Tag Archives: Save Westport Now

[OPINION] Cribari Bridge: Reject “False Choice”; Adopt “Adaptive Rehabilitation Alternative”

Posted on February 24, 2026 | 8 comments

Tonight, there’s a Zoom meeting organized by several Representative Town Meeting members to discuss the Cribari Bridge (7 p.m., Zoom). The public is invited; click here for the link.

This afternoon, Save Westport Now co-chairs Valerie Seiling Jacobs and Ian Warburg released an open letter to Westporters. They say:

Contrary to the state Department of Transportation’s claims, not all bridges need to be rebuilt to current standards in order to remain safe and functional.

At least 2 other historic bridges in Connecticut have been successfully rehabilitated by DOT — without bringing them up to current code. In other words, there is a way to balance modern transportation needs with historic preservation.

That is not just a preservationist talking point. That is the key point in the Cribari Bridge debate.

And it is consistent with CTDOT’s own historic bridge framework.

In CTDOT’s 2002 “Historic Bridge Inventory Update,” the agency explains that the inventory is designed not only to identify historic bridges, but also to guide treatment in ways that avoid adverse effects and support proper review under federal historic-preservation law.

It also references CTDOT’s earlier Historic Bridge Inventory and Preservation Plan, which specifically addressed how to avoid adverse effects to historic bridges.

That matters because the Cribari Bridge is not a generic piece of infrastructure. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and sits within the Bridge Street Historic District.

Yet despite repeated statements that no final decision has been made, the process appears to be moving toward a demolition-and-replacement outcome that would produce a much larger bridge, with a very different traffic profile.

Let’s be blunt: A bigger bridge is not just a bridge design decision. It is a traffic decision.

If Westport allows a larger, highway-scaled replacement that can more easily accommodate heavy vehicles, we should not be surprised when more I-95 spillover traffic — including trucks — is funneled onto local roads.

Bridge Street and Greens Farms Road were not designed to serve as an informal regional bypass. They are neighborhood roads used by residents, pedestrians, cyclists, school buses and local businesses.

Bridge Street traffic. (Photo/Werner Liepolt)

This is where the debate has been too narrow. We are not just being asked whether we want an old bridge or a new bridge. We are being asked whether Westport will accept a state project that could change the function of this corridor, making it more attractive for non-local through traffic while the consequences are borne by Saugatuck and Greens Farms.

Westport Journal reported that the state’s environmental assessment reviewed 5 alternatives (including 2 rehabilitation options and 2 replacement options), and that CTDOT/Federal Highway Administration identified replacement alternatives as best able to address structural and functional issues while improving sidewalks, bike access, and mobility.

It also reported an estimated $78–$86 million cost and roughly 3-year construction duration for in-place replacement. Those are serious considerations.

But they do not answer the central questions Westporters are asking:

  • Why is a context-sensitive rehabilitation alternative not getting full, good-faith evaluation?
  • Why is the likely effect on local traffic patterns — including truck cut-through — not front and center?
  • Why does a historic bridge in a historic district seem to be treated as though standardization is the only responsible option?

Cribari Bridge (Photo/Patricia McMahon)

CTDOT’s own historic bridge work undermines that “one-size-fits-all” narrative.

In its 2022 update, CTDOT explicitly distinguished between ordinary bridges and those requiring additional consideration. The report identified common-type bridges in or adjacent to historic districts, and separately screened for “exceptional” bridges whose design, aesthetics or context warranted special treatment.

In other words, CTDOT’s own framework recognizes what residents have been saying all along: Context, scale, and design matter.

The report’s own examples prove the point. CTDOT flagged as “exceptional” bridges like:

  • West Cornwall Covered Bridge (award-winning CTDOT preservation example)
  • Bridge 00658 in Hamden (Route 15 over Whitney Avenue), noted for ornamental features and parkway context
  • Bridge 00796 in Wallingford (Yale Avenue over Route 15), recognized for aesthetic treatment
  • Bridge 03697 in Fairfield (Brookside Drive over the Mill River), a modest concrete slab bridge set apart in part because of ornamental railing and visual character.

West Cornwall Covered Bridge

If those bridges merit heightened sensitivity because of design and context, how can Cribari — a nationally recognized bridge in a historic district — be denied the same seriousness?

