Officials, Townspeople React––

Why Did The Fairfield Hills Plan Fail?

By Dottie Evans

Ever since August 12, when Newtown voters rejected the Fairfield Hills master plan at the polls by 154 votes, town officials and townspeople have been debating over the results.

They are wondering why it went down, and exactly what issues caused 1,238 people to vote against it and 1,084 people to vote for it.

And why was there such a low turnout, only 15 percent of a total of 14,706 registered voters?

Acknowledging that there might be as many opinions about what happened August 12 as there were voters, the Board of Selectmen decided Monday night that they would not overreact.

The selectmen are prepared to “take some time,” First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said, to find out what the public was thinking.

If necessary, an “exit poll” could be taken by a company specializing in gathering public opinion, and the selectmen agreed that hiring such a firm would be a good idea.

“We have records of who voted. This could be done by a private company,” said Mr Rosenthal, adding that he knew of polling groups at the University of Connecticut, at Quinnipiac College, and elsewhere that could be contacted.

“Since the vote, I’ve gotten a variety of responses, through phone calls, letters, email, or on the street, from people who wanted to express their opinions,” Mr Rosenthal said.

“So far, the only thing I can say for sure is that there was no single reason for the lack of consensus. Maybe we did not make it clear that we were not approving a spending plan here. The money [to purchase Fairfield Hills and to make associated improvements] has already been authorized,” Mr Rosenthal said.

He posed the possibility that voters assumed if the referendum passed, the town would instantly be building ten ball fields or that a new town hall was a done deal.

 “Just because the results were inconclusive is no reason to scrap the master plan. It was a low turnout, but the vote was close,” Mr Rosenthal added.

He pointed out that certain issues did crystallize during the yearlong process of formulating the Fairfield Hills master plan, and that this should be considered a positive.

“The public clearly did not want a corporate office space on the High Meadow, and they did not want housing alternatives.”

Townspeople were also against a new town hall or any other structure being built across the tree-lined entrance parkway, and they were not in favor of “infill,” or construction on land lying in between the buildings that now occupy the 189-acre campus. Finally, there was a clear preference to lease rather than sell the buildings, should private interests become involved.

Bojnowski Questions Collective Will,

Brimmer Fears Apathy

Selectman Joe Bojnowski felt there might have been “many reasons” for the No vote, and that an overriding concern might have been that whatever the town ends up doing at Fairfield Hills, it might be too expensive.

“Some people felt that by voting against the master plan, they were saving money by delaying expenditures,” Mr Bojnowski said.

“I am particularly disturbed because this calls into question the will of the citizens to acquire Fairfield Hills. The town is divided. It’s a bit troubling.

“Citizens need to look back to the beginning and remember what started this whole process. Do we want it [Fairfield Hills] or don’t we?” he asked.

Mr Rosenthal commented that it was “a little late” for second guessing the town’s decision to purchase the 189-acre property from the state, an action that was approved at a town meeting in June 2001.

Selectman Bill Brimmer said he was “shaken by the apathy” concerning the referendum, and he wondered how to “rekindle the interest” of townspeople in going forward with a plan for Fairfield Hills.

Perhaps the entire process had gone on too long to retain the public’s attention.

“Maybe we didn’t publicize it enough,” said Mr Rosenthal, adding he did not feel they could spend taxpayer’s money to promote the referendum.

“It’s a fine line between information and promotion,” Mr Rosenthal said, noting that as soon as you put out an informational piece with bullets pointing to the important features, it looks like promotion.

“But the people who are opposed did not have such prohibitions,” Mr Rosenthal added.

He was referring to the grass roots Friends of Fairfield Hills group that left circulars around town before the referendum, advising voters to turn down the master plan on August 12.

“The Fairfield Hills Master Plan Committee worked long and hard and there was a lot of public input. Either people did not like the message, or we did not make it clear enough,” he said.

Mr Rosenthal concluded by saying that after hiring a public opinion polling firm and ascertaining what issues in the plan were the sticking points, they would be able to go forward again.

With “better education, better information, and perhaps modest changes,” the Fairfield Hills master plan could go forward, he hoped.

Meanwhile, Mr Rosenthal said, “the public is urged to continue communication with the selectmen. Keep those cards and letters coming.”

Two Reactions

On Tuesday morning, two Newtown residents who routinely use the wide-open Fairfield Hills campus for jogging, walking, and family recreation were interviewed about what they thought happened when the master plan vote went down August 12.

“The plan is too ambiguous,” said Dan Willing of 5 King Street.

Mr Willing spoke as he jogged along one of the empty, tree-lined streets of the Fairfield Hills campus with his two fox hounds, Mickey and Stella.

He said he had voted in favor of the plan because he basically thought the town should go forward with Fairfield Hills as a community resource. But at the same time, he felt the plan was too amorphous and lacked focus.

“The funny thing is, my neighbor voted against it for the same reasons,” Mr Willing said.

“Right now, this is a place for the bikers and the walkers and joggers. If they’d preserve it for these uses, I’d be a happy person,” Mr Willing added.

“Ball fields are OK. But the traffic in this town has just gotten too heavy.”

This opinion was echoed by Sunset Lane resident Moira Roche, who was interviewed while she walked with her three children, MacKenzie, Kayleigh, and Ailish, and her dog, Radley.

They were enjoying the sidewalks and traffic-free roads, as Mrs Roche pushed a baby carriage to which Radley’s long leash was tied.

“I voted No on the plan,” she said.

“There’s no free land anymore. We need a safe place to walk. We have to leave our neighborhood because the cars drive so fast through there now.”

She said she felt uneasy about whether the open spaces at Fairfield Hills would be preserved and whether development there would bring in more traffic and congestion –– something that Newtown already has enough of.

“The High Meadow is like a hidden treasure. We go there for picnic dinners,” Mrs Roche said.

“You build too much, and you change the character of this town. I feel like the first thing they thought of when they made the Fairfield Hills master plan, was how to make money out of the place.”

“That’s not what we moved here for.”