Attorneys Mark and Valerie Seiling Jacobs have lived in Westport for more than 25 years. They have followed the Long Lots Elementary School building project closely. They write:
On May 16, the Long Lots School Building Committee filed 2 documents with the Planning & Zoning Commission: a new 8-24 request (presumably because the existing approval requires that the Community Gardens remain on site, which is no longer the plan), and a request for site plan approval for the entire project.
Almost immediately, the project began to appear on the agendas of other town bodies, including the Board of Finance, Flood & Erosion Control Board, Representative Tonw Meeting Finance Committee, Conservation Commission, and full RTM.
Eight critical meetings are now expected to take place in the space of the next 10 days. Given the tight timetable, some of the meetings are being combined. Others are scheduled to take place on the same night.
This of course has prompted many people to ask: Why is the schedule so compressed and rushed? After all, this is the largest expenditure in town history.
Preliminary designs for Long Lots Elementary School.
According to Eileen Flug, the assistant town attorney who was quoted in the Westport Journal, the rush was due to a “realignment” of 2 state agencies that moved the deadline for state bonding applications up to June 30, and the fact that the town had only learned of this on May 16.
In that same article, however, Jay Keenan, committee chair, attributed the rush to the fact that he had not realized that the Town Charter contains a 14-day window for residents to file a referendum request, meaning that the effective deadline was actually June 16.
Neither of those explanations, however, holds water.
First, we have been unable to find any such realignment of state agencies. Nor have we been able to find any evidence that the state deadline changed. (We’ve asked Ms. Flug to provide the backup for her statements, but, so far, we’ve received nothing.)
And second, even if we accept Mr. Keenan’s version, it begs the question: Why did the committee wait so long to file to begin with?
If they knew that they only had until June 30, then why did they wait until May 16 — a mere 45 days from the deadline — to begin securing the necessary local approvals, when they knew they needed to appear before 6 separate town bodies?
Long Lots School Building Committee members, meeting in 2023.
One explanation is that the committee is not being honest, that they somehow missed the fact that everything is due on June 30 and are now using the 14-day window to obscure their mistake.
Given this committee’s historical willingness to blame others (usually, the gardeners) for problems of their own making, it wouldn’t be surprising if that turns out to be the answer.
There may, however, be an even more sinister explanation: that the committee deliberately delayed filing specifically to truncate the review process, limit public participation, and deny other boards the opportunity to conduct the type of in-depth analysis that a project like this requires.
Such a strategy would be consistent with this administration’s modus operandi, which seems to be based on rushed requests coupled with a “sky is falling” mentality.
The repairs to the Mill Pond walkway and flood gates are a perfect case in point. The RTM and public were repeatedly warned by the administration that if they didn’t go along with the plan, the town could lose the federal money. (Never mind that the place had been falling apart, for years or that we’d had a long time to draw down the ARPA funds.)
In this case, however, rushing the process carries even greater risk, given the cost of the school and the topography of the site. As one resident correctly pointed out, the “site is chock full of flooding, wetlands, inland waterways, abutting residential housing, difficult terrain and contaminated soil.” And it is no secret that this area is already plagued by water issues.
The committee keeps telling the neighbors not to worry. “Trust us,” they say. But this committee has not earned the public’s trust. Their vague assurances are small comfort to a homeowner who is facing the prospect of a flooded basement or worse.
Muddy Brook flooding, near Long Lots School. (Photo/Peter Swift)
We urge our Conservation Commission and Flood & Erosion Control Board to examine the application carefully — to kick the tires when it comes to drainage and environmental issues.
We all know that the storms keep getting worse. And this project calls for a doubling of building coverage during construction and the permanent loss of vegetation that previously acted as a buffer and sponge for runoff.
Please do not be lulled into thinking that the old way of managing water will suffice. One-hundred-year-storms are now arriving like clockwork. We need you to step up and protect neighbors, even if that means imposing novel or extra protections.
And the same holds true for P&Z. We need our commissioners to ask hard questions and demand fact-based answers — not settle for off-the-cuff responses.
Does, for example, the new school really need 30% more parking, which would vastly increase the amount of impervious material? The traffic consultant didn’t think so, but he appears to have been persuaded to say otherwise by someone involved in the process.