CTDOT’s report also includes Westport’s own Saugatuck River Swing Bridge (Bridge No. 01349) among previously listed National Register bridges reviewed in the update, and it notes that CTDOT’s actions over prior decades helped preserve Connecticut’s engineering heritage as reflected in its bridges.

Westport should insist that this preservation ethic apply to the Cribari Bridge now — not just in retrospective reports.

We support safety improvements. We support better pedestrian and bicycle access. We support long-term infrastructure reliability. But Westport should reject the false choice between “do nothing” and “build a bigger bridge that changes the corridor.”

Cribari Bridge, at Riverside Avenue.

The town should formally demand evaluation of an Adaptive Rehabilitation Alternative that is engineered for safety and designed to discourage regional cut-through traffic:

  • Split-and-widen rehabilitation of the existing truss (not demolition and highway-scaled replacement).

A split-and-widen strategy — used elsewhere on historic truss bridges — can preserve the bridge while improving lane geometry, sidewalks and bike access.

That approach asks the right question: How do we make Cribari safer and more functional, without transforming it into a larger-capacity conduit? Here’s an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yys_4XPqbtA

  • Narrow crash-rail retrofit instead of bulky highway

There are compliant crash-rail systems designed for historic bridges that improve safety while preserving width, sightlines and visual proportion. Barrier design is not cosmetic. It directly affects whether the bridge remains context-sensitive or becomes a pseudo-highway structure.

  • Repair and strengthen piers/buttresses using preservation

If substructure work is needed, do it — but in a way consistent with National Park Service standards for historic resources. Structural integrity and historic integrity are not mutually exclusive. Competent engineering can deliver both.

  • Design explicitly for local safety and access — not truck

Westport should insist that any alternative be evaluated for its likely effect on traffic behavior, including whether it would increase the corridor’s attractiveness as an I-95 spillover route for trucks and heavy through traffic. The goal should be safer local use, not a state-engineered invitation for non-local traffic.

Here are 3 facts Westporters should not ignore.

First: This is not simply a preservation fight. It is a neighborhood safety, traffic pattern, and quality of life fight.

Second: Process concerns are real. Whatever one thinks about the engineering, the public has every right to demand full transparency, lawful historic review, and genuine consideration of alternatives before the outcome becomes effectively irreversible.

Third: Westporters are paying attention. A petition seeking greater oversight and federal review has now passed 1,000 signatures. That level of concern is not noise. It is a warning that residents believe the process is moving too fast and the stakes are too high.

This is not a choice between history and safety. It is a choice about whether Westport will settle for a state solution that may make our neighborhoods less safe and more congested — or insist on one that protects safety, lawful process, historic character and sensible local traffic patterns, including discouraging truck cut-through from I-95 spillover.

A public hearing is scheduled for March 19 at Westport Town Hall. Public comments run through April 17. If you care about Saugatuck, Greens Farms, and how major decisions get made in this town, now is the time to show up and speak up.

(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Please email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com.)

“06880” covers the news — and offers readers many ways to react to it. We hope you’ll support our efforts, by clicking here. Thank you!)

8 Comments

Posted in Local politics, Saugatuck, Transportation

Tagged , , ,

[OPINION] Stop DOT’s Cribari Bridge Plan!

Posted on May 31, 2025 | 58 comments

Werner Liepolt lives in the Bridge Street Historic District. Valerie Seiling Jacobs is a member of Save Westport Now.

Both have closely followed deliberations over the future of the 135-year-old Cribari Bridge. Long stalled — like traffic heading to it — the state Department of Transportation has recently shown new interest in a replacement. Werner and Valerie write:

We’ve all seen it: traffic backed up on Bridge Street across the Cribari Bridge, distracted drivers with out-of-state plates checking their smartphones, and the line of cars clogging Riverside Avenue and Greens Farms Road.

It was bad in 2015, when the Connecticut Department of Transportation first started talking about fixing the historic swing bridge. But it’s only gotten worse since COVID.

The stream of traffic coming from I-95 is remorseless, especially in the morning. Pity parents trying to shepherd their youngsters across the street to catch the school bus. or commuters trying to get to the railroad station. A drive to Compo Beach during the summer can put you on Bridge Street for half an hour.

Bridge Street traffic: 7:40 a.m., May 29, 2025. (Photo/Werner Liepolt)

You know all this. You live here. And that’s exactly why Jim Marpe, our former first selectman, refused to vote to release the money for a DOT study.

