Public Outcry Over FFH Lands At Legislative Council’s Feet

By Kendra Bobowick

Emotions raged Wednesday evening as residents funneled their anger, confusion, and frustration over town spending into the Legislative Council members’ hands. More than 250 people flooded the Newtown Middle School as one by one they pleaded with council members to halt the Fairfield Hills renovation project.

Others insisted that the council consider spending Fairfield Hills funds elsewhere, while still others argued that in the six years since the town bonded funds for a $21 million package to include a new town hall, such a building  is no longer the town’s most urgent need.

At the end of a five-hour-plus open public forum where stay-at-home moms, attorneys, private business owners, and others spoke freely and without time limits or interruption, counterarguments and legal and financial explanations provided information why many requests could not be met,  cooling off the room. Questions asked included: What if the town has changed its mind? Can the town reallocate funding? Can the project at Fairfield Hills be stopped? And what do the council members have to say about the 81 questions many demand they answer before moving ahead at Fairfield Hills? Many of the questions reflect points of contention raised at the microphone Wednesday regarding a long-range plan for Fairfield Hills and the town, the bonding issue securing the $21 million for Fairfield Hills, town hall, and allowance for educational needs.

 

The Arguments

Between 8 and 10 pm a steady wave of speakers voices crackled through the audio system to address the council.

Speaking for many, Gary Davis said, “We’re here to ask you to stop what’s going on until we have all the answers and the project is firmly explained.” He refers to answers for 81 questions submitted to the council in a collective effort between the WeCAN (We Care About Newtown), a group devoted to supporting Newtown’s long-term educational needs, and the Friends of Newtown/Insidenewtown.com, spearheaded by resident Matthew DeAngelis, who had filed a civil lawsuit against the town in early November 2006 also demanding a stop to the Fairfield Hills project. Many questions sought information and explanations about Fairfield Hills projects.

Revealing one area of current public uncertainty, he noted, “In 2001 we had a town meeting and nowhere in the bond resolution have I seen a new town hall. Somewhere evolved a new town hall…there is no mandate for a new town hall, and that’s why we’re here tonight….to have $21 million and have one ball field, some buildings knocked down, trails, and a new town hall — I don’t think that’s where I wanted money to go.”

Again expressing sentiments causing concern recently in many minds, Mr Davis said, “Is there a broader plan at play? But that’s that problem, we don’t know what it is.”

As clarified by town officials including Board of Finance members, selectmen, and Financial Director Benjamin Spragg, Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) address school expansions, renovation, recreational projects, arts, and senior citizens’ needs for example, which is a separate spending package from the funds already bonded in 2001 for Fairfield Hills.

Giving voice to another set of doubts now circulating, Mr Davis said, “The CIP does a little of something for everyone, but that’s the problem; we have high school expansions, Dickinson, and the one thing we’re protecting is a new town hall.”

Stepping away from the topics and getting to the heart of another issues — town government — Mr Davis’s next comments hinted at the drive behind another movement afoot to rally political candidates for the coming municipal elections.

“We need someone to show leadership, step forward and come forward with a long-term vision,” Mr Davis said.

Ruby Johnson addressed the council saying, “I ask that you take correct measures and return control of Fairfield Hills to the citizens.”

WeCAN representative Po Murray also stood for many and reiterated demands made in the 81 questions as she approached the microphone.

“We have heard over and over that there’s a mandate for a new town hall. When we voted in 2001 it was not clear to us we would need [school upgrades and improvements],” she said. Making her accusations, she continued, “If you had had a long-term plan in place we would have known and not voted blindly — we did not know we would get a town hall, trails, and one baseball field. In 2001 there was not a mandate for a new town hall and in 2003 we did not vote for a master plan.” The Master Plan for Fairfield Hills is an overall redevelopment guideline for the campus honed in the years following the $21 million appropriation.

This plan is yet another point of protest from Mr DeAngelis and others who argue that voters rejected it.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal has argued that the referendum rejecting the plan was not binding. This point has also met argument.

