or visual documentation. This process has lead many to believe democratic norms of public policy procedures have been both disrespected and outright discarded.
Your question; “Why is it that nothing short of leaving the gardens entirely untouched is seen as acceptable?”
Answer; Because licensed professional architects and engineers have demonstrated, on submitted drawings, that the size is of this site is adequate to accommodate a new school, and even the MLB sized 90’ baseball field, along with the required parking, all while leaving the gardens where the have been for 20 years, which by the way act as a buffer to the abutting single family homeowners.
One of the many reasons people have rallied to support the gardeners is for the obvious reason; they are simply being bullied by your elected officials. The fact of the matter is; if the garden site was the backyard of single family residences, the Town would have to make the design program fit within the constraints of the existing property lines. This process has taken on this dystopian, delusional, karmic feeling of “we all are about to go through pain while we build this new school and you gardeners, for some fabricated reason, you have to share our pain.” While it has been demonstrated on paper, all user groups can coexist in harmony.
True to form, it is always about money and power. There are no State funds available to relocate a community garden. (a nationally recognized award winning garden)
Yet any new playing fields constructed on a school site are entitled to a partial reimbursement from the State, as opposed to if the Town decided to build new fields at Winslow Park, Compo Beach or the site of the old Red Barn Restaurant, as I have suggested, those new fields would not be entitled to any reimbursement by the State.
Simply stated; the town is looking to have new fields constructed with a portion of their cost being reimbursed by the State. Yet, I am not aware of any deep dive into the financial analysis given the Town will have to fund the relocation of the Community Gardens. What is the dollar value of that undertaking compared with the amount of funds being reimbursed by the State for the new fields? Is that a net gain, a wash or a net loss? Like all good accounting analysis, you would also have to include the category known as the “intangible asset” meaning the portion of an asset’s value that cannot be physically touched ie; value of the nutrient rich soil, the gardener’s sweat equity and garden’s role as buffer to the neighbors.
Your elected officials will deny this vehemently but that is really what this all about.
The First Selectwomen already acknowledged the process had come of the rails which is why she stepped in two weeks ago with her modified proposal, which frankly still falls short.
I published an opinion piece in this Westport Journal (http://tinyurl.com/4vhfe4ub), this past week, discussing what I believe are prudent next steps for a new school building. The piece, which I believe is informative and intended as a blueprint for the path forward was produced in an effort to rally Long Lots parents to raise the bar of their expectations, start talking about the building, demanding an open and better process to achieve the design and construction of a world class new school, yet it received only a handful of comments. Ironically, as soon as a one sided position piece is published it receives tremendous responses from all sides.
I understand and support the need for a new elementary school but my experience tells me the fight is not with the Community Gardners, the WSA, Westport Baseball or any other Town user group. The fight stems from how poorly the feasibility study process has been handled.
We are all volunteers, I do not know personally any of the members of the school committee, I am sure they are good people so I can only opine on the process and the work product, both I believe have fallen short.
The fight should not be with the P&Z, but it will be. P&Z will be pressured to rubber stamp any solution put in front of them, citing “it is all about the kids”, when in fact the process to date has never been handled in a manner that makes me feel it’s been “all about the kids”.
Joseph Vallone
Joseph,
I have read your op-ed on WJ, and I made a comment that those examples of 3 or 4 story schools you have provided were not because that was the best solution they could find, but because they were in urban area or in very space constraint.
The LLSBC also reviewed your proposals for different ways to rearrange the school and the fields, and one thing that strikes me is that in all these cases, one common theme was to save the gardens. There is nothing wrong with that, except that the priority was not for the new school design, or a fast construction. Why do we need a 3 story school when it does not meet the Educational Specifications? Why do we need a 3 story school if there is space for a 2 story building? And why is it a good idea to place playgrounds on the lower fields where there is a known drainage issue and the fields stay moist more than the upper levels? I don’t agree with your statement that this a compromise. I don’t think the parents at Long Lots would share your vision either.
https://06880danwoog.com/2023/09/29/long-lots-committee-hears-new-proposal/
Mr. Nader,
We advocate for a three story structure on this particular site for multiple reasons.
