Yesterday, Representative Town Meeting member Seth Braunstein told “06880” that after careful examination, he now supports the Long Lots School Building Committee’s decision to adopt “Option C,” for a new structure.
Westport Community Gardens chair Lou Weinberg responds:
A new Long Lots Elementary School can and should be built while preserving, in their current location, the Westport Community Gardens and the Long Lots Preserve. Nobody is trying to delay or stop a new school from being built. This is not a Gardens or school issue. This is a Gardens and school issue.
We understand that you’ve been given a lot of information by the Long Lots School Building Committee. They have expertise in architecture and engineering, and were appointed by our First Selectwoman. They have volunteered a lot of their own time, and that is to be commended.
To those who believe that the main focus of the Long Lots project should be the kids: You’re right.
The LLSBC was tasked with getting a new school built. They are not a land-use planning committee. The decision to place a ballfield over the Gardens and part of the Long Lots Preserve came from them. It was not part of the Board of Education specifications that were given to them. The proposed ballfield will not serve the educational or physical needs of the Long Lots students.
The decision to put a ballfield over the Gardens has been in the works for many months. We know that the LLSBC has been involved in this decision through communications with the Parks & Recreation Department and other athletic groups in town.
The Long Lots School Building Committee’s recommendation for a new school.
While we don’t know the full extent of what discussions took place, we know that the Westport Soccer Association has been significantly involved to the point of offering money to Parks & Rec to ensure that synthetic turf get added to the project to increase their field usage.
We know that our Parks Department, under Jennifer Fava, has been working to get a ballfield located at Long Lots, at the expense of the 20 year old WCG and parts of the LL Preserve. It is hurtful, and we believe it is wrong.
If the First Selectwoman believes it’s possible to create a bigger/better community garden at Baron’s South, she can certainly locate the ballfield there. It’s centrally located and more convenient for everyone in town.
The artificial turf proposed for the ballfield would not exacerbate the flooding experienced by the neighbors adjacent to the Gardens. Those neighbors would also be unaffected by the lights and the noise.
Additionally the traffic, which will undoubtedly get worse in the Long Lots neighborhood, would be somewhat mitigated. Instead of having a new garden created on questionable soil, the questionable soil can be covered with artificial turf, without disturbing it, and satisfying a need for a new ballfield in town. That is a solution where everyone wins.
The Long Lots Building Committee recommended this site at Baron’s South for the relocated Westport Community Gardens. (Photo/Morley Boyd)
The decree that the Gardens are going to be destroyed anyway, because they are part of a construction site and probable staging area, was made by the LLSBC at the 11th hour.
What would this committee do if there were 4 homes located where the Gardens are? They would find a way to get a school built. They would find staging areas elsewhere, like Baron’s South or the Sherwood Island connector, or they would maximize efficiencies on site.
There has been no peer review of the options generated by the LLSBC for this $100 million dollar project, and now we are shoving this option through the town governing bodies at a rapid clip.
Covering the Gardens with a ballfield, especially an artificial turf field, would be environmentally devastating. It goes against everything we are trying to teach our kids about being good stewards of the environment.
The Westport Community Gardens and LL Preserve are nationally awarded, first-in-class properties. They are models of sustainability and environmental stewardship. They are unique ecological gems in Westport. The biodiversity in these 4 acres is the result of 20 years of carefully tending to the land. We have cleared the land, removed the garbage, eradicated invasive plants that were devastating the property, and planted hundreds of native trees, shrubs and wildflowers. The Garden is an organic acre of native trees, shrubs, and thousands of perennials. It is home to literally thousands of native bees and other important pollinators, insects and birds.
The WCG membership (120 families representing approximately 300 residents) has a significant portion of older residents. The Gardens provide them with one of the best passive recreational activities known.
