As the date nears for a decision from the Long Lots School Building Committee to decide on a plan to renovate or build a new structure to replace the 70-year-old elementary school, they posted “Frequently Asked Questions” — and answers — on the town website, and social media.
Westport Community Gardens director Lou Weinberg takes issues with those questions and answers. His responses are below.
First, “06880” asked LLSBC chair Jay Keenan for his reaction to Weinberg’s comments. Keenan said:
The committee will continue to conduct its work at our meetings in Town Hall. The committee is made up of volunteers and has no nefarious or hidden agenda. The goal of the committee is to achieve the best long-term solution and value for the Long Lots School Community and the Town of Westport.
The public is welcome to attend the committee meetings and time is set aside at all of our meetings for opinions, comments and questions (typically at the beginning and again at the end).
The next meeting of the LLSBC is planned for Thursday, August 31 (6 p.m., Town Hall Room 201).
==============================================
Is the public allowed at LLSBC meetings?
The answer states that community members are welcome and encouraged to attend.
The reality is that if anyone was ever encouraged to attend, there has been no indication of that whatsoever. In the first paragraph of the document, it states that “the building committee is not intended to be a committee of project stakeholders.”
If the community surrounding the Long Lots Elementary School Building, including residents and the Community Gardens community is not considered stakeholders on the committee, does that mean that no one affected by this project is a stakeholder?
Westport Community Gardens members, at last fall’s harvest party.
Should a committee with this sort of impact on the surrounding community have encouraged residents in the community garden to attend these meetings from the beginning?
Again, they say that “community members are welcome and encouraged to attend.” Why wasn’t a notice sent out to the community from the very beginning “encouraging“ them to attend?
Once the Community Gardener’s found out that options for a new build included eliminating the community gardens, the building committee scheduled a meeting for the same night as the Westport fireworks. Does that “encourage” people to attend?
The document states that “LLSBC meetings had been held in small Townhall meeting rooms, because attendance had been limited. This was in no way, and attempt to dissuade people from attending. With the recent increase in interest in attendance, we have been working to schedule meetings in larger meeting space at Town Hall.”
Attendance at the LLSBC meetings had been small because no one knew that Westport Community Gardens would even be considered for elimination. At 100 to 150 yards away from a new school build, and surrounded by residential homes, there was no reasonable expectation that the project would extend to the community gardens. In fact, the mandate handed to the building committee states nothing about utilizing the Community Gardens and Preserve property. The mandate includes finding play space and fields adjacent to the school cafeteria and gymnasium.
Once the community gardeners found out, by chance, that the gardens and preserve were on the chopping block under one of the scenarios, dozens of people showed up. Since the end of June, as large amounts of people have been attending these meetings, there have been no scheduled meetings in a larger space at Town Hall. Where is the “working to schedule meetings in a larger meeting space a Town Hall.” Or any other building for that matter?
Who owns the property surrounding the Long Lots School building?
The document states that the town of Westport owns all the property that is part of the Long Lots campus (this includes parking areas, fields, play spaces, driveways and Gardens).
They use the term Long Lots “campus.” This leads the reader to believe that the gardens are on the Long Lots property, which they are not. This is a false narrative. The town’s legal department has issued an opinion stating that the Board of Education‘s interest in the property ends at the curb of the parking lot near the gardens. The gardens are on Parks and Recreation Department property. They are not part of the Long Lots ”campus.”
Long Lots Elementary School. The Westport Community Gardens are to the left (south) of the parking lot in the lower left corner of the image. (Drone photo/Brandon Malin)
Why are we considering options that relocate or modify site elements such as the Westport Community Gardens and preserve?
Once again, the LLSBC uses the word “relocate.” Relocate means bulldozing what exists and starting over again somewhere else. This is a misinformation tactic that they have used over and over and over again. It is used to soften the blow that the garden property will be bulldozed.
The document states that the project requires “balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders – students, parents, Community Gardeners, recreational athletes, neighbors and taxpayers. Their project, as mandated by the Board of Education did not include utilizing the property where the Westport Community Gardens and the Long Lots Preserve are located. Not only does the April 21, 2023 document from the Board of Education to the building committee say nothing about using the garden/preserve property, it specifically states that play areas and fields should be located “in close proximity to the gymnasium and/or cafeteria.” Additionally, in my recent conversation with the Superintendent of Schools, he stated that when the Board of Ed gave their mandate to the Long Lots School building committee in April 2022, he was comforted by having a community garden/preserve property as a “buffer“ between the new school construction and the local resident homeowners.
