"Don't it a;ways seem to go, that you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up parking lot."-- Joni Mitchell

$450k/yr in tax revenue compared to how much in increased expense? 160 apartments averaging 1 child per unit is $1.6 million in additional cost per student assuming $10k spend per year. This doesn't include increased costs for police and fire services. Newtown does not need high density housing.

The apartments look and sound nice. There is no place for singles or young college grads to rent in Newtown. It would also be great for empty nesters if they want to sell their house, but stay in their hometown.
They could always make it an "adults only" apartment complex (if that's legal). Then we won't have to worry about expensive kids - maybe we could be a town of old fogies!

Thank you Bob!!!

The real issue is that there are hidden costs, (externalities) associated with this type of developement. Someone mentioned the cost of educating students, absolutely true, someone else mentioned police, also true. In addition to these costs those who have public water and sewer will have to finance the installation of new sewers and water lines with higher rates as you have already done with the NYA. So if you think it makes sense to pay more for water and sewer so the private equity group can use government funds (yes mulifamily housing loans are available from the Federal government) and then use your fees from sewer and water to pay for the new water lines that will be required and the new sewer lines that will be required then "YOU GO NEWTOWN"

However until I see real costs with someone actually looking out for the residents of Newtown then I will reserve judgement. A real plan, with all the numbers disclosed, with all the costs on the table, with all the settlement payments disclosed and a Town meeting to vote on a change to an interest in real Property as called for in the Charter!!!!

What is the public benefit for the nearly $30 million spent at FFH? So far an expensive Town Hall where the asbestos roof leaks and a field of dreams where only ghosts play.

Thank you Bob!!!

Oh yea A housing "project" in Newtown
Ask the developer if he will rebuild the overburdened school system?
Oh It slipped my mind...Just raise taxes ...AGAIN !
If the building is "bothering" anyone tear it down and make a field out of it.
It would be better use of the land !!
We should have NOT bought the antique asbestos laden structures it in the first place !
Connecticut outsmarted Newtown The state should have paid Newtown to take the burden.

I live about a 1/4 mile from the FHH area and have done so for over 25 years. I love the fields and walking trails. I for one do not want to see apartments in the area. It is difficult now to even pull out Mile Hill South onto Wasserman Way and do not want the increased traffic flow. Not to mention the increased burden on our schools and other services to the town. I tend to believe that the cost for taxpayers will far outweigh the amount of taxes the property owner will pay. We have heard all the pros but I think we need to take a close look at all the cons that go hand in hand with this proposal.

Forget it. It is a negative every way you look at it.

If they approve this, then do it the right way. Make the developer pay for all of the needed school improvements and other community projects in town. A friend of mine had a big box store want to build in his town. The town said OK, ......if you build a new high school, pay to widen the roads, pay for a new park, etc.. The store agreed to the town's terms and a deal was made....don't give away the farm!

I agree with others that we need more financial information: qualitative and quantitative costs to install the utilities, sewer/water, parking, education, traffic, etc...

This is a huge decision for Newtown and the Legislative Council should repeal the FFH Authority Ordinance (immediately) so that the voters can make the final decision at a Town Meeting.

I have not received a response from the Chairman of the Legislative Council regarding the request to repeal the ordinance. Hopefully this request will not be ignored. There will be a significant amount of voter anger if the FFH Authority and the Board of Selectmen make this decision for the town without voter consent.

I agree that we need more financial information, but I think the financial aspect is only one component that needs to be considered. We need to be looking at the long term, big picture ramifications. Allowing housing at FFH will change the nature and character of both FFH and the town permanently. I believe it would be an irreparable mistake to go this route.

Rob Sibley, Deputy Director of Planning and Land Use, has a Cost/Benefit analysis he did on the cost of acquiring and protecting parcels of develop-able land versus the benefits of development. He presented it to us on the Legislative Council Finance Committee a few meetings ago and I am sure he would welcome the chance to present it again. It shows how developing available land in Newtown cost the taxpayers far more than we can ever bring in. While his data (real and assumed) currently applies to single home development, I'm sure he can modify the assumptions to apply to apartment projects, i.e. fewer school-age children in the home. It's eye-opening.

The intention I believe is to encourage the acquisition of yet-to-be-developed parcels of land. It's ironic to me that we have this gem of a campus called Fairfield Hills, already properly restricted to housing, yet there is a movement to lift that restriction and build housing because the local developer industry says it makes sense. It's time to have Mr. Sibley back before town officials, before this gets out of hand.

Dear Kevin:

Actually we have a real life example in Newtown. Many years ago (at least 10 we sold properties along Queen Street). We know how much revenue has been taken in by these properties and we know how many of these homes had children in the school system and we could make assumptions that they did not add incrementally to the cost of police or other town services. I think on the margin this would be a good assumption. Anyway if you could have him run this analysis I think it would be enlightening.

I also assume that he would be able to recreate his model for the appartments. Having rental properties, I know that developers and "officials" often make eroneous assumptions regarding the occupancy, especially when it comes to children.

Any help you can give would be helpful to the community.

No Housing on FFH...very bad idea...and so what happens to the baseball fields? They are left without parking? and what about the noise complaints because of the baseball fields? We do not need housing there for any reason!