Long Lots Elementary School, with current parking. (Drone photo/Brandon Malin)
Similarly, if the committee is truly committed to using natural grass for the fields, then why do the plans call for the type of underground drainage typically used with artificial turf?
Putting aside the PFAS and microplastic risk associated with artificial turf (which, frankly, is pretty difficult to ignore), this particular site is spectacularly unsuitable for artificial turf given the ongoing drainage issues and the fact that artificial turf impedes the natural infiltration of water.
In fact, the EPA classifies it as impervious and there is now a call to deny LEED certification to any site with artificial turf. In any event, P&Z needs to get to the bottom of these and other troublesome issues and questions.
We all want a better school for our children. But this project needs to be properly vetted by our various boards and commissions.
If this process is not handled properly, we fear that residents will take advantage of another provision in our Charter — one that gives 20 electors (or 2 RTM members) 30 days to appeal any Conservation or FECB decision to the RTM. (How Mr. Keenan intends to square that appeal period with the June 30 deadline remains to be seen.)
Were an appeal to ensue, this project could be indefinitely delayed. And the Committee members will have no one to blame except themselves.
(“06880″‘s Opinion pages are open to all readers. Please send submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com.)
👏🏼
I always want to give the benefit of the doubt to town volunteers in these situations — it’s a huge time and effort commitment donated for very little personal gain. I do hold the administration in charge of the town responsible though for looking at how these projects are going and making sure that things like communication, timelines and general goal of teamwork are maintained (even if they outsource the details to the committee). No one really disputes that Long Lots needs to be rebuilt and I truly believe the new school will be wonderful, but I think all groups needs to admit that this process has been sub-optimal even if the outcomes end up good (2+ years of planning leading to all the approvals needing to be done in 2 weeks? Large groups of people from lots of different organizations in town not only disagreeing with the outcomes, but feeling ignored by the process and thinking there are nefarious plans by their neighbors?) Feels like a breakdown in leadership that would not have happened under Marpe, Joseloff or Farrell.
Speaking as someone who has a long history of living in Westport, yet has since left, it is amazing in this day and age to see someone like Dan Woog with the courage and journalistic skills to challenge incompetence at the local level. In many other communities throughout CT, those with similar voices have been intimidated into silence. Count your blessings, Westport, and stand on the right side of these issues. I or you may not agree with everything Dan advocates for, but that’s not the point. The point is, whatever your politics may be, we cannot afford to lose the unicorns who expose root causes, regardless of the issue, and call us to action. Standards at the local level are what drives belief and then policy at higher levels, in a feedback loop of trust.
Well said ‼️🇺🇸
The Jacobs’ cogent comments underscore what has been a flawed process. From day one the LLSBC, secure in its backing by the administration, displayed an arrogant disregard for the gardeners and for public sentiment in general by imposing unreasonable limits on public comment at its hearings in an effort to avoid transparency and squelch opposition. It does not surprise me to learn that they were not aware of the deadline to apply for public financing or that they are trying to cover up that failure by specious excuses. There is no reason to trust them.
It’s unfortunate that the town finds itself in this position but it does not justify anything less than careful scrutiny by the boards and commissions responsible for vetting the plans and strict adherence to the requirements of the Charter. If public funds are lost in the process, so be it. We all know who is to blame.
.
The Jacobs Nailed it.
Remember, we are The People.
I’ve written numerous commentaries on this latest bungling by the LLSBC/town administration. Many of these can be found here on this news site, the Westport Journal, and in the public input section of the pending applications at P and Z (https://www.westportct.gov/government/departments-a-z/planning-and-zoning-department/p-z-pending-applications-recent-approvals)
The committee and administration are quick to cast blame for “delays” on anyone but themselves. Gardeners are obstructionists. P&ZC is overbearing. Neighbors are demanding.
They have a couple of hundred kids and their parents seething at the poor condition of the current school and demanding “no more delays!”
Rather than temporarily moving the kids out of this unhealthy environment for a year, they chose the most cumbersome and complicated project route of keeping the old school open while moving ahead with the added complications of problematic terrain, wetlands, flooding, and destroying existing green spaces — thus keeping the kids in a less than ideal environment. Children first?
