Westport Baseball & Softball has added its voice to the Long Lots Elementary School renovation debate. Chair Jeff White and president Jeff Brill say:
As expressed in our joint submission with Staples Baseball to the Long Lots Elementary School Building Committee on September 20, which was not then shared with Planning & Zoning, Westport Baseball & Softball — a volunteer-led non-profit organization — from the outset of the discussions regarding the future of LLES has sought only to maintain the status quo for the availability of a multipurpose field at Long Lots in any go-forward planning.
The land contiguous to LLS should continue to be blessed with athletic fields for youth use, much like the other Westport elementary schools.
We strongly encourage you to read this joint submission, and Westport Baseball’s more recent submission on January 17. They explain the need to retain a baseball field based on available resources and participation in Westport baseball programs. and our preference not to displace the Community Gardens.
Our request and recommendation had been very narrow and reasonable. We had previously asked that the LLESBC simply prepare plans in a revised 8-24 application that preserve the flexibility of including a full-size baseball field on the multipurpose field that would be shared with other sports, including girls’ sports.
There is no need to prescribe any specific usage (beyond youth athletics) of the field(s) years in advance of availability and further delay school construction.
Leaders of the various Westport sports programs can make their respective cases to the appropriate town constituencies to utilize the multiuse field down the road. P&Z does not require such specificity at this time, and the Long Lots students, teachers, administrators and community should not have to endure further delay.
Westport Baseball has never requested a full-size baseball field dedicated to baseball, much less a so-called “Babe Ruth” field. There is no such concept of a “Babe Ruth field,” unless one is referring to Yankee Stadium or Fenway Park where Ruth played. This became a cute phrase used pejoratively by opposition groups throughout the December 17th P&Z meeting and in subsequent propaganda.
Our desired multipurpose field includes a 60/90 foot infield that is easily designed to fit within 2-3 acres that would permit up to 8 Westport town youth teams (not special interest or for-profit travel organizations), including the Staples freshman team, to play thereon.
Baseball field experts remain available to discuss with the LLESBC how to configure the space to accommodate a full-size baseball field within the multipurpose field. We want to work collaboratively with the LLESBC and P&Z to develop a solution that serves multiple youth sports. We continue to respectfully request an opportunity to exchange ideas and share expertise.
The current 8-24 proposal calls for a “multipurpose” field south of a new Long Lots Elementary School.
There is not one full-size field in Westport that is dedicated exclusively to baseball for players ages 13 and older, unlike in other towns. Wakeman and even the Staples baseball field are mixed use fields.
We echo the real concerns raised by Parks & Rec, the Westport Soccer Association and PAL regarding field stress of Westport’s heavily used grass fields.
It is already very challenging for Parks and Recreation to schedule practices and home games across programs. Reducing field space for baseball has a domino effect, reducing availability of fields for other sports given the shared fields. P&Z has repeatedly referenced concern regarding “intensification of use” of land. Eliminating this baseball field exacerbates this issue.
Opponents of a baseball field referenced outdated enrollment figures for older players and field utilization by such players. Those players unfortunately will never have the opportunity to play on a new field at LLES. It is the wrong data set.
Current numbers of players on a particular team does not augur future seasons’ participation numbers; the numbers fluctuate for a variety of reasons, including the recent rise in student population.
Young Westport baseball players greet their Staples High School heroes.
Westport Baseball has been asked why it has not been more vocal and active in the ongoing debate regarding the use of the LLES field space. Our only formal action prior to a call last week with chair Paul Lebowitz and submission of our request was to send the joint submission and commenting via our leaders at public meetings.
We have remained quiet and cordial in our limited interactions, and have neither lobbied nor partnered with other organizations, as we sought neither to delay the commencement of school construction nor to further polarize and inflame the discourse.
We have only recently learned that we have apparently been penalized for being good sports and remaining on the sidelines. Westport Baseball and our baseball community is the only organization/populace that has been deprived of any accommodation as a result of bifurcation and the modified 8-24 application.
The informed Westport Baseball community was incredulous to learn that in the letter accompanying the 8-24 application, baseball (and no other activity) has been inexplicably singled out and expressly excluded.
Prohibitions on use of or access to a public field via restrictive covenant are seldomly imposed except when serving to protect the public.
We are not aware of any similar express restriction on a field in Westport. No sport should be identified as a prohibited utilization of the field(s) at this time.
It is our understanding that P&Z has required an express prohibition on baseball in order to approve the then forthcoming 8-24 application. The decision was not ripe and evidences a lack of due process, fair consideration and foresight.
We respectfully request that P&Z acknowledge at the meeting on January 22 that baseball is not a prohibited use of the field(s) at LLS or the deletion of this arbitrary prohibition from the letter. That is our only request at this time.
As explained in our January 18 statement, there is no need to prescribe any specific athletic use or purpose for the field(s). That is what “multipurpose” has been intended to contemplate and represents a compromise.
Westport Baseball and other youth sports organizations can advocate for Long Lots field use at the planning phase without causing any further delay in the construction of the school.