Affordable housing is a stupid thing for Newtown. What it means is giving expensive services to people who don't pay for it.

Jeff, would care to elaborate on the service the FFHA has actually produced for the town's residents. I mean, other than execute an agenda handed to them by those who appointed them?
And,what is meant by folding the Authority into organic law of Newtown prior to repealing? Can we waste any more time on this bogus board? Is this how our government is to be streamlined? Or, is it the more convoluted it's design; the easier to form loopholes? Something very wrong with this.

So far the structure created for FFH has been ineffetive. It has built a Town Hall with a leaking roof whose costs so far to the residents are far in excess of what was projected. Higher utility costs, hidden costs of actually supplying utilities and the continued funding of the Town Hall on Main Street make this investment a continued drain on the Budget. This is not new news as it was available prior to construction beginning.

There has been no net revenue generated by the complex and proposals and agreements have not properly protected the Town.

So the question for the Legislative Council, Jeff, is : Is this the best structure to develop Fairfeld Hills? Well if it was, then the results would be better. The execution would be of high quality. The general pubic would be supportive. But the Publc does not think that this has, so far, been a good experince. So what is the role of the Legislative Council when faced with a structure that has had 10 years to work and doesn't and one that is not supported by the Public?

Defend the lack of results?
Make excuses for the charge to the subcommittee?
Obfuscate the debate?
Ignore the problem?
Ask for more money?

or perhaps Leadership?

Restricting the housing will cause lawsuits. What do you do with the single woman who is living there and gets pregnant? You force her to move? Lawsuit.. One bedroom does not mean one person or no kids…they pack them in. …and what about the Grandparents who unexpectedly have to take in a grandchild…they have to move too? You know it will cost a fortune to defend and the town will lose…and if they still allow housing on FFHs then it sets a precedent for the rest the town to have high-density housing. The character of Newtown is then gone forever…. FFH will be fine without housing...we are not in a rush and money should not be the bottom line. Newtown is a gem let’s keep it that way.

Lawsuits? That could be a windfall! Not for the taxpayer, of course, but, who??

I just reviewed the offer letter. I am worried about the rapid timeline.

This is the link for the offer letter: http://newtownbee.com/PDFFiles/Fairfield%20Hills/Cochran%20Hall%20Offer%20to%20Lease%20Proposal.pdf

The offer letter states that there will be 100 two bedroom and 60 one bedroom units and approvals will need to be completed by 1 May 2011.

Everybody on this website seems to agree that this is a terrible idea, and we usually don't agree on much. Could we petition the selectmen to put this on the ballot coming up in April?

Jeff: Are you indicating that the Legislative Council does not have the authority to repeal the ordinance, change the ordinance or eliminate it entirely? That this could only be done by changing the Charter???

I did not think a body politic could increase or decrease the original authority given to it? This means that you cannot increase what you are responsible for (so you cannot create a tax on something not allowed by the State) and you cannot abdicate your responsibilites as contained in the Charter( declare that personal property such as cars and horses should not be taxed) Or do you disagree with that position?

after the wonderful meeting held by the FFHR Committee, a look at these plans, the associations between involvement of NYA, parking lot and this and wonder if the discussions are in vain..this appears to be a done deal...

just curious is there cross over legal representation Claris and Newtown? Heard rumors to that effect.

Remember, "if we build a Municipal Center at FFH, they will come." Now, the campus needs a "housing component" if we are going to realize economic and/or commercial development. Give me a break! Let's stop the nonsense and give the people a vote. If Pat Llodra is correct, in that we must stop thinking of FFH as something other than part of Newtown,then do we really need an Authority? Do we really need housing at FFH? Put it to a vote and let's channel our energies into something productive for the town

Please note - After reviewing my comment earlier I have decided to revise and repost it here:

It's not that we might have housing at FFH that concerns me most right now, because I believe when properly vetted with the appropriate due diligence, the right answer will be there.

What I am most concerned about right now is what appears to be a major case of taxpayers being railroaded by other influential people who may have a vested interest in this project. It should never have gotten to this point while there is a formal review of the FFH Master Plan going on. I am afraid that with the May 1st deadline presented by the developer, certain groups may be moving quickly without public support to advance housing at FFH.

I am hoping that very soon the appropriate town body responds to the developer's May 1st deadline by explaining there is a FFH Master Plan Review Committee looking at housing along with other uses for the campus and that Newtown is NOT in a position to act on any proposal until the larger housing question is properly vetted, approved and supported by the people of Newtown.

If Planning & Zoning actually decides to remove the housing restriction so that this proposal can move forward by May 1st without a thorough review of the cost/benefit analysis on open space versus housing, I will be back in front of the old Town Hall on Main Street protesting the decision to shed some light on yet another unapproved (by the public) project by the town.

"Which way you going Robert can I go too. Which way you going Robert? Can I go with you? I'll really miss you Robert and all this time....."