He recognized that DOT was likely to recommend building a new, state-of-the-art bridge, one that would be tall enough to accommodate 18-wheelers and thus invite even more I-95 spillover and Waze traffic.

But here’s the rub: our current first selectwoman seems oblivious to the problem. Last year she voted to release $4.1 million to the DOT to begin work on the project.

On May 15, DOT held its first meeting in Westport about the bridge since 2018.

William F. Cribari Bridge. (Photo/Ferdinand Jahnel)

Of all the  neighbors, only registered “stakeholder” Werner Liepolt was invited to attend, although the public was not. In the invitation, the DOT noted that there had been “significant developments” concerning the project.

At the meeting, however, we learned the only “developments” appear to be that:

  1. The DOT has been asked by Tooker to do a traffic study on the Saugatuck side of the bridge only, presumably to accommodate the proposed Hamlet development, which she supports; and
  2. DOT is now officially recommending that we build a new, bigger bridge — one that will be weight-bearing and tall enough for 18-wheelers.

Needless to say, the stakeholders in the room were outraged. We reiterated what we had said in 2018: that a taller bridge will invite more traffic and trucks when I-95 backs up.

Matthew Mandell, a Representative Town Meeting member, wanted more information on how to obtain an exemption from current building specs, a request that Valerie Seiling Jacobs of Save Westport Now echoed.

She also asked if DOT had considered the impact of increased traffic on air quality — especially given Westport’s ongoing ozone issues. (They had not.)

Maggie Dallal and other young mothers described how difficult it is to cross Bridge Street to get their kids to the bus stop.

School bus crawls along Bridge Street: 7:47 a.m., May 29, 2025. (Photo/Werner Liepolt)

John Suggs, of the Westport Preservation Alliance, reminded DOT that the bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and that Bridge Street is an official “Scenic” route, 2 designations that entitle us to special dispensation.

And Paul Lebowitz, chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission, reminded everyone that the traffic and truck problem had been discussed at the 2018 DOT meeting.

A potential solution had been floated then: building a bridge that would look like the current bridge (e.g, it would have ornamental trusses), but would not be tall enough to accommodate 18-wheelers.

What happened to that idea? Lebowitz wanted to know.

The DOT seemed flummoxed by the crowd’s reaction, perhaps because none of them had been at the 2018 meeting (all those folks have since moved on).

Still, they insisted that a new bridge would not invite more truck or other traffic. In fact, they claimed that a new bridge would actually speed up traffic and reduce idling time, apparently ignoring the fact that everyone would still need to get through the intersection at Riverside and Bridge Street.

Moreover, they seemed to think that trucks would not choose this route even if I-95 backs up.

The Riverside Avenue side of the Cribari Bridge.

Are their memories so short that they do not recall how the fiery crash on I-95 in 2024 prompted hundreds of trucks to cut through Westport? Everyone in the area remembers how our police department had to stop truck traffic due to 18-wheelers jumping the sidewalks.

It’s true that the DOT reps at the front of the auditorium “duly noted” many of the concerns we raised, implying that they would look into those matters. At the very end of the meeting however, in a complete ambush, the chief DOT engineer for the project — who had apparently been in the audience all along but had not previously identified himself — took the microphone and made it clear that DOT intends to build a new bridge that will accommodate all truck traffic — thereby making a mockery of his junior colleague’s “duly noted” promises.

At this past Thursday’s Traffic and Pedestrian Safety meeting, we stood together with residents of the area and insisted that the Westport Traffic Authority demand comprehensive surveys and plans for traffic abatement and resident safety from DOT before any decision is made about the Cribari Bridge.

We must stand together as a community, and tell our first selectwoman and DOT that anything  less is unacceptable.

We deserve to have a voice in what happens in our community.

(If you agree, please email contactsavewestportnow@gmail.com to add your name to the roster of residents who will save the town from this hasty, dangerous, foolish plan.)

(The Opinion pages of “06880” are open to all. Please send submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com)

58 Comments

Posted in Local politics, Saugatuck, Transportation

Tagged , , , , ,

Save Westport Now Drops Party Label, Expands Focus

Posted on September 6, 2023 | 4 comments

There will soon be one less political party in Westport.

After more than 40 years as a local, non-partisan minority party, Save Westport Now is making a “structural change.”

Instead of acting as an official political party focused solely on Planning & Zoning Commission elections, they’ll operate as an “association.” They’ll expand their focus, and weigh in on other races.

