Volunteers Gauge Successes, Drawbacks For FFH Planning

By Kendra Bobowick

Sharing their thoughts on Fairfield Hills, several residents participated in informative and thought-sharing meetings on the first weekend in March. The Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee hosted the meetings as part of its charge to seek and include public input on the future of the former state hospital campus. The committee dubbed this focus group the Microcosm Council.

Robert Keegan and Michael Marinaccio were among the roughly 18 residents to volunteer their time Saturday and Sunday, March 5 and 6, discussing the background, history, and future of Fairfield Hills. They shared their perspectives.

Did you learn anything new about Fairfield Hills?

Michael Marinaccio: “It’s the first time we had a comprehensive and whole view of Fairfield Hills history, current status, and critical issues.” Understanding the complexities “reinforces the valuable piece of property” the town owns. Seeing “the whole things” offers a better perspective.

Robert Keegan: He talked about “change.” He sees what has changed since the 2001 vote to acquire Fairfield Hills until now. The town went from a “go-go economy” to today’s tougher climate. Demographics have also changed, school populations and projections have “gone up and down,” and overall, he said, “the town has changed.”

Understandings of costs and financing between the 2001 vote to buy the property and today have also changed, he said.

Other changes came in discovering what shape the property was “really” in, “not what everybody thought,” he said.

He also stressed that “the way the property was presented to the business community didn’t work.” He said, “Learning from history so we can go forward is what we need to do.” Regarding tendencies to place blame, he said, “We’ve got to stay away from that.”

What do you feel will be necessary for the town to successfully renovate the campus?

 Michael Marinaccio: “From my perspective, we need more clearly defined strategic options than exist now.” He notes that the master plan for campus redevelopment provides themes, but not strategic options.

“My hope is that the review committee — based on [March 5 and 6 Microcosm Council meetings] and the communitywide meetings [March 16 and 23] — will be able to define options more clearly.”

Building on that thought, he said, “Whatever option is selected in the future will have to be implemented in phases because of economic terms.”

Robert Keegan: “To succeed, you have to bring the town along to an extent that most people agree with what you’re doing.”

He said, “That’s why we’re looking at a destination center.” He described a place that would appeal to many people, and draw them to use it “as a community place, so it’s self-sustaining.” They “kicked around” ideas of sports centers, cultural arts centers, etc where “you pay as you go,” he said. “It’s a concept. It pulls people together.”

Also, “We have to yank down the buildings there.” Drawbacks, however, include the costs of tear-down. To wait for capital improvement plan funding several years out means the costs will go up. “The sooner we tear them down, the cheaper it will be,” he said.

“Getting the community behind” proposals is key, he said.

What do you believe to be the town’s biggest hurdles toward progress?

 Michael Marinaccio: He had a list, beginning first with the depressed economy, “which is probably going to remain. It’s not going away.”

Secondly, he said, “A project of this size is more complex than probably anticipated. The town has to ask, does the town have enough resources and skill to manage the project?”

Demolition is third on his list. “We need to demo most of the remaining buildings except the ones considered architecturally significant.” He sees a need to “find a way to do the demo, there is going to be the cost.” Regarding potential investors, the need for demolition “certainly doesn’t help someone wanting to come in.”

Saving “one of our biggest hurdles,” for last, he noted the “difficulty of making tough decisions,” and “knowing you won’t satisfy all the special interest groups.”

Decisions must be carried out “in a timely way so it doesn’t drag out another year.”

He said, “Tough decisions have to be made by the Board of Selectmen once recommendations [about the master plan review] are made.” He also said that “they won’t be able to satisfy everybody.”

Regarding the many opinions he has seen, he added, “So many opinions, so many narrow views of what should be done — the Board of Selectmen has to step back, see the whole view and address what can or can’t be done. That is one of the toughest things that needs to be done.”

He said, “People are getting tired of hearing Fairfield Hills. There is ‘Fairfield Hills Fatigue.’”

Robert Keegan: “Things may sound great and grand, but you’ve got to sell it to voters; that’s a tough hill to climb,” he said. Another hurdle is “getting past history. You don’t want to spend the whole time defending what you’ve done.” The town “needs to get that out of the way,” he said. Be straight with the voters, then move on, he said.

However, “some people don’t want to move on.” Regarding placing blame, he said, “Some people will spend their lives on it.”

He mentions demolition. Regarding plans for the future, he said, “Even if a building sits, you still have to take it down, so we’re talking a huge chunk of money.”

Looking ahead at what decisions may arise for future uses, he said, “It can’t be one thing, just schools, just sports, you name it. It needs to be a community destination point. I think it can be done.”

Gauging the needs for a road to success, he said, “You need a rallying cry” in support of an idea from the public. “It’s important.”

What are your thoughts or reactions to the council meetings from March 5 and 6?

Michael Marinaccio: Speaking generally, the number of people that showed up formed a diverse group. The volunteers were “energetic and all engaged,” in the weekend, which produced “thoughtful discussion and a lot of opinions.”

He found that all members were respectful and a “good working group.”

He felt his was a great experience and found that the people attending were “glad for the opportunity to participate in such a meaningful manner.” He noted that the review committee “did a lot of work ahead of time.”

He thinks that his group “provided the [review] committee with a lot of information that should help them develop recommendations or changes for the master plan.”

Robert Keegan: “I thought the meeting was very good. It was well run,” he said. Regarding the information made available for participants, he said, “Do I agree with everything? No, but they have done a terrific job” of informing the volunteers. “They should all be gigantically praised, that needs to be said.”

He also found that the group was highly diverse. “Some people had broader views, some had predisposed opinions,” he said. “They could not have cut it wider of they tried.”

 

March 16 & 23

The early March meetings will provide information to begin a communitywide discussion scheduled for March 16 and 23.

An Open Community Conversation will be held in the Alexandria room of the Edmond Town Hall, 6:30 to 9 pm. Participants are welcome to arrive as much as 15 minutes early. Light refreshments will be available. The second conversation will build upon the first, so participation in both is encouraged.

The early and mid-March meetings will assist the review committee in generating a townwide survey in coming weeks, and finally in preparing its final master plan review to the Board of Selectmen.