Mixed-use development at Fairfield Hills does not serve the interest of Newtown’s residents. Called the “new urbanism,” these projects attempt to reduce suburban sprawl and traffic gridlock by pairing commercial space with residential apartments to create a pedestrian-enabled lifestyle. They are strategically built next to retail centers with transit options. Sounds great — give up your car to shop and work where you live.
I am frankly puzzled by some of the [letters to the editor] in opposition to a mixed use project for Fair-field Hills. In the name of keeping Fairfield Hills as open space I believe some are missing the details of what could potentially be a boon for Newtown.
In the ten years since Newtown purchased the state-owned property that served Connecticut for more than 60 years as a psychiatric hospital, the evolution of 186-acre campus at Fairfield Hills has been mostly municipal. The site is now the seat of Newtown’s government. Attempts to stimulate commercial interest there, however, have sputtered. The one notable exception was the opening of the 86,000-square-foot Newtown Youth Academy in 2008. But now, there is even talk of an eventual town takeover of that facility as well.
In the history of towns, cities, and parks, nothing could be clearer than that building “residences” inside a beautiful community outdoor space does not create taxpayer value; it destroys it. Overnight, irreversibly. The joy, freedom, and natural beauty go out of the place. What profit there is, is for developers. The loss to the community, in all its generations, is both immediate and permanent.
I have recently learned that there is an effort underway by the town to allow housing on the campus at Fairfield Hills. Is it true that the authority to do this is either already in place or very close to becoming a reality? I don't remember that question on the last referendum.