* First, the site has unique topography, gradually sloping from east to west with a major grade change on the east side of the lower soccer fields. The site has steep slopes to the south and lowlands to the west. A good architect embraces the natural topography along with its sun’s orientation, and tries to design a building that functions in harmony with its natural topography.
* Second, a compact building mass is less expensive to construct for multiple reasons such as; there is less exterior wall and roof to construct which is a net savings despite having to run the stairs up one more flight. A new structure designed with a courtyard costs more to build, more to heat and cool while consuming more real estate than necessary, taking away from open space.
* Third, a compact building massing has less square feet of exposed building facade, making the structure less expensive to operate. Also a compact structure has less roof area translating into lower annual heating and cooling costs. Taxpayers care about operating expenses as they directly eat into the B.of E.’s annual budget.
* Fourth, a compact building uses less construction materials because of shorter, more efficient electrical home runs, less ductwork, fewer plumbing and sprinkler runs, savings in piping lengths, etc. and reduced labor costs.
People in the industry understand the points I have listed above, this is not groundbreaking news.
You mention the solutions I attached in my op-ed were for sites in urban areas.
Did you actually click on the the Prince William County Public School link and look at the site, it’s as suburban as Westport but that is not the point.
I highly suggest you go back to the posting and click on the link and have another closer look.
Your cheeky allegation in your second paragraph, alluding to the fact that I am merely inventing reasons for a “common theme” is both offensive and ignorant.
Your next comment; “There is nothing wrong with that, except that the priority was not for the new school design, or fast construction.”
Another false narrative, I invested a little time to research contemporary school construction projects, showed an example of one school, Prince William County Public School, which has received some notoriety for its innovative design.
I suggested we consider a mass timber structural design solution and I recommended a design competition, concurrent with fee proposal process, which I still believe is a solid blue print for a path forward.
Just to respond to the rest of your questions in your second paragraph;
Why do we need a 3 story school when it does not meet the Educational Specifications?
Answer; Another false narrative, a 3 story building will meet State Education specifications and we already have three other, 3 story schools within our community.
Why do we need a 3 story school if there is space for a 2 story building?
Answered above and continued below.
Taxpayers who pay to heat and cool buildings should care deeply about constructing a building that is highly energy efficient. But energy efficiency is more than just curly lightbulbs and light motion sensors, it’s about the size, shape and orientation of the building. I understand it is very easy for lay people who are unfamiliar with design and construction to want to spend other people’s money, because “let’s just build a two story building because that’s all we know” but prudent design should not require costly construction and an egregious operating budget.
And why is it a good idea to place playgrounds on the lower fields where there is a known drainage issue and the fields stay moist more than the upper levels?
Answer; Because that is the best place to locate the open space. Drainage issues can always be solved if they are properly addressed. I am sure you are not suggesting we build the new school in the low lands and build the fields on the high grounds, because that would be completely nonsensical.
This is a school building we are talking about and I cannot help but notice the humongous irony within this process.
We want to design a building to be filled with educators, who are supposed to be teaching our children to open their mind’s, step out of their comfort zones, ask questions, think, learn, improve, dream and change.
Isn’t this exactly what our elected officials, including those on the Board of Education should be striving to achieve?
Shouldn’t our elected officials be pushed out of their comfort zones, ask better questions, think out of the box, dream a little bit more than usual, demand better and create a well conceived, well designed, state of the art learning facility?
Joseph Vallone, A.I.A.
Am I missing something? People on here are saying there is not a plan or design submitted yet for a new buuld. True oe false? Are people trying to confuse people? What are the submitted plans for a new build building? Where can I find that?
I implore people to research the facts. Some people on here are lying and gaslighting.
Stephanie,
Perhaps the link below can help answer some of your questions.
No, we do not have a building designed.
We have not yet hired an architect to design the new school.
We have a feasibility study that aligned programatic requirements with a potential construction budget.
We have a design program that outlines the the approximate size and location of structure necessary to include all the spaces needed within the new school.
We have site plan with a “placeholder” illustrating the approximate size and potential shape of the footprint required to accommodate the needs requested within the design program.