The offer to create a new community garden at Baron’s South to make it more convenient for our seniors rings hollow. A new garden there would still not be within walking distance of the Senior Center. Many of our older members will not be willing to put in the incredible amount of work it will take to build a new garden. We don’t need any new amenities. A Port-a-Potty has served us just fine for the last 20 years.
Westport Community Gardens.
The WCG is a community that has developed over 20 years. It is vibrant, active, and does not just serve the garden members themselves. We donate food through Grow a Row, support the Westport Garden Club and work together with Eagle Scouts. We have partnered with the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, SLOBS, and over 20 businesses and nonprofit agencies to create this magical place.
Hundreds of individuals have donated $40,000 and labored to create the Long Lots Preserve. We provide a phenomenal opportunity for Westport Public Schools to partner with us in a number of different areas, including their environmental education curriculum as dictated by state standards.
Imagine that there were 20 community gardens in town and one ballfield, built by hand and maintained for 20 years by the sports community. If one of the gardens was going to be displaced, would we all agree that the ballfield should be destroyed so we don’t lose a garden? No. We wouldn’t do that. It wouldn’t be right.
We believe any other town in America would celebrate and protect what Westporters have created here.
Thank you.
Aren’t there enough questions, comments and concerns raised by diverse constituents of our town to suggest the need to pause the process of approving the construction of a new Long Lots School? Flooding and drainage. Ways to optimize the configuration of the property. Destruction of a community treasure. Ability to renovate rather than rebuild LLS. Increased taxes to fund a $100 million project. I am truly baffled how these substantial issues are cast aside as the decision makers inexorably proceed with their seemingly inevitable decision to build a new school.
Bravo
Beautiful article…..unfortunately, WCG is bucking up against Westport politics at it’s finest. It’s tax paying constituents don’t count as much as their own agendas.
Wow!! I read some things I was not aware of before!! Artificial turf, payment to ensure it happens? What has happened to our town and the world we live in???
Perfectly said, Lou!
Tracy Porosoff is 100% completely correct. There are a lot of unanswered questions that need to vetted before committing $100M of taxpayer dollars. It seems like the potential to renovate Long Lots School has been dismissed by the powers that be even though it successfully happened at Coleytown Middle School.
In addition, it seems that our Parks and Rec Department is giving a lot of people pause in how they operate based on this ballfield addition as well as what happened recently the Longshore Plan.
Excellent and long overdue. Unfortunately, given our present practice of going through the motions of public discussion only to rubber stamp a predetermined result, I fear it will fall on deaf ears.
Lou, Perfectly said, and I will use this complete document to further inform the tax payers of our town. I suggest anyone reading do the same thing.
Larry, they might PLAY deaf but they surely have been made aware of the concerns. I am going to stay optimistic and say that anyone can learn from their mistakes and do the right thing.
All players will have to self reflect on what that means to them personally.
Let’s go Westport we can do amazing things!
This says it all Lou. Thank you. This … is leadership.
Very well said. I still find it hard to believe anyone would think it’s a good idea to cover over an established garden and preserve with AstroTurf.
Very well said, Lou. Now, we need to mobilize and get as many Westporters on board as possible to save the garden and preserve. Send out a mass mailing, distribute flyers, shout from the Ruth Steinkraus Cohen Bridge, something, anything, before it’s too late.
And to those who think otherwise, please feel to reach out to any gardener to get a tour of this wonderful treasure. Over the years, I have provided tours to anyone willing to listen to me preach about this oasis in town. I am available 24/7 outside of school hours to provide this guided tour.
I am still a newbie to town politics but amazed by how agendas can be “guided” along. It’s very easy to be persuaded by “facts” or different versions of the truth. Facts still remain that there are 20 baseball fields and only 1 Community Gardens. Look at the past usage of the baseball field. Look at when the baseball fields feasability and usage study was requested and ultimately submitted. These are the facts. You can dismiss or fudge facts, but you can only do so much.