Cost to taxpayers:
We recently spent $10Million to purchase open space for the expressed purpose of limiting residential development. Assuming that building lots cost about $250thousand at that time, we can assume that we prevented about 40 residential units from becoming developed. We were told that we saved money because the cost of those 40 residential units to town services would have been greater than what we spent. Now those same folks that told us that are telling us we need to allow for the addition of 160 residential units as part of a massive apartment complex. But if 40 units would cost the taxpayer more than $10Million, then 160 units would cost more than $40Million.
Cost=$40Million
Also gone is the use of that land forever, and also we radically change the nature of our community, and we don’t get to vote on it.
Have our leaders gone mad?

I would just ask all participants of this forum to be careful about what language we use to address one another, particularly when responding to those whose views we don't agree with. Thanks.

I didn't vote to purchase the FFH property to see housing built on it. I am opposed to this development and will vote accordingly.

David, don't count on democracy with this one.

So what? Storm the bastions?

Consider that Republicans actually might be listening as opposed to bullying those with opposing points of views into silence. This discussion would not even be possible if Republicans did not ask the Fairfield Hills Authority to listen to this offer. Stifling opposing points of views is not democracy. Not allowing uncomfortable conversations does not serve this community. Personally, I want to hear what Newtowners today want for Fairfield Hills and I'm glad that The Fairfield Hill Review Committee is working hard to get that info. This discussion here is another piece of the puzzle. It's unfortunate that it can't be a discussion but a forum to make thinly veiled accusations and false assumptions. Mr. Steinkraus, I can't speak for other council members, but I have not received more than a handful of emails from a constituent since the last budget deliberations and they have not been from you. I have not heard any elected official in Newtown speak publicly about supporting any kind of housing at Fairfield Hills. Mrs. Pierce, this is not even remotely a done deal. Does anyone actually believe that all the required changes to allow something of this magnitude could actually happen by May 1st? I certainly don't see that happening.

Ms. Jacob, your response is quite welcomed. Of course, your repetition of the word "opposed" does not appear in any sentence that includes FFH and apartments. Additionally, when individuals have opposing views, are accustomed to historically being railroaded by elected officials and ask pertinent, valid questions of elected officials with no response, that's not bullying. To be fair, Ms. Jacob, many elected Republicans have utilized the media for self aggrandizing and defensive maneuvering, yet, on this issue, other than yourself and Mr. Furrier, they have all been silent. Excluding Mr. Capeci's doublespeak/babbling, he's failed miserably in a putting forward a cogent answer in defending the actions of the LC, BOS and Republican Party of Newtown. There's still time, of course, and many await details. This discussion would not be possible if Republican leadership, and the term is absolutely used loosely, had vaguely attempted to: engage a realtor/broker who could hunt potential uses/users of the campus without altering zoning. If Republican leadership had legitimately charged a FFHA with proper development of the campus along with strict monitoring of it's use of allocated funds and town resources.

Recall that, to date, all town leaders and the head DPW (i.e. town employee) have steadfastly refused to divulge the man hours spent in developing the campus, Which diverted normal services tax payers pay for. Throwing up one's hands and claiming it to be an impossible task, is not very transparent, is it? Your response, as you state clearly, is emanating from you as member of the LC, particularly when you claim you cannot speak for other council members, and, that small bit of transparency is certainly a start. LC members,BOS members, any town official, whether elected or appointed should not base ethical decisions purely on the level of correspondence recieved, but, on a responsibility to do what is right for all taxpayers. If you feel that what is occurring re: this action at FFH, re-zoning/apartment building/99 year lease, etc. is right, godspeed to you. Your clairvoyance is commendable.

Mr Hennessey, at no point did I express a personal (or any other kind of) opinion on whether I think housing is right or not. I intend to listen and develop my opinion about this proposal on the facts, and when asked to weigh in in my official capacity as a member of the Legislative Council, I will do so taking those facts, and the opinions of my constituents into careful consideration. Nor did I imply directly, or indirectly that my decisions were made based on the few items of correspondence I have received, another thinly veiled accusation. My decisions as an elected officail, while you may not agree with them are ALWAYS done with the best interest of Newtown in mind.When I weigh in on the topic it will be at a public meeting. I won't be drawn into a useless argument about the past when I was not involved and I'm proud of the things that have been accomplished by all elected officials since my election, regardless of their political party. While many people are rooted in the past, I see a town that is moving forward, making many positive changes and elected officials who for the most part are collaborating to bring openness and transparency to the process. Your opinion, and the opinion of the few who have chosen to weigh in so far is clear. At this point, I'll go back to listening and I'm hoping to hear from a wider variety of residents as the discussion continues.

Based on the comments here and on the feedback I have received on the issue of Housing at Fairfield Hills, I do not see this issue as a democratic versus independent versus republican position because many Independents, Republicans and Democrats share the same opinion. Nor do I feel that any one person or group is entitled to speak for all the taxpayers who happen to be of the same party. As a member of the Legislative Council representing taxpayers in District One (but not necessarily representing the opinion of the Council with this comment), I know there are many democrats, independents and republicans who oppose housing at Fairfield Hills, and there MAY be just as many who support it. I also believe that there are town officials who also have opposing views on the issue of housing at FFH, or who have yet to form an opinion because there is still more analysis to be done. But overwhelmingly, what I am hearing from many in my district and from many outside, is that most of THOSE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE WANT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TAXPAYERS TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION, rather than town officials. After all, the taxpayers own the FFH campus and they should decide its future.

