Group’s Fairfield Hills Poll Shows Support For School, Recreational Uses

By Steve Bigham

The citizens organization “Save Fairfield Hills for Newtown” released the results of its two-week poll on Fairfield Hills this week. And while the results provided some insight into how 799 residents were thinking, the poll was far from scientific.

“We contacted people we knew were interested in what was going to happen at Fairfield Hills. Some calls were random out of the phone book and some were off voter lists,” noted Mary Ann Currie, who headed the poll.

Ruby Johnson, a leader in the “Save Fairfield Hills for Newtown” movement, recently resigned from the Fairfield Hills advisory committee, saying she disagreed with the panel’s “corporate park” vision. She and members of her group envision a Fairfield Hills that solves the town’s building and land needs first. Mrs Johnson believes town officials should take notice of the poll results.

“They send a strong message that Fairfield Hills should be used for recreation and open space, as well as town offices. The least desirable use is economic development,” she said.

Save Fairfield Hills for Newtown is not trained in public polling and has definite ideas about how Fairfield Hills should be re-developed. Telephone calls generated 540 responses, while 242 residents responded by mailing in a questionnaire published in The Newtown Bee (the version of the poll in The Bee did not ask whether or not residents wanted to buy Fairfield Hills). Three responses were received from Arizona and one from St Croix, Virgin Islands.

Of the 540 resident reached via telephone, 492 said they favored town purchase of the 186-acre campus. Only 15 were against the plan and 50 were undecided.

Residents were also asked to state which of the following types of uses they favored. Here are the results:

1. Municipal needs such as recreation/playing fields (including Plymouth Hall gym): 519 favored this plan.

2. Moderately priced housing for senior citizens/empty nesters (age 55 and over): 317 favored this plan.

3. Town offices (in lieu of expanding Edmond Town Hall and renovating Town Hall South): 454 favored this plan.

4. A 5/6 school or land/building for a future school: 523 favored this plan.

5. Open space: 500.

6. Economic development, business and professional offices, start-up companies: 279.

Those voting against economic development at Fairfield Hills numbered 94. The highest “no” for any of the other categories was 52 – senior housing.

Comments

Poll organizers also included a list of various comments made by residents who were questioned. Many comments touched on such topics as the need to keep housing out of any Fairfield Hills plan, and the need for playing fields, school support and economic development. Some representative comments were:

“This is a pivotal juncture as to the quality of life of our town vs. a city.”

“No housing.”

“Hopeless – politicians will have their way.”

“I prefer the Becker and Becker plan.”

“The town is not fit or organized enough to be a business developer.”

“Town has proven with Queen Street that they can’t go into real estate business.”

“Town should vote by referendum – not town meeting.”

“Need to centralize fields.”

“Even though people voted not to repair Town Hall South, Selectmen have gone ahead.”