Save Westport Now will not run candidates in the November election.

Save Westport Now was founded in 1980. A grassroots organization, they are “dedicated to protecting residential neighborhoods, preserving Westport’s
small-town New England appeal, ensuring smart growth, preventing over-commercialization, and preserving open space>”

That mission — which also includes protecting the town’s natural and historic resources, and quality of life — will not change, officials say.


The decision was made in part by the recognition that elections at all levels —  including local ones — are now largely driven by national party affiliation.

That makes it difficult for organizations like theirs to remain “truly non-partisan.”

In the 2021 election, 3 Democratic P&Z candidates also ran on the Save Westport Now line. All 3 won.

Danielle Dobin got 532 SWN votes; Michael Cammeyer got 503, and Neil Cohn, 440. Their totals on the Democratic line were 4838, 4571 and 4461 respectively.

Save Westport Now officials also note that “safeguarding Westport’s future requires actively planning for climate change.”

But not all of that planning falls under the P&Z umbrella. Recently, they say, efforts like advocating for keeping the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve in their current locations have gone beyond the P&Z.

Save Westport Now has widened its focus beyond the Planning & Zoning Commission umbrella. It has begun advocating on behalf of the Westport Community Gardens. (Photo/Karen Mather)

“Widening our lens will allow us to look at other local candidates — examining their records on land use and environmental issues, and making endorsements in other races beyond P&Z,” Save Westport Now says.

“The same is true for national and statewide issues around housing affordability. While P&Z in recent years has done much to lead on this issue, there is still a great deal that town officials can do to be proactive about meeting or exceeding the affordability targets expected of Westport.

“We believe that that this new approach will give us an even stronger voice in town and improve the election process, allowing us to make recommendations in more races and endorse candidates who we believe will be most responsive to residents, instead of running candidates who are also seeking election on a national party line.

“We will also continue to identify candidates who have conflicts of interest or who might be beholden to certain special interest groups.”

Save Westport Now will not accept contributions from special interest groups, and continue their non-partisan approach.

“After 40 years of advocacy for Westport’s residents,” officials say, “we believe that the challenges the town faces today demand this more nimble and wide-ranging approach. We look forward on working with Westporters of all political affiliations on the important issues facing our town.”

Co-chairs Ian Warburg and Jerri Graham, secretary Mark Kirby, treasurer Jessie Noyes McEntee, and board members Matthew Levine, Nina Streitfeld, Carol Buffinton and Valerie Seiling Jacobs (ex-officio) invite interested Westporters to check out their website or Facebook page, or email
contactsavewestportnow@gmail.com.

(“06880” is your hyper-local blog. Please click here to support our work. Thank you!)

4 Comments

Posted in Environment, Local politics

Tagged , ,

[OPINION] Save Westport Now Says: Save Gardens Now!

Posted on August 9, 2023 | 48 comments

Yesterday, Save Westport Now — which describes itself as a 43-year-old grassroots organization dedicated to protecting residential neighborhoods, preserving Westport’s small-town New England appeal, ensuring smart growth, preventing over-commercialization, and preserving open space — e-mailed every member of the Board of Selectwomen, Board of Education, Long Lots School Building Committee, Board of Finance and Representative Town Meeting.

The subject: the possible relocation of the Westport Community Gardens, as part of the Long Lots renovation or rebuilding plan. Save Westport Now says:

As the Town mulls its options regarding the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve, we offer the following observations:

First, we believe that the Long Lots School Building Committee, appointed by First Selectwoman Jen Tooker, has inadvertently overstepped its authority in thinking that they have the unfettered right to determine the future of this cherished municipal asset.

We have reviewed the RTM minutes concerning the acquisition of this property and note that, although 2.2 acres were earmarked for additional school parking, the remaining 4.5 acres were acquired for other municipal purposes.

The Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve are just south of parking for Long Lots Elementary School (green), which is just south of the current building (yellow).

Indeed, in 2001 when the RTM was debating the acquisition, then-School Superintendent Elliot Landon assured the RTM that they would “work cooperatively and collaboratively” with the town to develop the parking in such a way that “it enhanced municipal uses as well.”

Thus, while it is true that playing fields (as well as affordable housing) were mentioned during the debate, the future use of that extra acreage was specifically left open.