The document goes on to say “with respect to the Westport Community Gardens specifically, there may be options to preserve the gardens in their current location, but governing bodies need to understand, and taxpayers deserve to know, the cost in trade-offs of that option, as well as all other options, to determine the best path forward.” it is here that they introduce the concept that keeping the gardens will cost taxpayers money. In addition to the gardens and preserve not mandated as a physical part of their project, they are now appear to be leveraging additional cost as to why the Gardens may be moved. It is unclear to everyone, so far, how keeping the gardens where they are will be an additional “cost” to the town. Moving the gardens and building a new ballfield will be an additional cost to the town.
Aerial view of the Westport Community Gardens.
Will the WCG and preserve be permanently eliminated?
The document states “No. There are no new build, expander, renovate, options, that permanently eliminate the Westport Community Gardens in Preserve from the property.”
Once again, the document sticks to the false narrative that the Gardens and Preserve won’t be permanently eliminated. What it fails to mention, again, is that the WCG and the LLP, in their current state, will be permanently eliminated, and they will need to be restarted somewhere else.
Will the WCG and Preserve definitely be relocated?
In the document, it states that “through mid August, the LLSBC have been reviewing preliminary feasibility options for just the school building.” This runs contrary to discussions the LLSBC was having at a meeting in late June. When discussing options for a new build, all three options at the time considered eliminating the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve from where they are situated now. Follow up discussions with LLSBC members included statements from them noting “that was just moving squares on a map.“
The document goes on to state that “In some draft plans, the gardens and preserve remain, and in some the gardens will need to be modified or relocated.” Once again, the LLSBC was not charged with utilizing gardens and preserve property. Additionally, the false narrative of “relocating” the garden appears again.
Artists, at a recent Westport Community Gardens open house.
If the WCG and preserve needs to be modified to relocate it, will this impact both the gardens and the preserve?
The document states that “in options where the gardens need to be relocated, it is possible that most, if not all, of the preserves could remain. Additional preserves could also be created adjacent to any potential new site for the gardens.”
This sets up what is a negotiating point for the LLSBC, so that they can state that they saved the preserve, but are “relocating“ the gardens. They appear to be appeasing the neighbors on the east and south side of the property while putting a ballfield very close to the neighbors on the west side of the property. That should take some of the pressure off of them from the neighbors should they put a ballfield there. Stating that additional preserves could also be created appears to be another “appeasing” negotiating tactic.
And, of course, they referred to a “new site” for the gardens.
Can the WCG be relocated?
The document states that “there are differing views on whether the WCG can be relocated. The LLSBC respects the perspectives of many Gardeners and residents who feel that relocating the Gardens is the same as eliminating them. Understandably, the notion of relocating the gardens is unsettling to some community members. The LLSBC recognizes that relocating the gardens could likely impact some vegetation, and that the relocated Gardens may not be identical to the garden, says they stand today.”
It is clear that the LLSBC has had little to no respect for our perspective. This is a hollow statement. They use the words “ impacting some vegetation” and “unsettling.” This is condescending, patronizing, and insulting. They will not “impact some vegetation”, they will impact all vegetation. “Unsettling?” I will refrain from comment here.
The document goes on to produce one of the more outlandish paragraphs, which reads “Gardens, in general, can be relocated. If this option is pursued, the Town would look to provide nutrient-rich soil, rebuild the raised planting beds, and support the process of relocating plants and shrubs, as well as planting new shrubs and trees to create new preserve areas.
While I respect the talents of the engineers, architects, and others on the LLSBC, I’m doubtful that they are experts on soil, gardening and preserves. Additionally, why are we even considering moving all of this for a ballfield? It doesn’t add up.
Possibly the most tone deaf comment in the document states that “while some vegetation may not survive the relocation, not all vegetation survives in any given year due to a variety of reasons (weather, drought, pests, etc.) And trade-offs will be necessary in any project.” I don’t know about you all, but my plants have done quite well for the last 20 years. As far as “trade-offs” are concerned, there are no trade-offs to moving a 20 year old Community Gardens and newly established Long Lots Preserve. I don’t even know what “trade-offs” means here.