Ms Murray, among others, hopes for another vote on the master plan.

“If we can’t convince you to make a course correction, then allow us to vote on it, let us vote on the town hall project,” Ms Murray said.

Spokesperson for Friends of Newtown Matthew DeAngelis raised his points to the council.

“Every time we reach into the black hole of Fairfield Hills we pull out something disturbing.” He continued with his reasons to “put on the breaks and apply some oversight.”

He said, “In 2003 we voted on a master plan and we said No and have been told it’s only advisory…” He then asserted that “there is a public schizophrenia with our selectmen.” He stressed that the referendum was, in fact, legally binding.

“In my eyes it was a binding referendum…if it walks like a duck it has to be a duck.”

Looking to the council members, he said, “You have a legal and moral obligation to go back — if you don’t fix it, you’re part of it, thank you.”

The Explanations

Bringing up a word used by several to describe some of the public’s discontent, Mr Rosenthal began, “There is some confusion. Some people don’t live here anymore, other people moved in…” He believes that with the shift of people had been a shift of priorities and preferences. He raised another point.

“When we appropriate money [usually] within a year you begin [a project].” Fairfield Hills spending shows a lag time.

“In 2001 we appropriated the funds and spent three years negotiating to buy the property,” Mr Rosenthal said.

Reallocating funds to appease the public’s current priorities is also a problem.

Mr Rosenthal explained that based on his conversations with bonding officials and the parameters set forth for the bonded Fairfield Hills funds, money cannot be used elsewhere.

He also spoke about the master plan. “The only reason there is a master plan — it’s a requirement of planning and zoning,” he said.

The Shades Of Gray

The council members considered the many layers of concern coming from the public, but finally a majority determined that they did not have the authority to override plans already in progress, and did not have the power to stop the Fairfield Hills project.

Member’s emotions also were torn.

Joseph DiCandido summarized the overwhelming public comment, saying, “I am amazed at the turnout, I sense a common theme — don’t build the town hall — put [money] into schools. Another theme — we don’t have a long-term plan.”

Making his own observations, he said, “This Fairfield Hills plan is probably one of the most comprehensive I’ve ever seen. No one has ever presented a more comprehensive plan. No one has come up with a plan so we can say we like one better than the other…”

Acting Chairman Tim Holian said, “I don’t see us taking action on something already acted on and don’t see how to undo a process already in progress…”

He then turned to the town charter, which does not give the council the power or authority to stop the Board of Selectman.

Jeffrey Capeci said, “The bond council is clear, we can’t do anything with the money other than what we said…the town hall has to go forward based on the legal and professional opinions.”

Sympathizing with sentiments expressed by the public, Keith Jacobs said, “Priorities do change over time and as times change needs change…the law gives us remedies to get us out of situations and we have to consider if this is the best plan for us…”

He feels the council has an obligation to hear and investigate voters’ concerns. He stressed, “This is a plan that can change.”

Contrary to his feelings, however, are concerns that legally, money cannot be shifted. Ramifications are also in place if the project is stopped or bond funds are not used.

Mr Capeci noted one critical point saying, “I do think there is a communication issue — I do think we owe it to the voters to get information to people. I think it’s too late to make changes.”

Although Mr Jacobs did move to halt the project, his motion was denied.

Mr Holian said, “The item is on the agenda for discussion only. We have no authority to tell the Board of Selectmen to stop doing anything.”

 

The 81

The 81 questions submitted in a joint effort by education proponents and those opposed to Fairfield Hills became one main point of argument.

Mr Davis insisted, “Only until you have [answered the questions] can you assure all of us that this is truly the right path.” Immediate and prolonged applause followed his comments.

Ms Murray also demands answers before further progress takes place at Fairfield Hills.

She said, “We ask you to answer the questions before moving forward.”

The list of 81 questions is available online at newtownbee.com. Background information regarding Fairfield Hills can be found at the town website at www.newtown-ct.gov.