The now-rushed schedule doesn’t give anyone, including decision makers, adequate time to study, digest, question the multitude of issues present in this project, to include the aforementioned, as well as flooding and intensification of use for adjacent neighbors, an up to date environmental assessment and remediation plan, and lastly the veracity of a $98 million “ask” to fund this mess of a plan.
Meanwhile sycophants to the “new school at any cost” ideology, including many elected to protect taxpayer interests, declare sugary sweet nothings at every meeting: “What a beautiful school!” “What a fabulous job.” “We’re so excited about this!”
Not a single taxpayer has been given an opportunity to see, let alone study, the $98 million appropriation, one that stands to raise taxes more than a little — and includes costs NOT ASSOCIATED with the building of a school.
Who has time to sit at every meeting crammed into a 10-day period?
The implication of missing the deadline are unknown, but I suggest it amounts to the one year of interest paid on debt service in the amount of the expected reimbursement (one year of interest on $15M?), plus lost opportunity cost for tying up those funds.
The Flood and Erosion Control Board, and the Conservation Commission have not even had one look at this plan yet. Whatever their decision later this week, it is subject to a town charter guarantee for a review by the RTM. A petition signed by 20 citizens gets this done.
Any approved appropriation over $500k is subject to a citizen referendum. A referendum petition signed by about 1,900 registered voters puts this on a ballot.
We the people have options
Valerie Selling and Mark Jacobs, as usual, provide meaningful insight and analysis to the issues of the new Long Lots School, the destruction of the Community Gardens and the process that all of these important matters confront. So many, otherwise good people, are to be faulted. They include the First Selectwoman, the BoF, the RTM, the P&Z Commission, the Parks & Recreation Commission Committee, the BoE and the LLBC. As to the last, the LLBC, our Town properly acknowledges the importance of volunteers who take on important tasks. However, being a volunteer does not give one a pass as to doing a professional job. My judgement is that our citizenry is often too generous in not pursuing excellence and too lenient in tolerating mistakes, delays and misjudgments. Valerie and Mark have highlighted much. We should thank them and others, e.g. Toni Simonetti, for their efforts to improve, indeed affect the process. Our political bodies, whether elected or appointed, should address the points made by the public that are sound and based on facts or the law. Sound decisions should then be made and delay not tolerated.
This is a very helpful set of comments, presented respectfully but with serious concerns that should be addressed. I urge all involved to take a step back, and address the broader issues. In fairness, I should add that I would STILL like to see a provision for reincorporation of the Community Gardens, while still prioritizing addressing the needs of current/future students.
Rosalie J. Wolf
Expect, any minute now, a deluge of comments from parents with kids in schools, complaining about “the obstructors.”
Many of them are new to town, or maybe not. And they will all be very well intentioned.
They will be asking for the town bodies to ram through whatever the hell is in front of them “for the children.”
What they will be missing, is a ton of history of town bodies making substantial “errors” in procedural and substantive issues. This is not about motives or whether the volunteers “are nice people.” This is about processes and town government that simply cannot be run like it has been any longer. And the Jacobs, and Toni and many others are doing this town a huge service by pointing this out.
The time to kick the can down the road “for the children” is over. The grownups need to get their act together and follow the spirit and the letter of the law. What a great example that would be for the children to see.
Time for a Charter Revision Commission. This should be the only item addressed in the upcoming town elections.
Why does it matter how long you’ve been in town for? Are the old guard offended that newcomers are facilitating much needed change?
Long after LL is built, the Hamlet built, after the Cribari Bridge is replaced, the WCG is a memory brought up annually on a blog, what are you going to whine about?
Just step aside.
Step aside. Love it.
But seriously Brooke, you are showing traits which would serve you well in the RTM or in Hartford as Jen Tooker’s chief if staff. Impressive use of the word “whine.” You have what it takes to fit in well in either of those places.
Love it‼️💣🇺🇸
Thank you for exposing this travesty. Let’s hope those in power develop ethics and are able to get us all out of this S— show.