Since then, of course, the property has been designated as a community garden and preserve and, for the last 20 or so years, the property has been under the supervision of Parks & Rec — 2 indisputable facts that buttress the argument that a school building committee does not have the unilateral authority to deal with this property.

Second, we note that removing these Gardens and the Preserve in favor of other uses runs counter to the Town’s Net Zero promise, as well as its most recent Plan of Conservation and Development, which explicitly calls for the preservation and enhancement of open space.

As the Plan recognizes: “Open space helps protect natural resources; provide flood storage, wildlife habitat, and tree canopy; enhance overall community appearance; and enhance the quality of life of residents and visitors.”

In fact, the town has long been concerned with this issue since Westport has
very little open space, especially compared to other towns in Fairfield County. If anything, we need to be creating more gardens, preserves, and open space — not less.

And third, we believe that equity and fairness dictate preservation of the Gardens and Preserve in their current locations.

Aerial view of the Westport Community Gardens, with 100-plus plots. The Long Lots Preserve is located on its perimeter.

While adding additional playing fields to our town’s inventory may be
desirable, the town currently has approximately 20 playing fields that can conceivably be made available during the 18- or 24-month construction period contemplated for the new school facility.

Alternatively, other temporary sites can be identified and used for sports during the construction period.

Once construction is complete, the town could then build new field(s) on the site of old building. There is, however, only one town garden, and it simply cannot be moved or replicated within that time frame — if at all.

Ditto for the Preserve.

In sum, the long-term pain for gardeners and the negative environmental ramifications for residents if the Gardens and Preserve are forced to vacate far outweigh the temporary sacrifice that sports teams may suffer if the Gardens and
Preserve are allowed to remain in place.

Finally, it is important to note that when the Long Lots School Building Committee was first proposed by the First Selectwoman, we and others voiced concern that the list of appointees did not include someone from Sustainable Westport.

Indeed, a number of RTM members objected to the formation of the Committee specifically on those grounds. They were adamant that SW needed to have a seat at the table — that SW needed to be involved at all stages of the project.

But the administration assured the RTM that the Committee had the necessary expertise to handle the project.

Recent events, however, have validated those concerns. The fact is that the Gardens and Preserve play a critical role in helping to sequester carbon and protect our pollinators.

Relaxing in the Westport Community Gardens.

Based on what we believe are a set of faulty assumptions and priorities, we are concerned that the Committee may make well-intended but misguided recommendations that result in the squandering of these important and critical assets.

And the idea that this will be “only” a temporary measure strikes us as short-sighted and failing to properly understand the value of what has been created here.

It took 20 years and almost 10,000 hours of volunteer labor to get the Gardens and Preserve to this point. They cannot be rebuilt overnight or easily replicated.

Please listen to the more than 1,800 people and organizations who have already signed petitions and letters, and act now to make the preservation of the Gardens and Preserve our highest priority when planning for the creation of what is sure to be a superb building where Westport’s children can continue to grow and learn.

Respectfully,
Ian Warburg
Co-chair, Save Westport Now

48 Comments

Posted in Education, Environment, Local politics

Tagged , , , , , ,

Save Westport Now: Stop Hiawatha’s Sewer Request

Posted on July 20, 2016 | 10 comments

Valerie Seiling Jacobs, co-chair of Save Westport Now, sends this letter:

The Westport Water Pollution Control Authority, which is comprised of our 3 selectman, is meeting tomorrow morning (Thursday, July 21, 8:30 a.m., Town Hall auditorium) to decide whether to allow a developer to extend the sewer to the Hiawatha Lane area in Saugatuck.

The Planning & Zoning Commission has already rejected this developer’s request twice, on the grounds that the nearby pumping station and the sewer pipe that runs under the river from the Saugatuck area to our wastewater treatment plant are already in danger of failing.

Both items are on the town’s list of infrastructure repairs, but before work can start, the town needs to obtain a lot of permits and approvals from the state and feds, which still hasn’t happened. P&Z recognized that adding potential effluent to a failing system was not a smart move. If, for example, the repairs are delayed and the pipe bursts, it could have catastrophic environmental and other consequences for the Town.

Westport's wastewater treatment plant, across the Saugatuck River from the proposed Hiawatha Lane development.

Westport’s wastewater treatment plant, across the Saugatuck River from the proposed Hiawatha Lane development.