Of course we should move forward with a new Long Lots elementary school, as it appears to be absolutely necessary. That was never debated amongst all of these conversations. I’m just absolutely befuddled as how as the process moved along that the Gardens was supposedly be relocating to the back of the property to now how it’s so convenient to relocate it to a site that’s so amicable to the seniors in town. Please don’t do the gardeners any favors except to be truthful to the town residents and have a moral compass.
Mr. Chin, With all due respect, it is NOT absolutely necessary! Spend 20 million or spend 100+ million. You’re going to get the same teachers, just in a different building. The building doesn’t make education; the quality of the teachers and the home environment make the education. As I stated, one can get a good education in a barn.
What is the role of the board of Ed in town gardens? If the gardens are not used at all by the school, why would the school board be responsible for it?
There are lots of people commenting who do not have kids enrolled in the schools or have kids who have graduated.
I would love to hear from some younger people who have kids in Long Lots, and will for many years. What is your opinion if the school, the fields, and the gardens? What do you want to see happen?
The LLSBC was tasking with creating a plan that met the Ed Specs of the BOE. Even though the LLSBC is answerable to the BOE, they went far beyond that purview. As Larry Weisman has so well articulated in other posts, the BOE should have pushed back on that expansion of their plan.
I want to add, I have not heard ANY of the Gardeners express opposition to the school. This is about putting in an astroturf field under the guise of it being part of the school building project, and destroying the Gardens in the process. (That is not to say that some neighbors don’t have concerns about the redevelopment of the land – both a school rebuild and other aspects like the fields, gardens, and lighting plans.)
Thank you Lou.
Everyone here is for the schools and for the kids. But, less anyone forgets, our kids are not just going to benefit from the massive $100 million investment we are preparing to make to build them a new school, if we are lucky, they will also benefit by the way in which we, the adults, model for them how we reach consensus and come together around this effort.
This next phase can be some of our finest hours or they can be some of our very worse. But this much I know, our children are watching and listening. And they will remember how we, the adults, conducted ourselves in this effort. And that conduct, and the ways in which we come to make our decisions, is the very first lesson our new school will impart on our children.
How did this school come into being? Were we fair? Were we just? Did we practice what we preach and strive to teach?
Right now, I think most everyone, if they are truly being honest, would have to regrettably acknowledge that we are failing that examination.
Just one case in point. This is something that I have shared before on another social media platform but it is so important that I would ask your indulgences and allow me to include it here as well. It is that important. Everyone should know this.
Remember we are creating a school that will, hopefully, inspire as well as educate our children.
With that goal in mind, I discovered something in the LLSBC Feasibilty Report that was very troubling. Something no school would ever allow a student to get away with if they ever attempted it. I refer to the cherry picking and outright missapplication of experts facts.
Let me explain:
As a former Jesuit who proudly taught and coached the State Champion Speech and Debate Team at Bellarmine College Prep, I would have immediately flunked any student of mine and contacted their parents if they had ever attempted to win one of their debates using the unethical tactics that I discovered in the LLSBC report.
Concerning the toxic ground levels on the site where the LLSBC recommends the town relocate the Community Gardens at Barons South, the LLSBC report on pages 12 and 13 of the Executive Summary states:
“While raised as a concern during public comments at public meetings, the Committee has reviewed the 2020 Supplemental Soil Investigation and Preliminary Risk Assessment Report completed by Thunderbird Environmental, LLC. The Consultant concluded that after remediation of the area, “Based on a statistical analysis of the recently collected site-wide soil data, arsenic concentrations in soil at the Site appear typical of arsenic concentrations in soil throughout New England.”
They then helpfully provide the following link to the source that 2020 Risk Assessment Report
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/29903/637302570450630000
And sure enough, the sentence they quote is found in the report.