Maybe at another town meeting our FSW will take the podium and tell the elected officials or the citizens to “stop the narrative” or “this needs to stop”. Here is some basic AI advice on leadership: A leader inspires and motivates a group to work together toward a common goal. They set direction, communicate effectively, and help create a positive environment for team members. Essentially, leaders guide others by example and focus on achieving collective success.
Our town urgently needs a new Long Lots school.
There is a lot of public information available that can answer a lot of these “questions” in this opinion piece.
1) The LLS building committee has been updating the public on progress and those members of the public can ask there questions directly in those meetings. Furthermore, the committee has given updates to Board of Finance and RTM Education committee back in April and they told them to expect the full funding of the project to be coming in end of April/beginning of May. I have already added a comment on the Westport Journal so that this misinformation is corrected.
2) There is already a drainage report from engineers that analyzes up to 100-year rainfall events, and it shows a reduction in peak rates runoff compared to a undeveloped conditions. This report is available on the school’s P&Z pending applications.
3) As for parking, the new school will be home for the preschool that is currently located at Coleytown El. This will increase parking usage because more staff will be in this building, as well as more parents that could visit. As for the existing parking space, last Friday Long Lots had its field day and it was divided between K-2 and 3-5, and parents still had to illegally park on Hyde Ln because there wasn’t any space left.
4) Regarding the turf versus natural grass question, that will be a decision for the Parks & Recs to make. The building committee recommended natural grass, but because that decision will take time to decide, they opted to setup drainage for either case. Also, the lower fields are a swamp whenever it rains, so even if that’s natural grass, it would help to add drainage for those fields as well.
Unfortunately, this is really concerning, that an urgently needed new school is constantly threatened with delays. This delay will not be justified!
Joe, all you have ever cared about is the soccer field. You opposed the alternative garden site proposed by the garden that wasn’t on the LLS site.
If this “urgent” project is delayed, it will have been delayed by people like you who hijacked the process for a ball field designed for users other than those attending the school.
I can’t imagine being so unable to take ownership of my own behavior, like you.
Joe
Wrong again. Check out this in the traffic study:
“Note that the Stepping Stones Preschool traffic was included in this analysis even though drop-off and pick-up times do not happen at the same time as the elementary school, and the preschool drop-off and pick-up occurs during off-peak hours. The traffic was added to depict a more conservative estimate for the traffic generation and depict a possible worst-case scenario traffic generation with drop-off and pick-up traffic for both being combined.”
Toni,
The traffic study is only looking at traffic impact of the new school. Their conclusion is that there will be minimum impact. The parking is taken into account to study the traffic impact.
Any parking conclusions from the traffic study is simply inconclusive.
As a parent with a kid at Long Lots, I know how difficult it can get, and that’s even without after hours school events that happen at the same time as the sports activities. Long Lots is the largest elementary school in Westport, and with the addition of Stepping Stones, it will probably be as large as Bedford.
The best strategy for the community gardens is to collaborate with the town and Parks & Recreations to find a new location. We are in urgent need for a new school. I understand that you are unhappy that a new school means no more garden, but you have no justification to obstruct the project out of vindication. You can choose to accept the loss and move on. Find a better place for the gardens and rebuild it. Or not. We still need a new school though.
Thanks for putting this out there, Valerie and Mark. Really great work – and an important public service.
Suffice to say, this isn’t a good look for our town. I can’t be the only one who has begun to see a particular thread running through the assorted controversies which have roiled our community of late. If this continues, at some point I imagine there’s going to be reckoning.
Thanks for the insights and analyses of how the Longs Lots projects has jumped the rails.
The problem of the school getting renovated or replaced especially the vitally necessary special ed facility seems to have invited an array of Byzantine schemes and complications that have jeopardized its now two years’ late initiation.
Why we couldn’t get a straightforward, integrious approach to this as well as the several other problematic initiatives is something that deserves to be brought into light.
The reason for Westport’s high property values compared to our neighboring towns like Norwalk and Fairfield who also are on Long Island Sound, we are a beacon for the highest standards in public education. We are blessed to have the resources to make it happen. When used efficiently, the resources make measurable differences to the kids and property values. Having a beautiful local school is not only good for the kids, on the weekends it serves a dual purpose as a great place for neighbors to take a walk and enjoy nature.