Mary Ann,

I forgot to mention that you--- as a LC member---- will not be able to vote YES or NO for housing on FFH either due to the FFHA ordinance. The Board of Selectmen will make this decision.

I liked growing up at Fairfield Hills, it was great, I could walk to town, and walk to the high school. I seriously don't believe the formula that 200 bedroom units will produce 200 students. If you applied that to the trailer parks in town that would mean like 300 extra students.
Plus if we don't want affordable housing, we shouldn't allow businesses that employ people who can only afford affordable housing.

So, after all is said in done....what is the bottom line? What is the final financial impact on our town if 1)go with housing or 2) maintaining open land space... that information will determine the direcetion we need to go... whatever has the least financial burdern is what we need to do. .... nothing else is acceptable... common sense.

Catherine, great question. Chances are there will be two different answers depending on who is presenting the information. I am waiting for Newtown's Land Use department to get engaged on this topic by sharing their cost/benefit analysis with others. That presentation leans toward encouraging funding to acquire open space before it can be developed, so housing or development supporters may not agree with it, but I was sold on the findings that development will cost Newtown more than it can ever bring in. I'm sure there are other presentations I haven't seen that may show a different outcome. But I'm with you....let's get some of these "findings" into the discussion sooner rather than later.

Ms. Jacob, you say that those that seek a town-wide vote on the apartments at FFH are bullying those with opposing views. So, by your logic, expressing the desire to allow the community to consent to a government’s action as major and sweeping as this is bullying. I would remind you what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence; “That to secure these (unalienable) rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
Jefferson told the world that only those governing powers that are obtained with the consent of the governed are just powers, are legitimate powers.
So, Ms. Jacob, you are saying that to defend the unalienable right to consent to the actions of our government is to bully those who wish to secure powers that have not been obtained with the consent of the governed. Do you see how backwards you have it? I think it can be clearly interpreted that you and your caucus hold a sense of entitlement to the power that you hold unjustly and without consent. I think that it can be clearly seen that your caucus is circling the wagons around that power. It is time to reverse the destructive and illegitimate power grab that was obtained by legislative fiat. It’s time to repeal the FFHA ordinance for good and allow the public land, owned by the people, to become governed under the charter where it rightfully belongs – then we the people can vote on these sweeping issues as we rightfully should.

I seems completely inappropriate for you to put words in my mouth Mr. Furrier. Everyone is entitled to their opinion without the personal attacking that characterizes many of these post, including your most recent. That is bullying. Stick to the issues and the facts.

How much revenue/possible costs(?) will be generated per square foot of space for these apartments compared to homes on 3 acres in related services and taxation? Have we forgotten basic needs of all people (you need to start out somewhere)? It would be refreshing to see our town live within it's means & be grateful for what it already has! I believe we are inviting more imbalance by pushing out people living on fixed incomes (seniors) by the continual tax & spend ~ who will be moving into all of those homes????

There are now lots of 100,000 houses in Newtown. Property values are down, so things are much more affordable than $200,000 apartments (27,000,000 / 160). Who is going to buy the homes of exiting Newtowner's? Good question. The price will go down until it is equal to what the market will bear.

Just seems like more tax revenue for the space used...I imagine they would be suitable for people starting out, so what if they have a child - they don't jump from the cradle into the school system! The next step would be to buy a local home. Don't see what the big deal is? Even if the larger homes/lots are lower priced they aren't a wise choice for starting out as far as heating & maintenance go.

I respect 'onceuponanewtown' view point, however, without a real name I can't help but suspect his motives.

Has anyone stood outside of this diseased burb and looked inside? How is "I just moved into an apartment in the old nuthouse in Newtown" really going to sound. And once any newcomers get the real feel for this place they'll be jumping out the window to leave! Aren't we a little overstocked on empty houses as it is? Then there's the "Don't drink the water unless you want to die" thing. Town water? The pumping station in the middle of Buttonshop Rd., Batchelder and the Town Landfill? So what will us dumb taxpayers get to do with this housing?

David:

Why should the government be involved in the development of appartments? Why should these appartments get a better deal then other appartments? Is there any benefit to the current taxpayers of Newtown that have funded the FFHills project by allowing this development? Is there a shortage of housing in CT? In Newtown?

I think the answers to these question are obvious. The government should only be involved only when the private sector cannot accomplish something necessary for the "public" good not just the good of those small number of people that might benefit. For example a park where everyone can go (yes public good) an appartment where some may live (not a public good). If the public participates don't the other appartments lose out competitively or other development does not take place since their economics will never be as good. (We have just witnessed this on a large scale with Freddie and Fannie.) How will I as a taxpayer that has had to pay for this for the last 10 years benefit from this project? Will my taxes be lower, will the quality of life that I experience be better? Will I get a tennis court easier? Will there be less traffic? Will the schools have fewer children in them? Will they pay to fix the bad sewers or will the road get rezoned so that the publice will pay?

So if I had a vote I would vote no since my life will not be better and Newtown will not be better after this project then if it had never been done!!!!

Douglas:
I'm not sure it is me you were addressing but it so happens on this subject I agree with you. This is being driven by a couple of people out to make a profit with little regard for what's 'best' for Newtown. I've been here 25 years and I've seen it before.