Another unfortunate example of how impacted and relevant parties were not included in this process. While there were good intentions in its construction this building committee was flawed and did not have fair representation. They had someone from BoE but no one from Community Gardens, no one from Westport sports organizations (soccer/bball), and no neighbor representatives. As a result not all voices were heard, rumors and misrepresentations spread and that resulted a lot of mistrust and an inability to come to a compromise. Poor leadership is to blame there and I hope future town projects are more inclusive.
Hi all-
I am reposting an entry I made previously.
Hopefully someone will have an explanation!
“Please pardon my naïveté!
Just a thought after looking at the current plot map and the proposed project.
The new school will be constructed on site of the small baseball field that is to the immediate right of the current school. The lower field is immediately adjacent on the right to the site of the proposed school and could be the construction site that is away from the current school, the current access routes and the current parking lots.
The new building and construction zone would therefore be on the far opposite side of the school property from the preserve and community gardens, the current access and the current parking- all of which would be untouched.
Also, playgounds #1 and #2 would be untouched and available for the elementary school students throughout construction.
It would be easier and cheaper to restore the lower grass field at the end of construction than to move and try to recreate the preserve and community gardens.
Anyone know if this plan was rejected, unfeasible or not an acceptable plan for the construction of LLES.
Please advise what I am apparently missing?”
I am hopeful that a school planner, contractor or civil engineer has a quick answer they might be able to share.
For the last 6 months, I and other experienced professionals have stated that there is absolutely no need to pin one group of Westporters against another. The site can accommodate school, adequate parking and athletic fields without removing the gardens. We’ve spent countless hours studying the site, developing and presenting alternative solutions, only to be ignored by LLSBC. Moreover, the feasibility study itself, on page 58 clearly states: “With the flexibility offered by new construction, various configurations of the site are possible. The next phase of design will require continued study to determine the appropriate balance between the school’s needs, as well as for the athletic fields, Community Gardens, Long Lots Preserve, traffic, and neighborhood concerns.” Where is RFP for this next phase of design? Why delay?
This is such a crazy situation !! This only proves what some have been arguing about the Gardens. The exact usage of the fields does not need to be determined now, nor should it be – gardens, baseball, soccer, playgrounds, fields etc … Not until there is at least a building design and site planning. I just went through this on a teeny tiny project in comparison and we needed a civil engineer, a building engineer, an architect, a contractor, P&Z, Flood and erosion board, Conservation, a soil scientist etc etc. It took twice as long to get the right plans and approvals in place than the actual construction. We had drainage put in – but I can tell you that a committee looking at the feasibility of the whole project could not have said where the drainage needed to be with certainty until we had a building design ! It also sounds like a baseball field with a 60/90 infield (what many of us refer to as Babe Ruth because that’s the name of the league those age kids play in) is very important to Westport /Staples baseball but they don’t necessarily need (nor asked for ) a larger and better complex with dugouts, bleachers etc AT Long lots. I can tell you we do need it in town and many would support that – but it doesn’t have to be there ! Get the school design going !! and figure out the fields and what can go where next !
Just an after thought- The lower field by area is easily large enough to contain a baseball field of the size that now exists at LLES.
After after thought
The old parking lot adjacent to the community garden would be available for a recreational field or second current sized ball field.
Too bad the town did not purchase one of the old farms on Bayberry for athletic fields.
Too bad the town didn’t purchase Kowalsky’s 12 acres on South Morningside Dr. You could had 3 ball fields and a pickle ball court plus a tennis court. Not very many 12 acre sites around!
I’m still confused on why the creation of a new/improved athletic fields is part of the LLS building project and included in their budget. I understand that if something (a field, a garden, etc.) is intentionally during construction, it’s incumbent upon the construction company to replace/repair, but that would be in-kind. Why would a major overhaul/redseign/expansion (lights?) of athletic fields adjacent to LLS, but under the purview of Parks and Rec be billed to the Education budget?
I understand town money is town money, but without accurate accounting, the town is blurring budgetary lines. If I am mistaken, and the athletic fields are simply being replaced/relocated and will have all the same (minimal-to-none) special amenities, I apologize. But it seemed to me from the outset of the building committee’s plans, that larger, improved fields (with stadium seating and lights(?) should at the very least be part of and paid for Parks and Rec’s budget for capital improvements. The schools already have huge expenses, why piggyback unaffiliated projects onto them?
Perhaps we can use all the open acreage behind the senior center for baseball fields and other ‘multi use’ athletic fields. We have land being underused in other parts of town. LLS is not the only option for fields (and a garden)!
To be clear, the leadership of WBSA has spent days trying to simply be assured by the powers that be either a) it’s premature to be even talking field usage let alone banning a sport at this stage, or b) that banning a sport from any town athletic field would set a dangerous precedent here in town. Are we now going to pit one sport against another like we did baseball vs gardens? Rather, I personally truly think the LLSBC did and will continue to do a phenomenal job given their tall ask. I think P&R did what they were asked to do. The BoE, P&R Commission, and Bd of Finance gave everyone a chance to voice their concerns. Kudos to the various architects who only have the best of intentions for offering their advice. Why the process devolved to this level of nuttiness I’ll leave to others to figure out, as this is way above my pay grade as they say!
