Avoiding Another Public Vote

On Fairfield Hills

To the Editor:

The citizens of Newtown voted to buy the Fairfield Hill (FFH) campus at a town meeting in June 2001 — four years ago. Involved citizens knew at that time that a board or commission would be needed to oversee the 185-acre purchase. The process to incorporate a management committee into our constitution (our charter) could have begun the day after the vote to purchase the property, but that option was not pursued.

The selectmen, unknown to members of the council who were out of the loop, arranged to have the state legislature create a FFH Authority with powers similar to the Port Authority of New York or the Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Bill passed the House in 2003, but the Senate adjourned before voting on the measure.

Almost at the same time, the selectmen kept their campaign promise and allowed the citizens to vote on the proposed Master Plan for FFH. The plan was heavily weighted to move the town into the role of a developer by planning to lease about 300,000 square feet of commercial space and construct playing fields. On August 12, 2003, the citizens turned down the master plan in a townwide referendum. Again, if our elected officials had desired to do so, the charter revision or amendment process could have begun in 2003. This was not done.

Why not use the Charter Revision process? Simply put, citizens must approve any changes to the charter in a townwide referendum. No one could be sure that voters would approve an eight-member governing body appointed by the selectmen. Citizens just might prefer an elected body with candidates from either party or even unaffiliated voters. Once citizens are allowed to vote, the outcome is uncertain. The public cannot be trusted to do as they are told, and too many independent minded FFH commission members just might scrap or reduce the commercial development plans and steer a different course that saves Fairfield Hills for municipal uses.

It’s the required referendum for charter changes that our elected officials oppose — ample time was available; instead, they chose the state legislature path in 2003 and again in 2005 because they wanted to avoid our time honored, democratic system of “checks and balances” and the right of citizens to vote to determine how their land, paid for by their tax dollars, will be used.

After the 2003 defeat of the master plan, the selectmen announced they would allow no more votes on Fairfield Hills. The council will hold a public hearing on their ordinance to create an authority to rule FFH, probably during the popular July 4th vacation week when many citizens are either away or preoccupied with summer activities. However, make no mistake; you can talk at a public hearing, but you will not be allowed to vote.

That’s the undemocratic way!

Ruby K. Johnson

16 Chestnut Hill Road, Sandy Hook                         June 7, 2005