What The Bee Editorial Left Out

To the Editor:

1. Our Town Charter states (p.2), “The legislative bodies of the Town shall be the Legislative Council and the Town Meeting.”

2. August 12, 2003, Newtown voters turned down the proposed Master Plan with its 254,000 square feet of office space surrounded by seven playing fields. (Sand Hill Plaza has 160,000 square feet.)

3. Our elected officials could have begun the Charter revision process three years ago and addressed the issue of FFH management.

4. The original House Bill 6712 applied to all towns in Connecticut. Some state representatives refused to support legislation that would override their own charters; hence, the bill was rewritten to describe only Newtown. Representatives knew they shouldn’t mention Newtown by name. View both bills at www.friendsoffairfieldhills.org.

5. Town officials object to the restrictive language in our charter designed to protect public property. “The sale, abandonment, lease or other disposition of Town owned real property or interest in real property shall require the approval of a Town Meeting…” [Section 7-90 (e)] The town meeting is our safeguard against lease “deals” that citizens might consider inappropriate.

6. Town leaders object to a second restriction. Leases can be made by sealed bid, auction, or private sale. If a private sale (lease) is conducted, the terms must be publicized, and a competitor may step forward with a better offer within ten days for consideration. (p. 34-35) Good for the town; difficult for speculators.

In contrast to Newtown, town officials in Preston have sought voter approval at every step concerning a developer’s plan for the 417-acre former mental hospital located nearby that the state will sell to Preston for $1. Preston citizens are empowered to vote, by referendum, approval or disapproval of the final negotiated deal. (New York Times March 13, 2005 and May 8, 2005.)

Public Act 05-33 allows our council to create a management body that can “appropriate,” “take,” “designate” portions of Fairfield Hills to “lease” to Third Parties without the approval of voters at a town meeting. Leasing the duplexes and single-family homes to a developer for housing becomes a real possibility.

Fairfield Hills needs a governing body, but not one that can lease our land to third parties without the consent of the taxpayers. It’s our $20 million and our land.

FFH belongs to the people, not elected officials. Citizens want a place to walk, bike, play sports, and save land for a town hall, recreation center, community and cultural arts center, etc, limiting commercial development to the entry plaza.

Public Act 05-33 takes away the people’s right to approve or disapprove leases at a town meeting. What can citizens do to save FFH? Attend a public hearing held by the council on the issue, but not much else. Useless! Ask the school supporters. Comments fall on deaf ears.

“Just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.” Sound familiar? Not in Newtown under this Public Act.

Ruby K. Johnson

16 Chestnut Hill Road, Sandy Hook                             May 18, 2005