Queen Street Issue Gets

In Line Behind Fairfield Hills

By Steve Bigham

Wondering about the fate of the town-owned Queen Street property? Want to know if the town is going to sell those houses?

Keep waiting.

The Legislative Council has decided to put off making a decision until after the redevelopment of Fairfield Hills is resolved.

“Add it to the list of things to do after Fairfield Hills,” quipped one town official, referring to the growing list of projects awaiting a resolution of the status of Fairfield Hills.

At issue is whether or not the town should sell the Queen Street homes or simply tear them down. More than a year ago, town residents voted in favor of the town’s $1.25 million purchase of the land and six buildings. At the January 1999 town meeting, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal informed the voters that the plan was to buy the homes to ensure that the town had control over future development along this scenic parcel. Then, it would turn around and re-sell the homes with deed restrictions.

“That is the premise under which we purchased them,” Mr Rosenthal said this week. “But clearly, under the charter, this is an area where the Legislative Council has the authority.”

Last month, the council announced that it was having reservations about selling the homes. Council member Donald Studley even did some number crunching, which, when making certain assumptions, indicates the town would save itself money by demolishing the structures. His mathematical formula spread the costs to educate any children living in those homes out over 20 or so years. Although his numbers have been disputed, the bottom line is that several council members now philosophically oppose the idea of reselling the homes.

The news of the town’s shift in position has irked some residents who assumed the town was simply going to resell the homes to recoup its original costs. The confusion over the disposition of the Queen Street properties has only fueled the criticism of those warning of the town’s pending big-time real estate venture at Fairfield Hills.  The town should not be in the real estate business, noted longtime Newtown residents Philip and Margareta Kotch. They used the Queen Street situation to describe their concerns over the future of Fairfield Hills, which it feels the town is ill-equipped to buy.

“If we, in error, should purchase the land and buildings without a precise plan, it appears obvious that the muddle which has developed over Queen Street will also materialize at Fairfield Hills,” the Kotches wrote in a letter to The Bee last week.

The letter likened the town to a rudderless ship “sailing upon a stormy ocean of opportunity. Our leaders are being tossed about, conveying uncertain guidance on an unfamiliar sea.”

Does Queen Street symbolize the inability to Newtown’s politicians to come together for the good of the community? Legislative Council Chairman Pierre Rochman doesn’t think so.

“There are a lot of different opinions out there, but the Legislative Council is not the least bit confused. The council feels we should keep it as open space,” Mr Rochman said. “I think there is a misconception that the council intended to sell those houses to recover some of the money. Some members saw that as a possible scenario, but to say that was the intent of the majority of the council would not be accurate. That is not the reason we bought it.”