BUT, if you read further – the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH – even the VERY NEXT TWO SENTENCES – you quickly discover that the assumptions made to reach that conclusion are the complete opposite of what the LLSBC is proposing. The expert’s risk assessment continues to state quite clearly:
“Potential health risk associated with soil arsenic is driven primarily by two factors: exposure and toxicity. Exposure to soil arsenic requires direct contact and intensive interaction with the soils in question. According to the ATSDR, the principal route of exposure to arsenic for the general population is oral intake, primarily in food and drinking water.”
“The state of Connecticut designed its residential (R) and industrial/commercial (IC) soil criteria to allow human exposure for regular frequency, typical intensity level, and for an extended period. In the case of soil arsenic, these criteria are driven by the state’s non-urban soil background concentration; that is, the State emphasizes that the best way to protect human health is to maintain exposure levels around background soil concentrations preferably below non urban soil background concentrations of around 10mg/kg.”
“Regarding risk to human health from soil arsenic, the site is located within an urbanized area and has limited current usage but it’s occasionally accessed by the public for walking and exercising (running). Other forms of limited trespass are possible; however, the property’s ground cover is well vegetated in areas not covered with buildings or impervious surfaces (ie asphalt and concrete). The vegetative cover and impervious surfaces greatly decreased direct human contact with site soils and suppress the potential for dust creation or soil erosion therefore, direct and indirect exposure to soil arsenic at the site is minimal and therefore, risk to human health from arsenic in soil at the site is low.”
So…EXPOSURE REQUIRES DIRECT CONTACT AND INTENSIVE INTERACTION WITH THE SOILS IN QUESTION. THE PRINCIPLE ROUTE OF EXPOSURE … IS ORAL INTAKE, PRIMARILY IN FOOD AND WATER. This stated exposure risk is the very nature of a COMMUNITY GARDEN! But it has been carefully edited and tweaked in the LLSBC report to avoid alerting readers to that very risk and conclusion.
Sadly, this was actually done in an misguided effort to support our kids. In creating this school, our kids are watching not only what we do but how we do it.
In conclusion, who ever wrote this shoddy, misleading section of the LLSBC report, as well as all those who knowingly voted to accept it and/or endorse it should count yourselves very lucky that you were not a student in my classroom. Because I would have flunked you and called your parents.
John F. Suggs
I have said this before as many others have as well. It is not about the garden versus the school. Every person in the garden community will resoundingly tell you they are in favor of building a new or improved school. It is about the process.
It is about the fact that the politicians in town and the, as I have referenced them before, bullies, who frame it to look like its WCG against LLS or WCG against baseball or soccer.
How about call it what it is…. It is the town/selectwoman wanting a baseball field and trying to tie it to a school renovation/rebuild thinking no one was going to notice. Take the baseball field off the table for a second and there is NO issue, so it is not about the school.
Not that the garden would have laid down and cried U N C L E if they at least had the spine to just come out and own their agenda from the start. If they’d just had said “We want a state of the art baseball field because it will get us re-elected and push us up on the political ladder in the eyes of the little league world. At least it would have been honest instead of trying to slide it in and make it look like WCG is somehow stopping progress of the school.
And as for our “exclusivity” and “ivory towers” at the WCG anyone can contact me and I will gladly let you into the garden whenever you want I will give you a tour or sit and have a cup of coffee with you. I have personally given a ton of tours this summer to people who just wanted to check it out or neighbors who wanted to see what and where it is. It is my first year at the garden and I found out about it accidentally and I applied and it has been the best accident of my life.
Thunderbird Environmental found what they were meant to find. Yale toxicologist and Westport resident Dave Brown, whose opinion should matter more than that of the firm the town paid to ensure all was well, had real concerns.
Aside from the very real concerns about the toxicity of both the “grass” and the infill in synthetic turf, runoff is no joke.
Water is already an issue at Long Lots. And though the manufacturers claim the turf is designed to drain properly, it often doesn’t work as advertised.