Neighbors: please check the link below. It's quite apropos.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08

I'm sick of being Mad as hell. I'd just like to go somewhere where government makes sense, like the 1950's, before all the idiocy. I'll bet Newtown was pretty nice then.

Notice that the attacks are not factual (because the facts are inconvienient) but many including "George's" are becoming personal.

Or you can do what I did Eric.

After years of writing letters, organizing taxpayer advocacy groups, and even a protest in the pouring rain in front of Edmond Town Hall, I did my homework and joined the Indepedents, Democrats and Republicans at The Independent Party of Newtown where I ran for office to help bring about the changes that I want to see.

I believe that now, with the help and the resources of the growing IPN organization, and with hundreds if not a thousand intelligent and engaged taxpayers behind me, as well as what I consider to be a strong performance by some of the elected officials from the other parties, changes are being made.

But we have lots of work to do because changes are just not coming fast enough. I don't have to take it any more. I can change it.

I have personal experiences in a town's well planned Central Business District /Downtown,which Newtown is missing. Newtown, "comercially" is spread all over the place, which is not a good plan and actually is hurting our goal in encouraging more to move here. In Newtown one has to drive almost everywhere to shop, dine or meet our neighbors. As a resident of Newtown, business owner in downtown Ridgefield and commercial property owner there too, I see very clearly the many benfits of creating a downtown at FFH. I had suggested this to our BOS years ago when Newtown first purchased the property. I would strongly urge all to consider housing at FFH as well, but Newtown shold not be in the "landlord" buisness for many reasons. All you need to do is look at other towns who are and they wll tell you the mistakes they've made. Ridgefield is one of those towns.

One goal to consider is a planned residential development via condominiums perhaps. We need people in a well planned community such as FFH. Well planned, well designed and well priced which would add to ur tax base substanitially. Ridgefield's downtown is the largest tax payer in that town!! When there are people walking, and enjoying one another it builds to create a real sense of community. Presently there are some hiking and walking at FFH but most os us now are using the NYA which is another destination too.

Once Newtown gives a 99 year lease to an entity, we lose complete control of the future of that site and obviosuly tax revenue too. When a municipality becomes a landlord, we will lose not only tax revenue but we also take on the risks as well. Risk if the tenant goes bankrupt, risk of loss of revenue and so much more. There is a substantial differnece when you compare that to owners of real property.

I would also suggest that we move foreward to fevelop a downtown here, begin to create the heart of Newtown. If any of us study towns like New Canaan, Ridgfield, West Hartford and New Milford and many other communities. You like me may see that this is indeed the best core focus. A Downtown at Newtown. Once you plan for this then we can plan/build our Central Park, another school at some point, shops, sidewalks, walking/hiking trails and so much more to satisfy the majority of what many may want to see here.

Rental apartments at this early point are not at all desirable but may be at anothe rpoint in time but will need to be built and owned by a developer, not a minipality. I beleive that perhaps selling "parcels" to developers that meet that goals of our town plan is the smartest plan we could have. I would also encouarge a well diversifed comittee of local and state wide developers along with an expereinced downtown planning firm to further stratgeze with our present planners.

Thank you all for your dedication and time. let's move forward Newtown.

Developers will almost always be able trick well intentioned advocates .

Planning + Newtown = Mutually Exclusive

From FFHMPRC Facebook group (FFH Master Plan Opinion Page):
The Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee (FFHMPRC) is hosting an Open Community Conversation and it would be great if you could join us to share what you would like to see happening at FFH and to listen to others do the same.

The event will take place from 6:30-9:00pm Wednesday, March 23rd, in the Alexandria Room on the second floor of the Edmond Town Hall. Light refreshments will be served.

All are invited to join the conversation, including ordinary citizens and town officials. We will come together as peers, gathering alternately in small groups and then as a whole, to think collaboratively about what might be possible with this property. This Wednesday's session will build on last week's discussion, and will not simply be a repeat. We will begin with a recap of general outcomes from last week's session, and move forward from there!

The FFHMPRC has prepared a number of reports which you might want to examine prior to the gathering, although this is by no means required. The Committee is interested in everyone’s opinion, and the process will insure that everyone who participates has ample opportunity to express themselves. Links to these reports can be found on the FFHMPRC page of the town’s website (see earlier post with links).

I will plan on attending asi I read of this in the Bee as well. Thank you!!

It may be my faulty memory but wasn’t one of the main selling points for our acquisition of this white elephant preventing the property from becoming yet another housing development? So much so we actually took the trouble to codify that prohibition into our laws.” Simply put; I DO NOT agree to having millions of our tax dollars subsidizing a housing project in the middle of town. If we were looking for that outcome, we would have let the state sell it all to the developers in the first place and let them deal with all the expense and hassle.