Save Westport Now agrees with P&Z’s conclusion: that it would be foolhardy for the town to approve a sewer extension before the pipe and pumping station are actually fixed/replaced. This is especially true since — no matter what we hope or the developer claims — the repairs are likely to take more time than usual, since they will need to be scheduled around other projects already planned for the area, including most notably the rehab of the I-95 overpass, the repair of the MetroNorth bridge, and the repair of the Cribari/Saugatuck bridge.

This will not be a simple or quick repair, and the Town should not risk the town’s resources just because a developer stands to lose money if he doesn’t get his way.

I hope you will attend the meeting or email the selectman’ office (selectman@westportct.gov) about the matter as well. As residents and taxpayers, we need to let our elected officials know that we care about the environment — and that we believe in smart planning. Adding effluent to a failing sewer system before we are sure when and how the system will be fixed is just not smart.

10 Comments

Posted in Environment, Local politics, Places, Real estate

Tagged , ,

Remembering Sidney Kramer

Posted on December 10, 2014 | 20 comments

Sidney Kramer would have been 100 years old on January 21.

He didn’t make it. He died earlier today, 64 years after moving to Westport.

But that’s one of the few things he did not accomplish in a long, productive and well-lived life.

Sidney Kramer

Sidney Kramer

Sidney Kramer was a major player in the publishing world. An attorney, literary agent and co-founder of Bantam Books — the original paperback house, founded during World War II when newsprint was scarce — he was better known locally as the owner of The Remarkable Bookshop.

For more than 30 years the pink building on the corner of Main Street and Parker Harding Plaza was beloved for its floor-to-ceiling shelves stocked with new releases, poetry, cookbooks, obscure volumes and funky gifts; its cozy rooms, well-worn couches and sloping floors, and the encyclopedic knowledge of everyone who worked there.

Sidney’s wife Esther managed the store. She died in April 2011, at 93.

Remarkable made national headlines in 1978 when it refused to sell Richard Nixon’s biography because — in Kramer’s words — “we thought he was a rascal.” The store owner noted that it was not a freedom of speech issue. He even walked patrons down the street to Klein’s, which sold the book.

In 2001 — in recognition of the service Remarkable Book Shop provided — Sidney and Esther Kramer received Westport’s Arts Award.

The much-loved Remarkable Book Shop

The much-loved Remarkable Book Shop

But Remarkable — whose perfect name, serendipitously, includes “Kramer” spelled backwards — was not Sidney Kramer’s major contribution to Westport.

In 1981 he helped found Save Westport Now. Originally organized to prevent an enormous office building from replacing a century-old Victorian house on Gorham Island — diagonally across the parking lot from Remarkable —  Save Westport Now soon evolved into a 3rd political party.

It lost the Gorham Island war. But it won a battle along the way: The green-tinted office was originally planned to be much higher than it is now.

For the next 3 decades, Kramer and other activists monitored the Planning and Zoning Commission. They were particularly involved in issues like parking and the height of new buildings.

Save Westport Now said:

Mr. Kramer was never reticent in voicing his opinions about the manner in which over-reaching development would damage the character of his town. His analyses were not only respected, but often resulted in better outcomes. Although he relied on the members of his organization to help fulfill the SWN mission it was he, well into his 90s, who stood at Town Hall and spoke. And we all listened, learned and benefited.

Save Westport Now

Kramer was born in the Bronx in 1915. His parents emigrated to the US from Vilna and Minsk, in the 1890s. After graduating from NYU and Brooklyn Law School, Kramer served as counsel, accountant and eventually part owner of Penguin Books.

After Bantam he worked with other publishing companies, and was president of New American Library. In 1961 he founded Mews Books Ltd., a literary agency representing authors like Richard Scarry and Hardie Gramatky.

Sidney Kramer is survived by his son Mark of Newton, Massachusetts, the founding director of the Nieman Program on Narrative Journalism at Harvard University and the author of many works of narrative non-fiction; his daughter Wendy Posner of Chicago; 4 grandchildren — and a very grateful Westport.

A memorial service is set for Saturday, January 24 (11:30 a.m., Westport Library). It’s 3 days after what would have been his 100th birthday.