<>
https://www.surfrider.org/news/artificial-turf-why-we-shouldnt-choose-plastic-over-plants
Trying to post the text again…<>
It is so regrettable, but it seems the mean spirited and selfish governance of the Republican party at a Federal level has seeped down to our local politics. Thus far the opposition to the destruction of a town treasure in the form of the gardens has been thoughtful, considered and respectful but that seems to not be understood by those who are trying to ram this through our governing process with no regard to what anyone else thinks and seemingly no interest in hitting the pause button and considering many/any of the fine options and alternatives that have been presented.
So what to do? Organize a march? Protest on the bridge? Make sure no-one with an R against their name gets elected in November?
Remember the prescient words of Edmund Burke “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” –
Can we as a town afford to do nothing?
Adrian, please don’t make this a D vs. R issue. It isn’t. Enough blame to go around.
So what is it then?.
If its not R vs D then why do we elect local officials based on their politcal affiliation?
Personally I dont get it- i was on the ZBA for a while and had to revert from independent to D in order to do so.
This never made sense to me- how is a party affiliation relevant to making a decision on a zoning variance.
Sorry but I see this exactly as a R vs D which I agree it should not be but is.
Adrian, from my view, egregious behavior has been on display by both R and D elected and appointed officials.
I agree that it is ridiculous that party affiliation is needed for people to get elected to local office. But that’s one of the many things I can’t change.
Okay, here are my own personal keystrokes. I do apologize.
<>
My head is spinning:
– Months of secret talks between LLSBC and P&R about putting a sports field on top of the Community Garden…
– An offer of money by a sports association to P&R to ensure the proposed sports field has artificial turf
– Months of project analysis by LLSBC but, oddly, no peer review
– Alternatives from unaffiliated subject matter experts which would preserve the Community Gardens….ignored
– And the coup de grace….LLBSC’s recommendation that the Community Garden should be “moved” to a waste dump near the Senior Center which may contain dangerous contaminants.
Is THIS what Westport and its leadership stands for? Pathetic!
But wait, there’s more!!
Please don’t put a baseball field over the gardens
John: Sadly, you’re right. New Long Lots and the Community Garden could become Westport’s Price.
On current trajectory, this will become Westport’s Folly.
I haven’t personally seen any evidence that the WSA was engaged in a “pay for play” scheme with Parks and Rec, but like many folks I’ve heard the many rumors around town and my sense is that there is no smoke without fire?
For the avoidance of doubt, I love soccer – or “football” as they call it in England where I grew up in a terrible town (Coventry – where the town planning was done by the Luftwaffe in the 1940’s – we’re all over it by now) with a pretty dreadful football team to match.
My family and I have been fortunate to attend multiple FIFA World Cups and Uefa European Championships including final and semi final games in Paris, Lisbon and Moscow. I’m glued to the NBC EPL broadcast every weekend morning – much to my wife’s chagrin. Sadly my team still plays one level down.
I don’t expect a pat on the back for this obsession but I offer it up to say I love the sport and have no axe to grind – each of my three daughters played Rec and Travel in Westport as they went through the K-12 school system here. I have nothing against what you probably know as soccer – rather, I support it from Kindergarten and beyond.
I know you sense a “but” coming so here goes…
If it is true that the WSA offered a donation to the PRC that seems unseemly to me unless all stakeholders were involved. For instance, when donations for the new library extension were solicited there was broad agreement on the path forward – here…not so much. I’m sure such a donation to the town is not illegal (unless there is an explicit quid pro quo?) but in my view the optics of that are not great. If it’s true it should have been publicly disclosed.
A joint statement from the WSA and PRC on this matter would go a long way to clearing this up as I recall that it wasn’t addressed in the opinion piece they wrote here a few weeks ago.
Their editorial was shared with P&R before publication, fwiw, as seen in FOIA’d emails. Their offer to provide funds for field improvements was also contained in email records produced. I believe no funds were accepted but the email trail is inconclusive.