This is starting to sound like someone is trying to return a favor. I'm speaking under the assumption that it is Federal money that would fund this. Low income/affordable housing grant/loan? What circumstances or influences bring this money here? Is it really that hard to re-hab a large building into living spaces that it can't be done without corruption? I would be referring to 99 year lease, building or zoning variances and waivers, or is it a case of "WE got you the money, now bring us our share". The other corruption would be misrepresenting the costs and screwing the taxpayer again. Four senior centers are closing in the middle of the state, would seem cheaper to renovate one or two of those and you have more population right there to rent to. There are also services like cabs and buses, Newtown has no public transportation. So would it be an apartment complex of people supporting the towns liquor stores? Those starting out don't have the responsibility of raising a family and have the time to have fun, where will they go? Seems the only economic research that has been done is how a few "insiders " will benefit, and the real social impact on the town?

If it were a paranoid suspicious type I’d conclude that with some judicious foot dragging by a few key people in the right places, our leadership can report back to us with “well we tried, but no one is interested in FFH without at least some housing component to the deal.” Either that or we were unlucky enough to have this whole thing play out during one of the worst recessions in recent history. Any way you cut it, this has the potential to become a major bonanza for some developers at the taxpayers expense with devastating results for our quality of life. The good news is we the electorate still have options to explore in opposing this debacle. We can force a referendum vote on amending the zoning law prohibiting housing at FFH.

Another excellent point that was recently made to me is " that any residential presence would introduce a body of people who could complicate further development of any sort at the campus." One simple lawsuit by someone with NIMBY on their mind could grind any further development to a halt.
Also, I agree that trying to create a 'downtown' at FFH will only spread the shopping further. That train already left the station. Why is everyone in such a hurry? The town has no money and the economy is terrible. Residential developers will always be there. I say lets just plod along and stick to the plan. That's what plans are for.

6.03.300 Permitted Uses. The following principal and accessory uses and structures are permitted. Uses that are not listed as permitted shall not be permitted by variance.
(1) Recreational or sport facilities and fields, indoor or outdoor (2) Museums, art galleries, cultural centers (3) Performing art theatres (4) Public library
(5) Senior center (6) Teen center (7) Municipal Town Hall complex and government uses but not including dumps, incinerators, recycling centers, transfer stations and other garbage disposal or handling areas, municipal garages or public works storage yards.
(8) (9) (10) that do not conduct on-site cleaning, gymnastics, fitness centers, shoe repair, tailoring or dressmaking, photographic studio, copy center, rental services, counseling services
Educational facility, including accessory housing and sport facilities Shops and stores for retail sales, limited to no more than 10,000 square feet per tenant
Shops where personal services are offered including, beauty salon or barber shop, day spa, dry cleaning services
(11) Restaurants, including outside service, but excluding drive-thru facilities (12) Banks, financial institutions (13) General, professional, governmental, Town and Board of Education offices (14) Medical, dental offices
(15) Research and development facilities dedicated to the development and/or testing of products or specimens (16) Corporate headquarters for one or more corporations (17) Publishing establishments (18) Hospitals

(19) Conference center or meeting halls (20) Child day care centers (21) Elderly day care centers (22) Nursery, greenhouse, provided that such is clearly incidental to a permitted use (23) Crop farming in open space areas
(24) Structured parking, providing that such parking is clearly incidental to a principal permitted use

Thank you Karen. What is the way that is planned to remove this restriction on housing? I am not in favor of housing but those that are already have a plan. They have money, will win the lottery if they get approval and the broker will be handsomely rewarded and want his 3% of Newtown's money. That is a lot of motivation!!!! 3% of $25,000,000. $750,000. WOW!!

Bruce,
I applaud your journey. You have become a conservative. Welcome!

The legislation passed by the State cannot circumvent the Charter of Newtown and no reasonable interpretation of it could be made nor any valid legal argument extended that would provide for this. If it does, it would be in violation of the State's own laws. No, the only way to read this legislation is to read it as being consistent with the Charter as it existed at the time that the legislation was enacted. This means that while it is enabling, it does not allow for the expansion of the powers of any body politic nor does it allow for the subrogation of the laws contained in the Charter as all ordinances must be subordinate to the Charter. The legislation does not give carte blanche to the adoption of a sweeping ordinance but rather provides that an ordinance can be adopted consistent with the State's laws and consistent with the Town's laws.

The idea that this ordinance overrides the Charter or violates the separation of powers or allows for the bonding of the Town without following the procedures in the Charter or any number of other things that people have proposed is not the law but rather someone’s bastardization of the law.

"Watch out now take care beware of greedy leaders. They'll take you where you should not go....." Beware of Darkness it can hurt you!"

Mr. Grogins our town's attorney from Cohen and Wolf is the individual who has consistently said that he state Act allowing Newtown to create the Fairfield Hills Authority allows the town to over-ride the Charter, specifically when it comes to how leases are approved. The history of the Act and discussions in Hartford clearly expected Newtown to hold a Charter Revision Commission to incorporate changes desired and to make the public Act null and void. However our town fathers disregarded that with the acquisition of these new found powers.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.......finally a public example of Davey interpreting the law to benefit one or more of the insiders. Just because an Attorney says it's so, just because a law or statute was passed does not mean it is legal, moral, ethical or true. The interperation of the law in this town has ALWAYS been to benefit some "insider". One great example is the town suing a constituent over a small pile of scrap metal that was always cleaned up once a year and claiming it was "Polluting The Aquifer". Yet a 15,000 cubic yard landfill is O.K. The job of these and any politician is that of public service, that's why WE pay them. This town is one of the biggest and ugliest examples of politicians "interpreting" their job as a way to get not just the hand, but the whole arm with a shovel into the town's coffers and take as much as they can for as long as they can. This includes setting up sweetheart deals for themselves and friends.