This is detailed in the link below.
http://tinyurl.com/4vhfe4ub
~ Joseph Vallone
Stephanie:
Re: your “where can i find that” comment. There is NO school plan at this point. It’s more boxes on a map. We haven’t gotten to the design stage yet. Which is why part of the outrage about delays is confusing some people.
You can see the map that the LLSBC resubmitted. And it even includes some “maybe here, maybe there” on it. But basically it includes the proposed footprint for a school and that is it.
I hope that helped.
Someone lied about the demographics of age of westport residents! Do your due diligence people!
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ct/westport/demographics
United States Census Data for the town of Westport.?
Neighborhood Scout? Really?
I used United Stated Census data, in which you can break out the 50+ age groups. Your data is not precise enough by age groups. You need the source data. Try the US Census Data.
Incorrect! You are the minority of the age demograohics now. By a long shot. Keep trying your tactics! They are NOT working on the majority.
Toni,
Your data is simply wrong and must be corrected:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/westporttownwesternconnecticutplanningregionconnecticut/PST045222
Age group Male Female Total
85+ 161 327 488
80-84 254 269 523
75-79 374 454 828
70-74 630 687 1317
65-69 634 799 1433
60-64 1271 775 2046
55-59 1196 1597 2793
50-54 1137 1189 2326
45-49 1138 1246. 2384
Total over 45 yrs = 14138 = 52.36%
43% >50 years
35% >55 years
25% > 60 years
Town pop. 27000
Shall I go on.
What are the percentage of 5-17 year olds vs over 50? That is what matters here!
Shall I go on?
It is crystal clear children do NOT matter to you!
https://data.census.gov/vizwidget?g=860XX00US06880&infoSection=Age and Sex
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2019.S0101?g=160XX00US0983570
Over 45 yrs = 14138 = 52.36%
>50 years = 43%
>55 years – 35%
> 60 year = 25%
Hi Toni
Out of curiosity, in your opinion what percentage of Westport’s population needs to be school-aged children in order for the urgency of a new school to be prioritized over the location of a community garden?
Toni, hat is your point in breaking down the over 50 category? Makes no sense.
I am talking about comparing the 5-17 category and the elderly.
Toni, Toni, Toni,
Whsr percentage of Westport population is 5-17 vs over 45?
Why are you showing only people over 45 and negating kids ages 5-17?
You are proving my point that you do not care about the kids in Westport!
Thabk you!
And 5-17 year olds by numbers and perecent?
Don’t exist Toni?
Lmfao!
Toni refuses to post how mamy people ages 5-17 live in Westport and what percent of the pop they are!
I wonder why! Lol!
Stephanie,
How many 12-17 year olds need a new elementary school?
Dan
Again, build the school. Build the school. Build the school. Give them playgrounds and free play areas. Give them what Lee Goldstein personally told me they need: “grassy areas.”
I do not believe the children of Long Lots need a multisport field the size of two professional football fields. I do not believe the school is asking for, or is authorized to ask for, land that is not governed by the school. I do not believe children should routinely be on property that is not governed by the school district during the school day, especially given the ongoing state of disrepair of Parks and Rec fields.
I do not believe yo I do not believe your special interests are as noble as you declare.
NOT ONE PERSON, NOT ONE, including me, would deny children a safe, healthy, and comfortable school, so please just put that tired bluster back in its holster.
If school conditions are as bad as parents and teachers say, I believe we should move them to an alternate location as soon as possible, and certainly for the 2024/25 school year and until a new school is built.
These are just my opinions, given under my full name and without ulterior motive. I have been upfront and consistent in this matter since June 2023 when we “got the news” that a land grab was afoot.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/POP010220
5-17 year olds is a bigger percent of the Westport pop than over 45
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ~Carl Sagan
(Book: The Demon-Haunted World)
The truth is you do not care about the children Tomi if you refuse to even acknowledge their existence in the data and demographics!
Toni,
Quoting a book that 5-11 year olds do not read inside the school building, shows your disregard for the education of elementary aged kids in Westport.
You can also be bamboozled by disregarding a certain population. Just pretend they do not exist bc they can not represent themselves.
Bamboozled!
Toni, please post the link of where these numbers came from! I see no data on numbers oe percent of over 45 combined with over 65