Fairfield Hills

Needs A Balanced Plan

To the Editor:

Overall, the proposed master plan was a reasonable attempt to meet almost everyone’s needs while maintaining something of a balance. That said, I didn’t like everything. Here’s my feedback:

Duplexes and Single-Family Homes –– These structures are in the best condition of anything standing at FFH. The retail plan for the duplexes is impractical. There will be nothing else up there to sustain a handful of retail shops that are well off the beaten path. I do not want any new housing at FFH, but rather than tear down the single families, sell them along with the duplexes to provide some affordable housing. Use the proceeds to reduce debt, offset future tax increases, or perhaps acquire open space elsewhere in town. The purchase and sale of the homes on Queen Street worked out well for the town. Why not here?

Lease vs Sale of Buildings –– Why lease the buildings to be used commercially and sell the buildings the town could use? This is backwards. The town should not become a lessor. Newtown has a poor track record attracting commercial development; why will this change at FFH? Pass the burden of remediating and rehabilitating the commercial buildings to the private sector. Sell the buildings and control them via zoning and deed restrictions. And retain ownership of Bridgeport and Plymouth for town uses, leasing them for private, public, or business uses when not used locally.

FFH Authority –– Why do we need such an authority? This has not been explained very well, adding to my skepticism. If it’s to make it easier to manage FFH, then it raises a red flag to me that we’re getting involved in things the town shouldn’t be involved in. Maybe it’s a philosophical difference, but I believe we should be limiting and reducing government, not expanding it.

Economic Development –– The plan is short on revenue-producing development. Newtown and Woodbury may make good professional space (doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc), but we need office space competitive with surrounding towns. FFH is one of the few places in town where you can site an office building (behind mature trees!) and not be in the midst of a residential area, while still retaining significant open space. This will keep traffic where it should be –– adjacent to an interstate exit and between two state roads.

Town Hall –– Given the economy, rising local taxes, and lack of a local commercial tax base, we should relook at how to meet our municipal space needs. If we ultimately decide to move all town offices to a new location, I am against using Shelton Hall (or Canaan) until I see a more detailed, line-by-line explanation of the costs to renovate. I am extremely concerned the costs will escalate given the necessary remediation for asbestos, lead, and leaks in addition to the overall poor condition of the building since the state abandoned it years ago. Not to mention that Shelton was a dormitory and is not suited for office space. The simplest argument for avoiding Shelton and the other old buildings at FFH is made by looking at Edmond Town Hall where a $13,000 repair job turned into a $100,000 project. You just don’t know what could go wrong next in old buildings that have been allowed to decay as at FFH. Taxpayers cannot afford that risk.

My overriding concern is how we, the taxpayers, are going to afford FFH. I recently read the projected $2 million annual cost was a pessimistic estimate. Given the status of the master plan, the cost estimate appears full of holes, so I am not so sure. Even $1 million annually would be a tough nut to swallow. Does anyone remember what it took to pass a budget this year? I’d like to see a similarly balanced plan that lowers the cost to the taxpayer. For that I will vote Yes.

Michael J. McCabe

5 Far Horizon Drive, Sandy Hook                              August 19, 2003