Reporting in "Voices" Weekender, pg 5 an article's headline pertaining to EDC land transfer details Liz Stocker, Newtown's Lack of Economic Development Director proposed modifications to the POCD, focusing their comments on the FFH campus. They passed a motion to support responsible commercial development INCLUDING a limited residential component at FFH. Walter Motyka, Don Sharpe, Joseph Humeston and Margaret Oliger. Your friends and neighbors ALL support housing in some form at FFH. I did not see anything about this in the Bee or Patch. Do these individuals serve at the pleasure of the First Selectman? Who appoints them? I'd like to thik if any board/committee went off the reservation they'd be told to "cease and desist"! Seems like everybody's in bed together. Say hello to your new housing complexes and parking garage, a little mini mall at FFH. At least all the new apartment renters can walk to Walgreen's for band-aids. Turn out the lights somebody..

OMG...this is so bad. we DO NOT need housing on FFH...this just makes me SICK!!!!!!!!!

This is just a thought, but would it be possible to force any change in the current zoning law regarding FFH to go to a voter referendum? I believe this could be accomplished by someone on the legislative council making a proposal, followed by a majority vote, or a group of citizens submitting a petition with the correct number of verifiable signatures on it. Either way I do not want to see this restriction lifted by executive fiat. A decision this significant to the future of our community should be in the hands of everyone, not just few people who might be biased by potential conflicts of interest.

Marc,

I believe when enough taxpayers want something to happen, they can find a way. In this case, you should know that on April 7th, Newtown's Planning and Zoning intends to hold a hearing on the issue. That's a great place to start because I believe the P&Z genuinely want to know what the sentiment is out there. Same for the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee. Your voice and letters can help make the difference. If that doesn't work, I'm sure we can look at petitions and other things to make the point if enough taxpayers want it. But let's start with the P&Z and FHMPRC.

Enough with the " go to meeting" campaign. Our elected officials are supposed to be representing the taxpayers. The overwhelming majority of them are silent. and, based on precedent; silence=acceptance. If P&Z can't determine what the current sentiment is, if they are blind to this current tide of "official" support for housing @ FFH despite existing zoning laws, then this ship has set sail, friends, and it be sinking...

Call me a "Pollyana" if you wish, but there is a process that needs to happen, re: the POCD. Yes, I also saw that the EDC is requesting to turn FFH into a commercial property. It is in their interests to make such a recommendation - their job is to try to build up the commercial base to help balance the tax burden. However, their recommendation will be reviewed (further in the process) along with competing requests, e.g., the Parks and Recreation Dept have identified the need for recreational fields at FFH and along with other viable uses throughout the town. Also, we have input coming from the FFHMPR committee (disclaimer: which I am a member of). While I do not know the process for this cycle of the POCD, the last cycle basically folded in the recommendations for FFH from the prior Master Plan committee (from what I have seen). I would be exceptionally surprised if Zoning and Planning chose to ignore such input this time.

Kevin, I agree wholeheartedly that we should respect the process and not overreact. However, in the 46 or so years that I’ve been a resident in this town, there have been more than a few situations where decisions have been made, and deals done, before the citizens as a whole could have their voices heard. I am planning on attending the postponed meeting this Wednesday, and the P&Z on the 7th.

Let's keep beating the drum then, strategizing for Newtown’s FFH in the long haul should include a consolidated Commercial /downtown area which naturally should include residence for families, adults and seniors. What about the newly married couples wanting to afford Newtown? If FFH becomes a well - planned vibrant healthy downtown with attractive residential community development, this could be very healthy for our town in many ways.

Why not ask the EDC/POCD/P&Z for a variance to make Main St., a true Main St? Stores v. residences! There's your "real" downtown. Just like Ridgefield!

FFH reminds me if the first house I bought here in Newtown. In order to make the house seem more up to date they painted over all the stained woodwork, doors, and cabinetry. To a green and unsuspecting buyer all looked so lovely, until we moved in and realized these people not only didn't paint behind the furniture, they never sanded nor primed the stained wood. After only a few months the whole house was chipping and peeling. Yup. They laughed all the way to the bank and we were left holding the bag to fix the house. The state unloaded a huge burden on us and we are left to squabble amongst ourselves as to what to do next. We don't have the money to right this run away train. The state should pay to demolish the buildings, cart away the toxic materials and leave us with a canvas upon which a real plan can be develop.

Developed. Clicked send too fast.

Desiree is correct and so are you Eric. We are the Sate, but the State has a considerably larger base than Newtown. If our officials, including Representative Wasserman gave FFH some serious thought they would have realized the property had hazardous materials that would cost Newtown citizens a large amount. The property should have been transfered AT NO COST. If they had spent their time reviewing that issue instead of creating an Authority we might be in a significantly better position.

While, I believe we must move on, I also believe we must learn from our mistakes. Do we, as a community, believe we have learned from our mistakes or are we still perpetuating our ignorance?

