Room For Improvement

To the Editor:

The future of the Fairfield Hills property appears to have galvanized our local coalitions. Each faction seemingly married to its agenda without finding some common ground on which to build. This divisive topic now creates waves of public outcry in what I believe is an electorate clamoring for consensus. Consensus, if possible, will be hard fought.

A differing of opinions is natural, human nature as it were. Without differences, we might all suffer a rather dull and unimaginative world. However, the way we express those differences is the basis for civility and respect in all society.

We now appear to have breached the standard as it relates to Newtown’s local political differences. Mr Bojnowski’s letter to The Bee dated December 19, 2007 [“Borst Has No Mandate,” published December 21] is a clear example of the fetid mire into which we have plunged. He states definitively, “…he, (Joe Borst) has proven himself an ineffective head of town government.” The evidence for his opinion apparently gathered over the brief tenure of Mr Borst’s term as Newtown’s newly elected first selectman.

The rancor and lack of any public decorum is embarrassing! Embarrassing to think a former selectman would choose to act seemingly without respect for the political process or Joe Borst himself. This behavior and others like it in a public forum diminish the individual and our hometown, Newtown.

The motivations behind such divisive behaviors are what we, as an electorate, should focus on. If we are really to understand the divergent opinions, we must sort through the rancor in order that we should be able to form our own opinions in a thoughtful informed process. Once we as an electorate have all the facts, the reasons for our differences might be more clearly understood.

What is the rush to push the Fairfield Hills agenda down Mr Borst’s throat? What basis might we find should we dig not a little, but a lot deeper into all parties’ motivations. I suspect there may be a few dollars at stake. Millions of dollars. Dollars that could possibly enrich Newtown’s coffers and potentially provide some tax relief to local taxpayers.

The fact our town is about to sign leases with terms up to 60 years long (including extensions), without a formal cost-benefit analysis is reason enough for me to be curious. The fact I was told personally by the previous administration’s Board of Selectmen the reasons for the length and terms of these lease were in fact designed to make securing financing for the lessee (not Newtown) easier. The fact that at least three structures are slated to be leased, for less than $400/month average per building, to the son-in-law and daughter of one of the Fairfield Hills Authority board members. These are just a few kernels of truth I have managed to pry from the coalitions’ talking heads. Let us not “rush to judgment.” Perhaps some of these facts and others like them will motivate a few to be more involved in shaping Newtown’s future and the future and the future uses of the FFH property. I support the process of local government, but I hope that all of our townsfolk, at the very minimum, can behave the ladies and gentleman we imagine them to be. I want to be proud of our hometown, but the behaviors I have witnessed of late leave lots of room for improvement.

John P. Hughes

4 Grand Place, Newtown                                       December 26, 2007