Start From Scratch On A

Newtown Fairfield Hills Plan

To the Editor:

Using the existing [Fairfield Hills] master plan as a starting point preserves biases previously established and incorporated into the plan. Further, it gives support to changes in the plan that have not been presented to or approved by our citizens. Therefore, the charge to this committee should be: 1) to determine Fairfield Hills’ role in current and projected community needs, without using the current plan as a staring point, 2) prioritize each recommendation considering the cost impact on our budget and capital plans, 3) prepare a proposed timeline recommending current and future implementation, 4) revise and rewrite the plan considering it should someday be part of a longer-ranged plan, 5) publish the revised plan, 6) present it to the public for discussion at a public hearing, and 7) acquire public approval.

The Fairfield Hills Master Plan has been a polarizing factor throughout the community from the very beginning; however, we still should consider appointing people with diverse opinions. The public might feel considerably more confident if the pros and cons of a review were equally presented and debated. Each member arguing their point of view and hopefully doing so in such a convincing manner that the outcome is a consensus of opinion and the basis for a revised master plan.

In developing a revised master plan, consideration should be given to providing some financial analysis, or at least requiring that a financial analysis be performed before incorporating any items into the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan). There should be, at a minimum, a cost/benefit analysis, that provides support for agreed upon decisions. Further, the committee should recognize that limiting or postponing development, especially in this economic environment, is an acceptable suggestion. Obviously, contracted services at Fairfield Hills cannot be terminated, however, until economic conditions improve and development at Fairfield Hills does not increase the taxpayer’s burden, a conservative approach regarding additional planned expenditures should prevail.

Given the divide over Fairfield Hills, I would suggest that the review committee establish guidelines upfront before starting the review, whether that be a unanimous vote or a simple majority for any recommendation. Since Newtown does not have a “long-range plan,” it will be a challenge for this committee to identify, let alone incorporate future Newtown requirements into a revised plan. The result will be another plan that does not consider Fairfield Hills as part of a bigger overall Newtown plan.

The committee should be made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and unaffiliated, the number to be determined by the Board Of Selectmen. We should have little trouble assembling a group with diverse opinions, however, I would strive to appoint members who have not been directly associated with the developments at Fairfield Hills.

Regarding planning, Peter Drucker said: “If you don’t know where you are going, any plan will do.”

Google Peter Drucker to learn more about this outstanding author and management consultant.

Albert P. Roznicki

169 Hanover Road, Newtown                                        March 8, 2010