 

 

20 Comments

Posted in Arts, Downtown, Local business, Local politics, Looking back

Tagged , , ,

Save Westport Now: P&Z Denial Of Senior Housing Plan Was Correct

Posted on October 1, 2014 | 3 comments

In response to recent “06880” posts — by 2 Planning & Zoning commissioners, and the Coalition for Westport — regarding the denial of senior housing on town owned property Save Westport Now adds its voice. Chairman Sidney Kramer says:

We would like provide clarity to the decision and offer high praise to all those who have, and will, continue to work diligently to address this complicated and challenging issue. In addition, we compliment the current P&Z Commissioners, who are duly elected representatives of both the Democrat and Republican parties, for their thoughtful deliberation of this matter.

We believe that the Commission’s near-unanimous decision to reject this text amendment was correct. It needed to be rejected—not because of political pressure or bias, but because the amendment itself was deeply and unacceptably flawed and would have created far more problems than it solved, all at the expense of Westport taxpayers.

Part of the Baron's South property, where a senior housing facility was proposed.

Part of the Baron’s South property, where a senior housing facility was proposed.

As the town moves toward an acceptable solution, we must keep in mind some of the problems with the denied amendment (see below), many of which have gotten lost in the heat of the discussion. These are things every Westport resident — and most especially our seniors — should know:

  1. The Amendment would have required developers to set aside ONLY 20% (or just 29 units) as “affordable”—whereas current state law requires that 30% be set aside and our P&Z has already determined that 60% is the appropriate number to justify utilizing town land for this purpose;
  2. If passed, the town would basically have been subsidizing housing for the well-to-do, since the income tests for the non-affordable units were very high;
  3. The amendment would have put the town further behind in terms of meeting the state minimum for affordable housing dictated by Connecticut State Statute 8-30G, since it would have increased the total number of units in town without a corresponding 30% increase of affordable units. That, in turn, would allow developers of other affordable housing projects to override existing zoning regulations anywhere in town, given that we would no longer have the benefits of a moratorium on the state-mandated minimum;
  4. The amendment would have allowed a private developer to acquire a valuable town asset (8+ acres of prime real estate with an estimated value of $10,000,000) for a mere $1,000,000 — less than the average cost of many residential building lots;
  5. The Amendment would have allowed for a 99-year lease that contained liberal assignment clauses that the town would not fully control;
  6. The additional amenities being offered by the developer were minimal (a therapy pool not the same as a full-sized town pool) and could not make up for the loss of this valuable asset or the increased problems this project would create in terms of the state mandate on affordable housing;
  7. The amendment would have exempted the entire project (as opposed to just the 29 affordable units) from the current 10% town-wide cap on multi-family dwellings. With 13 sites eligible for the same treatment, we could have easily ended up with significantly greater density, traffic and stresses on our town services (fire, police, emergency, and recreation); and
  8. Although the amendment purported to cover 13 sites, it was primarily targeted for Baron’s South (potentially making it illegal “spot zoning”), with insufficient thought given to its impact on the other eligible sites in town.

Finally, we note that portraying Westport as a place with no senior housing is inaccurate. One only needs to look at Whitney Glen, where the owners tried to get the town to lower the age requirement from 65 to 55 due to the fact that there are too many vacant units and not enough seniors applying.

The Whitney Glen condominiums behind Compo Shopping Center are age-restricted.

The Whitney Glen condominiums behind Compo Shopping Center are age-restricted.

We appreciate that this recent decision will delay things. But in the context of Westport’s more than 200-year history and with such valuable resources in play (for decades to come!), the 6 years spent on this matter is a drop in the bucket. We honor those who came before us, and those who will follow, by taking the long view and acting with great care in managing our town’s scarce and precious resources. Progress has already been made, and the investments of time and effort to date have not been for naught.  If we can solve the problems outlined above, we can find a solution that works for all of Westport.

3 Comments

Posted in Downtown, Local politics

Tagged , , ,

Miggs Is The Man

Posted on May 13, 2014 | 10 comments

Miggs Burroughs is a Westport icon.

A Staples grad who returned here after college — and a trip to England during the Carnaby Street years that resulted in some fantastic Beatles-related adventures — he quickly became Westport’s pro bono/major macher/go-to graphic artist/birdhouse maker/flag creator/postage stamp designer/author/ inventor/painter/donor to every project, cause and fundraiser known to man or woman.

On Thursday, May 22, he becomes a tunnel rehabilitator too.

But before that — this Saturday (May 17, 4-6 p.m.) — Miggs will be honored for his many contributions to Westport. The site is a historic 1739 home, at 178 Cross Highway.

No, Miggs is not moving. Nor is he terminally ill. It’s just a chance for one organization he’s helped to say “thanks.”

