Pic Of The Day #1366

South Beach bathrooms (Photo/Rob Feakins)

4 responses to “Pic Of The Day #1366

  1. Le Marpe Maison du Maird never looked more obtrusive.

    • not as obtrusive as you and the way you handled yourself at town meetings and through email manipulating and harassing town officials about changing the location, but keeping the same design . Remember when you said to move it thirty feet. Why? it doesn’t change the design, just the placement. For your pickle ball? Take a chill pill doc.

  2. Michael Calise

    South Beach Bathroom . At night. All Year regardless of the season it is bathed in floodlights an ugly intrusion on the night time horizon

  3. Jay Walshon MD FACEP

    Mr. Bosco,
    Your reply is as comical as it is deceptive. If you had paid any attention, you would know that my objection was predicated upon design, cost, violation of P&Z designated recreational space, light pollution (as evidenced in this photograph), as well as obstruction of views and location.

    In brief, spending nearly $400,000 per toilet was objected to by an estimated 90% of Westport residents – especially when these toilets would be in operation only 7 months per year and portables would return when they were closed. In addition, there were far lest costly yet still satisfactory options that were recommended by the state. Many years ago that precious space was designated for Westport resident recreational use (skating, bicycling) and used by EMS and police for training. Proposals for a bocci court, a putting green, and outdoor exercise equipment were just some of the ideas expressed by Town residents. And many if not most Westport residents prefer viewing a dark night sky rather than a perpetual manmade glow.

    Contrary to your false assertion, perhaps most important were my objections to the design which is unsafe. For a variety of reasons the unisex designation in combination with a locked door design at a public beach is unsafe – and this was publicly emphasized by the Westport architect in charge of the project Jim Lothrop. The attack of a teenage girl who was pulled into a restroom is just one example.

    The current design that mandated locked doors was also deemed unsafe by both the Westport Weston Health District Medical Advisor and Director – and was in direct opposition to nationwide efforts being undertaken to address the opioid crisis where public restrooms have been designated “Ground Zero” for illicit drug use and overdoses (like the one that took place in a Bridgeport).

    And Emergency Physicians and EMS providers stated that a locked bathroom door at a public beach is a hazard to public health and safety because those who need help (falls, strokes, overdoses, heart attacks, seizures, etc) will lay within undetected. Without continual traffic within the facility their discovery will take time – perhaps a lot of time. The locked door will prevent easy ingress for beach employees, and will significantly delay EMS response and perhaps lifesaving care. The Police Department stated that to mitigate those events, an an emergency call system would be installed as well as a “fall detection” system; however the monitoring of such was never determined, I do not believe either was installed, AND when someone is lying on the floor injured or unconscious they obviously cannot reach to activate a call. A locked door at a public beach IS unsafe. And South Beach is where the elderly who are most prone to non-overdose related medical emergencies preferentially congregate.

    I, and many others, objected to the design which could service only three (3) persons in a space that could service triple or quadruple that number. This has already created long queues during the busy summer days, where people (especially men) grumble they want the return of the portables – and WAS NOT the design that was promised during the well attended public presentations. In fact, this service limiting design was even questioned by the Conservation Commission, and the P&R consultant Steve Edwards admitted it wasn’t based upon any utilization study or desire for efficiency.

    We have now learned that the design, due to its lack of ventilation and its single ingress/egress point, is also conducive to the pathogenic spread of bacterial and viral organisms, and its size makes it far too difficult to adequately sanitize – leading to its closure during a good part of the COVID-19 pandemic and the return of portables. Admittedly this was something I didn’t think about at the time.

    But the fact that the current design was determined for the “handicap” community is ironic in that those with serious physical challenges are unable to independently access the rooms due to the great difficulty and near impossibility of opening the heavy doors while seated in a wheelchair – or even while on crutches. The lack of a push-button electronic means to open the doors significantly impacts its handicap accessibility, and sometimes defeats it entirely.

    For your information Mr. Bosco, the “request” by many to “just move the restroom 30 feet” was devised by members of the RTM as a “political compromise” to P&R Director Haberstroh because he did not wish to delay the project another year – which a redesign would require. It was a means to satisfy his desire for this project to move as quickly as possible, and to appease the handicap community – despite being informed of ALL the objections I had to this project as stated above.

    Disparaging me will not erase the truth and the consequential consequences of this ill conceived and costly project.

    “Fava’s Folley” i.e. Marpe’s Maison du Merde, is a prime example of political strong-arming at the detriment of the people they serve. It has forever tarnished a prized jewel of our community, as well as the faith our taxpayers have in those they elected to serve the interests of the majority. And it was unnecessary. Hopefully it will not also not cause someone physical injury.