I’ve been to a few Long Lots Elementary meetings (as a resident living 1/2 mile away and a parent of kids who will go there).The process so far as been fairly open to the public expressing their concerns. I hope that the leaders of the project take the time in the next month to hear any other concerns, and don’t skip important technical steps to ensure it’s a great school.
A cursory look at the exterior of the current Long Lots building shows that maintenance has been deferred for years. Multiple additions mean roof joints and other sources of leaks. Google finds multiple articles on water and mold concerns at Long Lots Elementary. As many neighbors and engineers have pointed out the property water flows and retention are also badly in need of an update.
Why some question the school kids and the soccer league need fields? Sports teaches important life lessons in creativity, compromise, self-sacrifice, and leadership. A quick google is clear enough about the benefits for the next generation: https://www.scripps.org/news_items/7580-what-are-the-surprising-benefits-of-youth-sports-programs
The new school should have no less than the same two large fields they have now on site. Fields may need to ‘rest’ between use. We as a town have supported our H.S. soccer coaches, and yet some are not logically connecting how kids become H.S. soccer/field hockey/lacrosse players. The need to grow up playing sports starting early, with on-site fields.
The best place for the gardens would be a place that is currently a NON playing field (i.e. why take Burr farms fields from the kids and neighbors who use it now? ). I’ve suggested before Veteran’s Green near the town hall. Or directly front of town hall. In front of ‘The Saugatuck’ on Bridge St, which used to be Saugatuck Elementary in the 70’s. Or BEHIND ‘The Saugatuck’ there is a fairly large flat area ( with a curve at the end )behind their parking lot (where I used to play kickball with Eddie and Brandon in 1978). The beach near the trees by the basketball courts might be a good spot too (give the gardeners a free beach pass!). There are a lot of possible places for the important community gardens around town that are not currently playing fields: check out Google Maps.
Benedict, take a swing around town saturday am or afternoon or between 5-8 any weeknight. You will always find fields that are not being used. The town does not have a field shortage. It has a shortage of creative thinking and planning and scheduling around how the fields are used. Hate away.
And having coached on the field at The Saugatuck on Bridge Street, the parking situation and deed-restriction on the place makes it unviable for actiity that requires parkling. Like a community garden.
Ideally kids should have places to play together in their own neighborhood. In Westport the big playground requires a beach sticker, and is not secure for small kids. IMO a kid should not be biking around town searching for open fields at 5pm, it should be in their neighborhood. Unlike back in 1970’s Westport, biking has become more hazardous with distracted adult drivers.
I moved from Lower Merion, PA where every neighborhood has a little public park with a playground, open green space, and a tennis court/pickle ball. There were two such parks in my PA neighborhood and one also had grills and a small concert shell.
The green areas I was referring to at ‘The Saugatuck’ on Bridge Street is actually in front of the building on Bridge Street, and behind the building (it has a half circle in the back. I did not mean the larger field below.) In the spirit of creativity, wouldn’t it make sense to ask the now privately run ‘The Saugatuck’ if either of those places would be a good fit for a community garden? The older residents might enjoy the flowers, vegetables, or participating?
Not trying to fixate on that particular address. What other possibilities are available without impinging on existing kid’s neighborhood playing fields (like Burr’s Farm field)?
Eddie, Brandon, and you can still play kickball on the Saugatuck Field…
By court order, a stipulated settlement has guaranteed since 1988 that “the adjacent playlng, flelds shall remaIn open to the pubIIc, with access provIded and assured” in perpetuity.
The front lawn of The Saugatuck, is, I believe long term leased to the cooperative that manages it for at least another 50 years.
In the past not only softball and hardball but also soccer and lacrosse practices have been held on the Saugatuck Field.
Former Parks and Red assistant director, Mike West, when I asked why practices were no longer regularly scheduled for the field, cited its proportions as not suitable for regulation games and the problems Bridge St traffic bolstered by I-95 overflow causes to dropping off and picking up young athletes.
Hi Mark and Valerie 🤩
Great synopsis and insight 👍🏼
Let’s hope you get answers ‼️🇺🇸