An Economic Look At Fairfield Hills Referendum
To the Editor:
On the November ballot Newtown voters will be asked whether to consider housing as an allowed use of up to two existing Fairfield Hills (FFH) buildings. The official explanatory text nicely describes what can happen if there is a Yes vote. I would like to address the financial implications. I am a member of the Board of Finance, but this letter is written as just a Newtown resident — albeit a resident that has spent more time with town finances than most.
This vote is a fork in the road. There are two developers that are willing to invest tens of millions of their money and use grant funding to convert some of the large abandoned, unsafe, deteriorating FFH buildings into moderate sized rental apartments.
With A Yes vote, the town will benefit financially from construction-related jobs and fees, new property and automobile taxes, as well as new sewer and water fee revenue currently shouldered by the town. Plus, multiple smaller increases in town revenue ranging from dog license fees to Community Center memberships. Then there are the more intangibles such as shopping at Newtown stores, eating at Newtown restaurants, and generally adding to the vitality of the town. Increased cost to the town? If the experience of new apartment complexes such as Covered Bridge hold, renters of the possible FFH units will not be families with school-age children.
A No vote brings significant expenses taxpayers must pay without offsets from development. The Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee made it clear that any building that does not have the potential for reuse should be torn down as soon as possible. Town officials and those marketing FFH report that the only developers interested in investing in FFH need a housing component. Over 15 years the town has sought corporations, retailers, colleges, and health care providers to no avail. “Hoping for” is not a sound municipal plan. If the housing option is not approved, town taxpayers will have to shoulder tens of millions in new taxes to demolish FFH unused buildings while missing out on millions in new tax revenue opportunities.
Vote Yes to housing; it is a vote to avoid additional taxes, realize additional revenue, increase jobs, and increase local business’s customers.
Ned Simpson
42 Watkins Drive, Sandy Hook October 13, 2020
Mr. Simpson’s comments are filled with a lot of misinformation. The yes or no vote does not involve tens of millions of dollars. It cover a maximum of two buildins, and Mr Simpson as a member of the BOF should knew he is spreading false information. The referendum is for a commercial development to include housing, but both developers were very evasive about including commercial. It is absolutely clear that the image of retail shops with housing above is not part of this plan. He claims the property taxes will be a windfall to Newtown, however the truth is that each apartment will only pay between $1000 and $1500 a year, hardly enough to cover their use of community and school services. Suggesting no school children is simply not supported by the statistics of apartment renters, and Covered Bridge is only partially constructed. Some o fthe other benefits suggested can easily be achieved by building apartments anywhere in Newtown. The roughly $40 a year per household in tax savings does not justify turning Fairfield Hills into private residentials housing, something Newtown wanted to avoid when we bought the Campus. I have also suggested previously that this referendum question may be the beginning of trying to get all the buildings turned into private residences, which Mr Simpsons comments clearly is supporting when he suggests we will save tens of millions of dollars. Lets have a discussion, but let’s not try to boi the voters with clearly false and misleading information.