As a WSA volunteer coach, I would love to know exactly what you’re alleging. Why would the WSA ask for a turf field?! I’m sure they’ve lobbied for more fields in general but why do you believe that they’ve been involved in some bribery scheme?! This sounds really bizarre to me.
The quality of the natural grass fields declined significantly over the course of the prior Spring season due to overutilization. This dynamic was discussed in my note posted on 9/5 to this blog (link below).
After an impacted Spring season, we had discussions with the town in June and July on natural grass field quality. It was explained to us that the town’s funding is inadequate for the improvements / maintenance that is required for natural grass fields, particularly given elevated usage. Our understanding was that opportunities for funding would be limited until next fiscal year.
In response to those discussions, we proposed WSA funding the maintenance and improvements to natural grass fields ahead of our Fall season to improve playability and reduce risk of injury. The town did not accept, request or maintain a dialogue around that proposal for natural grass improvements.
There is no dialogue with the town on any projects, but as indicated in the 06880 post below, we remain focused on planning for when the Long Lots fields go offline during construction to mitigate the impact on all the town’s youth programs. The town and youth sports organizations need to be proactive and collaborative about ways to increase field capacity and quality ahead of the Long Lots school construction project.
Jim
https://06880danwoog.com/2023/09/05/opinion-soccer-association-president-act-now-to-improve-field-capacity-and-quality/amp/
In 1976, I taught high school in Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was a private school. Most of my students were dirt poor. I had 42 in one of my classes and one student kept coming in late to the first period class. I got a little upset with her until the other students chimed in. Every day she took a public bus for 50 miles to come to school and I’m not talking 50 miles of highway! She had a burning desire to learn! We didn’t have an exceptional school building and I had 42 students. There was a reunion 3 weeks ago at the school, and although I couldn’t attend, the students ( now in their 60s) sent me pictures! They dug themselves out of poverty because they had that drive to succeed. The student in question had shoes with holes in the soles and used to put cardboard in her shoes. Some students didn’t have running water in their homes. They made it! Some now live in Florida too.
Thank you, Lou.
The gardeners’ pleas have never been about delaying or blocking progress on a new Long Lots School, but rather imploring the decision makers to respect what the garden community has built over twenty years.
Any other town would celebrate this asset as a testament of environmental stewardship. The decision is to bulldoze it, cover it with artificial turf, and let the gardeners start from scratch on a toxic landfill is unimaginable.
Thank you, Lou!
So well put. I wish, hope, and pray you can prevail. It is UNACCEPTABLE to use the gardens for construction staging and UNACCEPTABLE to use the gardens for a “spare ” playing field. There are NO OTHER PUBLIC gardens in Westport. Please preserve them. It doesn’t mean we don’t “put the children first”…
While we have been a busy community for the past 20 years trying to Save Old Saugatuck, there certainly is a similar pattern with regard to the current effort to save the Community Gardens….
All the reasons to KEEP this site are ignored, while insensitive and self-serving decisions prevail towards its destruction and disappearance. What next.
Again, I ask if recall or referendum is an option?
Thank you Louis for articulating what so many of us are thinking. It makes absolutely no sense to bulldoze Westport’s only community garden to add a massive baseball field under the guise of a school renovation.
Everyone wants a school renovation or net new building for Long Lots, you won’t find anyone opposing that. Because of that universal need, tacking on proposals completely outside the school renovation’s parameters is purely a way to force through projects that otherwise couldn’t stand on their own. This shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone.
The task of renovating a school should be just that. Not build a school… and rip out a nature preserve, bulldoze the town’s only community garden, and build a massive baseball field right on top of our neighbors. Along with a parting message of ‘there’s a previously poisoned dump site you can try to garden on over there! As long as you don’t touch the dirt often, it’s probably fine. And to residents, we aren’t sure what flooding effects there will be after ripping out all those plants that soak up the water and rolling out artificial turf to your property lines, but it’ll probably be fine!’