One of the reasons our economic climate here is weak is the fact that comercially we're spread out all over. If you think about it where do we shop locally? Is there one destination that sets you on your path to shop? I think the answer is.. NO. Even the Big Y and and Stop & Shop Plaza's are very limited. Once yoy get your Dunkin Coffee you're on your way and the same goes for Andrea's bakery which I enjoy!!

When I say create a downtown here at FFH I'm not saying bring in hundreds of stores and restaurants. I would suggest we have a well planned comercial area here, supported by residential dwellings, such as condominiums, some low rise housing and well designed strutures planned with the assitance and guidance of a Architecural Adisory Board working with P & Z. A mix of apartments, for families, Seniors, pet lovers too, more ball fields, parks and more to draw the comminuty here. Think of it as a healthy downtown where you meet your friends and neighbors, kids meet their friends after school etc.the stop at the ball park, play in the park with their younger siblings. The core of this project should be a healthy balanced comerical base and residential. We should also build new ball fields which Newtown desperately needs.

BTW, no, I am a resident like you, not a Realtor or developer. I've waited way too long as you all have (on the sidelines) for this to happen and now I'm casting my opinion once again as I did early on in this process some years ago. We don't have to all agree but let's agree to keep casting our opinions. The one problem with that, we won't all be satisfed and that I can guarantee. My opinion is mine as yours I respect as well. In the end we may not all be satisfied but my hope is inteligence will prevail with sensible input!!

Wayne, I still don't get it. You want residential buildings, condos, low rise apartments, senior housing, perhaps moderate cost housing so you can create what you call a healthy downtown, But what I don't get is why, we have a very nice downtown, we even have a sidewalk around the borough ( or almost around it) and open capes on Queen Street for a park. Why create another downtown? Sorry just don't get it.

Wayne. there's a more basic issue to decide way before we start longer range planning and that issue is whether the citizens of this town want to maintain it as a town or convert it to a city. All those things that you speak of are associated with cities. Along with those things comes significantly more of everything; police services, social services, infrastructure maintenance, ambulance and fire expansion, crime, welfare and a whole host of other services, not to mention a significant increase in your property taxes. The population will expand and the demographics will change dramatically. With those changes will come a significant change in services that the 'city" will have to provide. That will create additional pressure on property taxes.

What I think you are really saying is that this town needs a longer range plan. One that allows opinions such as yours and mine to be heard and voted upon. If we can accomplish that, then I think we will begin to see a greater harmony in Newtown where we can direct our intellectual capacities in the same direction. This town has an abundance of very bright, young and energetic people. Let's start using them.

Wayne, some of the things you mention would be so nice to have; it’s hard to argue against wanting them. But the commercial and residential development underpinned by public spending is a bit tricky and needs extra attention. Aren’t these kinds of downtowns which you envision typically developed via zoning rules applied to private property that are then developed with private money spent to earn profit? Did Ridgefield or any other community with a well known downtown develop their downtown areas on public property with public funds? That’s what you are suggesting that we do. Many among us question; Why should the taxpayer have to give up the use of public property and assume the burden of the development costs for these things that are a “would like to have” for some of us? I hope that we get to have a vote on these kinds of things; I hope that you and I get to vote for the things that we would like the taxpayers to fund, that seems right and proper.

Wayne, I understand your point and have admired Ridgefield's and other community downtown areas for many years. Ridgefield and New Canaan's downtown areas were centralized early in their development and controlled very well by town officials. As Bill Furrier points out it would be very nice to have an area such as those mentioned. My problem is that when you put 160 apartments into an area such as Fairfield Hills you begin to create a development that mirrors areas within larger cities. Perhaps "City" is an exaggeration, however the problems that go along with large apartment buildings begin to create issues that are associated with cities. This is especially troubling to me when the return on such a development would cost us tax dollars.

We definitely have a need to think about how our town develops. There is a Meeting Wednesday, March 30 at 6:30 in the Alexandria Room, Edmond Town Hall. regarding the review of the current Master Plan for Fairfield Hills. I hope you can attend and make your opinions known.

Al, Thank you for understanding and admiring these downtown successes. We do have our challendges here as well. Having my business here in Ridgfeild and being involved in our town has given me good insight as to what can work in Newtown. To your point about costing us tax dollars, my response, as I suggested, is to proportion parcels for sale, but first and foremost we need to have the proper authorities define what may be the best use for each parcel once subdivided. Maybe this can be accomplished?? This is my suggestion, subdivided parcels with defined uses for each and save the right parcels for parks, ball fields, etc. Other parcels would be planed for residence wheter it be for seniors, families, adult living, assisted living. A very important component is the commercial usage too. We need the FFH property no longer to be solely owned by the taxpayrs. I foresee this sort of planning as a Win Win for Newtown. I understand whatever strategy is decided on here needs to take carefull planning and to be fully understood by all.

Furthermore...I too agree that an apartment building, as presently proposed, may not be a good plan at this point in time, especially with Newtown putting ourselves in the "landlord" business. I agree that an apartment complex, as proposed, is not at all desireable especially with so many units. In Ridgefield a private developer built a very attaractuve apartment building which has a combination of temporary, long term, pet friendly and family sized apartments, in one complex. Very nice I might add. Yes, I plan on attending tonights meeting.