At this point, as Lauren in her comment points out, the goal is basically to approve the placement of a bunch of rectangles. School here, parking there, etc. Nobody wants to spend seven hours like the last time debating what lines to draw on a field or even how big to make the gym. There’s plenty of time in the design phase to hash that all out. Rather, eliminate any such distractions from the 8-24 so we can focus on making this as simple as possible for the P&Z Commission to approve advancing this project to the next stage of completion—tonight!
This is eye opening. Who first used the term Babe Ruth field? How was that term allowed to stand as fact if it is made up?
It also makes me wonder whether Toni Simonetti will apologize for saying repeatedly in multiple forums that Westport’s sports leagues have been meeting and colluding while other groups were kept out of conversations. And also insinuated money was promised if these new fields were delivered. What a terrible thing to say about these volunteers who use their time for the betterment of town kids.
I have documents to show that many conversations were held, including meetings with the First Selectwoman and Parks and Rec with soccer officials including at Long Lots, immediately followed by P&R submission of new soccer field layouts. I’ll accept your apology.
Also, if you would like to see the specs, including dimensions for the baseball facilities, look no further than the appendix to the Feasibility Study. The town, parks and rec and LLSBC took it upon themselves to come up with those specs, not the baseball organization.
I do have multiple copies of the WASA offer to pay for field maintenance.
I have the P&R wish list for athletic fields, as submitted to Jay Keenan.
I have thousands upon thousands of FOIA’d documents confirming all of these facts and more. You can confirm with the town attorney that these documents were produced, with more to come.
What other facts would you like to confirm?
But this letter is from the baseball organization. If you have documents supporting conversations with Westport Soccer, then I believe you. But here’s what you’ve been saying (this is lifted from a letter you wrote to Planning and Zoning and on their website):
ENGAGING IRRELEVANT PARTIES
The Westport Parks and Recreation Department, as well as various private sports leagues,
have been included in deliberations and engaged to consult on the design of sports fields that
are now integrated into the project. League officials were even invited to site walks in early July,
and later that same day new schematics of ball fields were delivered to the LLSBC Chair from
Parks and Rec. I have FOIAd P&R and LLSBC email records documenting this.
You don’t name the sports groups in your letter and previous comments. And since Westport Soccer and Westport Baseball are the groups using the fields and mostly being discussed, and you use the term–various private sports leagues–you see how baseball was implied? But now the baseball organization says they weren’t consulted either.
Do you have documents saying otherwise? If not I stand by my comment asking if you will apologize.
See above. “Not baseball.” The objectionable baseball specs were not requested by the baseball orgs, but rather apparently produced by P&R and the school committee, without input from baseball groups. The egregious specs and siting on top of the gardens and proximate to abutting neighbors, caused PZC to object to an intensification of use. The Selectwoman then removed baseball from the revised plan.
The problem with the first 8-24 in my view was intensification of use and proximity to neighbors, which still must be guarded against in the new plan.
I personally met with one of the baseball officials a few months ago and we had a great and amicable talk. I referenced this outreach at a public Board of Finance meeting (before the BOF chair cut me off).
I commend the baseball and softball groups for saying from Day 1 that they preferred to not displace the community garden. And I said as much at tonight’s PZC.
In summary, my documents show a lot of close collaboration with at least two soccer organizations.
I hope this clears it up.
“Go-forward planning” is the best kind of planning.
Westport use to have a nice baseball park off of Riverside Drive that had covered seats–the better Little League teams played there and with a little imagination, one could feel it was a major league park. Last time I walked down Riverside Drive around 2000, I noticed it was no longer there. It seems like a loss.
Hi John,
I think you mean Imperial Avenue, right?
Its been many years so you are probably right. And I lived in NYC for 30 years so Riverside Avenue became Riverside Drive. I am now in San Francisco, where my surviving family members are all located, so it is unlikely I will ever get back to Westport. When I lived in NYC I used to visit Westport a couple of times a year.
I think the baseball stadium was named Gault Park.
Our town’s athletic facilities suck compared to neighboring towns. Just because people that have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about *can* share their uninformed opinions doesn’t mean they should.
Field exists now – field is destroyed for construction – field is rebuilt. Anybody that references these as “new fields” is just too lazy to familiarize themselves with the relevant facts.
Like when people act as if there will be no sports fields when the school is under construction? We have over twenty of them. If they “suck,” maybe we should put resources into improving those we have?
It unfortunately took until the third hour of the discussion last night, but the Westport baseball community, including its more than 1,000 participants, is pleased that the Planning and Zoning Commission ultimately resolved to clarify that there is no intent to prohibit baseball play on the relocated multipurpose field at Long Lots or preclude design and creation of a baseball field within the confines of the proposed Plan. WBS looks forward to having a seat at the table to work collaboratively with the Long Lots Elementary School Building Committee, Parks and Recreation and Planning and Zoning and other organizations going forward to share ideas and put our town first. We can best achieve this goal by operating in an inclusive manner where all viewpoints are welcome and duly considered.