Save Westport Now is doing the honors. But it could have been any one of dozens others.

Because all of us who live in Westport — whether we know him or not — have reason to honor Miggs Burroughs for all he has done, for all of us.

Plus, he has great hair.

Miggs Burroughs

Miggs Burroughs

The tribute to Miggs is free — and there will be cocktails and hors d’oeuvres — but reservations are required. For more information, or to snag a spot, call 203-226-5630.

10 Comments

Posted in Organizations, People, Staples HS

Tagged ,

Partying With The CWP

Posted on May 14, 2013 | 11 comments

Over 40 Westporters are planning Westport’s next party.

Before you get too excited, though: It’s a political party, not a kegger.

The group — including Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters — has filed papers in Hartford for official recognition. The name of the party is Coalition for Westport.

Michael Nayor

Michael Nayor

Former Planning and Zoning Commission member David Press, and former P&Z alternate and RTM member Michael Nayor, lead the process.

They believe that town government — particularly the P&Z — is “more focused on preservation than looking forward,” says Nayor, an attorney and Westport resident since 1977.

Though the coalition “values the past, and all the wonderful things about Westport, we can’t ignore enhancing and improving what we have,” he adds.

Despite several studies, and ongoing work by the Downtown 2020 committee, Nayor says “no one is taking the ball and running with it. The town has to be proactive, not just reactive, when something comes before the P&Z.”

Asked for specific examples of projects the CWP supports or opposes, such as an eldercare facility on Baron’s South, Nayor says, “We don’t have an agenda. We don’t have a stand yet.”

The entrance to the Baron's South property -- one of many Westport planning issues.

The Baron’s South property: one of many Westport planning issues.

Will the new party address issues beyond planning? What about budgets?

“Save Westport Now” — another Westport party — “focuses solely on planning and zoning,” Nayor counters. “We will focus on that too. But I think we have a more positive view of improving and enhancing the facilities here. I’m aware of what Save Westport Now opposes. I don’t really know what they favor.”

So what does the CWP favor?

“Give us time,” Nayor asks. “We’re a fledgling organization. Save Westport Now has been around for 30 years. Our primary focus is to support real public dialogue of issues, and make residents more aware of what’s going on.”

An aerial view of downtown Westport. It occupies a small section of town, but looms large in planning debates.

An aerial view of downtown Westport. It occupies a small section of town, but looms large in planning debates.

This fall, the party will run 1 or 2 candidates for the P&Z. If any one receives more than 1% of the vote, the CWP will be allowed to cross-endorse candidates in the next election.

“We’re very excited,” says Nayor. “We hope to be very influential. Town government can’t just react to applications that come in. It has to guide, through planning, where Westport will be 10, 20 years from now. No more kicking the can down the road.”

(For more information on the Coalition for Westport, click here.)

11 Comments

Posted in Local politics, Organizations, People

Tagged , , , , ,

An Open Letter, From New P&Z Members

Posted on November 9, 2011 | 6 comments

To The Citizens of Westport

As the newly elected members of the Planning and Zoning Board — Chip Stephens,  Cathy Walsh, Jack Whittle and Al Gratrix — we all want to thank you for your support, trust and faith in our campaign promise to you that we will do our very best to PRESERVE WESTPORT for you and generations to come.

We hope to deliver a more transparent and interactive board that will listen to you, the citizens of Westport, and your  concerns and suggestions.  We want your voices to be heard, and we will abide by the plans, rules and Town Plans that have served us so well in maintaining the charm and vision of Westport.

Thank you Save Westport Now for your endorsement.  Thank you Republican Town Committee for your endorsement.  Thank you to all who came out and voted, and thank you to all who are leaving their positions on the P and Z for your service and dedication.

We 4 will do our best to uphold our pledge to Preserve Westport.  We promise to listen and consider all proposals brought to us over the next 4 years, and to judge each application with an open mind and fair hand.

We will do our best to understand the wishes of those that elected us and will welcome any and all suggestions .   Please join us at the meetings live or on cable. Please keep us real and on track with your opinions via email or in person.

We will do our best to make your decision one you will never regret

Thank you from all 4:
Chip Stephens
Cathy Walsh
Jack Whittle
Al Gratrix

Ahead for the new P&Z: many decisions about Westport's future.

6 Comments

Posted in Local politics, People

Tagged , , , , ,