The next sentence states, “Relocating the WCG, would also provide an opportunity for the WCG to partner on the design of a more efficient and user-friendly garden, design and layout, helping to eliminate poor drainage, issues and areas of invasive weeds in the current location.”
It does not appear that the authors of this document understand that we do not need a more efficient and user-friendly garden design. We already have one. We do not need have poor drainage issues. Sometimes, when it rains a lot, our soil gets saturated. Like everywhere else, including any other site the gardens may be located. We do not have invasive weeds in our current location. We have weeds. We can take care of the weeds we have ourselves. We always have.
Once again, that statement is condescending, tone deaf, and insulting.
An aerial view of Long Lots School. The current baseball field, and adjacent former football/soccer field, are adjacent. Other soccer fields, down the hill to the north (top) are not shown.
Will all the current recreational soccer and baseball fields on the property be replaced or will any fields be eliminated?
The answer to this question includes “the building committee is exploring options for placement of the fields, and will present any trade-offs, such as smaller field sizes or elimination of fields across the different feasibility options.“
At the last LLSBC meeting, there was significant discussion around an LLSBC design option that puts an even larger baseball field over the area of the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve.
Can fields to be moved to another location in town?
The essence of the response in this document is that “it is not the LLSBC’s responsibility to decide whether gardens or recreational field should be prioritized in the options being developed.” Basically what this does is allow the LLSBC to destroy the gardens, put a new ballfield where the gardens were, and absolve themselves of any responsibility in the process. What they are doing here is passing the buck to the Department of Parks and Recreation.
What appears to be happening here is that the Parks And Recreation Department will get a new large ballfield at the expense of the gardens under the guise of doing what’s in the best interest for the students at Long Lots Elementary School according to the LLSBC. The waters get very muddy here. And then they get very clear.
The document goes onto state, “The building committee’s responsibility is to determine all of the feasible options for building, expanding or renovating LLS, including the feasible site plans associated with the options.”
Nowhere in the LLSBC’s mandate, does it state that the site plans should include the area over 100 yards away from the school. Again, the BOE mandate states that play areas and fields should be located adjacent to the school.
Again, the document states that “Parks and rec is responsible for determining whether the town has the appropriate quantity and types of fields to meet recreational needs. The building committee has asked that parks and rec continue to pursue other options for field space as a possible alternative to the LLS site.”
This appears to show that the LLSBC is determining what goes where on property (that they are not mandated to address), and then explaining that the result of their decisions are the responsibility of the parks and rec department. Some thing about this doesn’t seem right.
It almost seems as if this is a land grab by the Parks and Rec Department with an assist from the LLSBC and possibly others. Why is the LLSBC showing design options that will benefit the Parks and Rec Department which do not enhance the educational value of the students at Long Lots Elementary School?
Can we move the baseball field instead of the WCG if it comes to that?
The document states that “due to field sizes and the flat topography required, the WCG and fields are not easily interchangeable in terms of placement.” This sets up a ballfield versus Westport Community Gardens scenario.
The document goes onto state “a high school baseball field requires approximately 160,000 ft.² (+/- 4 acres) of flatland, and 200,000 ft.² when including parking. The WCG currently 44,000 ft.² can be flexible in terms of size and does not require equal grading across the entire garden.”
There currently does not exist a high school baseball field at Long Lots. There is a small baseball field there. It begs the question why they are even discussing a high school baseball field. Why, if the mandate of the LLSBC is to get a first rate educational facility for our district‘s students, are they discussing a high school baseball field on property?
Then, of course, they re-introduce the cost question stating that “It would be likely be significantly more expensive to re-grade or move drainage areas on other parts of the LLS site, even if a field could fit in those areas. If there are any areas where fields could fit, that would enable the WCG to remain in its current location, the LLSBC is assessing the cost of regrading, changing drainage, etc. so the town governing voters can consider all options.“
Once again, the document pits a high school baseball field against the Westport Community Gardens. It then implies that it would cost more to keep the gardens in place than it would be to move the gardens and build a new high school baseball field where the gardens are.
It begs the question, what is going on here? What is wrong with this picture?
(Click here for a link to the full Long Lots School Building Committee’s “Frequently Asked Questions.”)
(“06880” covers education, environment and town politics — separately and, sometimes, together in one story. Please click here to support our work. Thank you!)
Some of the food grown at the Westport Community Gardens.