To the Editor:

The “forum,” held last Saturday in the Reed Intermediate School library, about the now all-but-inevitable housing at Fairfield Hills, was not a forum at all.

Hastily scheduled, poorly conceived, improperly conducted, the occasion seemed almost calculated to keep people from expressing their views. It was more like being kept after school, with two teachers: one, George Benson, declaring what the future held for Fairfield Hills; another, the facilitator, writing in purple ink on white paper, her interpretation of what was being said. Citizens (adults) were seated at separate little tables for four, and instructed to chat among themselves about “questions” or “concerns” they might have about plans George Benson was presenting, for “limited” rental apartments in a “mixed use” development at Fairfield Hills.

Mr Benson described the proposal as “new.” Only in answer to a direct question, did it become clear that the proposal was in fact old. It had been announced by Advanced Realty, on behalf of Claris Construction, long ago – months before the revised charter even made it legal to discuss such, previously prohibited, housing.

But citizens who had troubled to attend did their best. Some had to leave before discussion was permitted to become general. Those who remained were reduced, by the “facilitation” process, to having to stand up and deliver the consensus at their little table. (“Can't hear” was a frequent complaint.)  Those who spoke did manage to make themselves heard – to everyone except, perhaps, the the moderators.

What was clearest was how divisive the issue of Fairfield Hills has become. Newtown citizens have made their view of housing at Fairfield Hills known, time and time again: they are against it. Someone evidently thought: If a vote runs clearly and repeatedly against you, try a “survey.” If the survey, such as it is, goes more narrowly against you, try a charter revision committee. If the committee is not entirely what you had hoped, bring in a therapist, and call whatever you schedule a “forum.” Also, declare that there will be no referendum. The power lies with Planning and Zoning. The rest is chatter.

Still, people made their opposition clear. The economic scheme of this housing plan made no sense. (Even Mr. Benson did not try to describe it.)  Any financial benefit from “rental housing” to the taxpayers is, at best, an illusion. There will be no economic benefit, except to the developers, attorneys, others who may already have an investment in the campus.

More divisive, however, will be the result for that beautiful property.  Newtown owns it now. When the building goes up, there will be the people who live there and people who do not. Parking, lighting at night, policing, schooling, liability, landlord-tenant relations – all are issues. The fundamental division, between the claims of those who live there and the rest of our citizens, will be deep. The costs will all be Newtown's. The benefits of unspoiled public space will be gone.

Renata Adler

Member Fairfield Hills Authority

Hattertown Road, Newtown                         December 9, 2014