Home

housing

  • Newtown Ill-Suited As A Home For The ‘New Urbanism’

    To the Editor:

    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.

  • From Eyesores To Eye Candy

    To the Editor:

    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.

  • Even A Forum Can’t Make Sense Of FFH Housing Plan

    To the Editor:

    The “forum,” held last Saturday in the Reed Intermediate School library, about the now all-but-inevitable housing at Fairfield Hills, was not a forum at all.

  • Forum Comments Clarified

    To The Editor:

    I would like to clarify my comments as represented in the [12/12/14 Bee] article entitled “Residents, Officials Express Views On Housing At Fairfield Hills” as the way they are presented, well outside the context of what I was saying, is misleading.

  • Housing At Fairfield Hills

    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.

  • Apartments Are Not Economic Development

    To the Editor:

    Apartments are not economic development. In fact they can cost the taxpayers far more than the tax revenue received. Apartments are not allowed to discriminate  based on such things as children.

  • Say No Again To Residences At Fairfield Hills

    To the Editor:

    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.

  • Housing at FFH Without Voter Consent

    To the Editor:

    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.

  • Hold Off On Housing At Fairfield Hills

    To the Editor:

    Firstly, please note that I am writing as an individual and not on behalf of the Legislative Council.

    I would like to echo the comments of Rita Willie, someone I have known and respected my entire life, that we should not support the proposed amendment to the Fairfield Hills Design District Zoning Regulations which would allow for residential apartments above commercial spaces.

  • A Development Opportunity At Fairfield Hills

    To the Editor: