Tag Archives: Valerie Seiling Jacobs

[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 , , ,

Julian NoiseCat’s StoryFest Launch: The Westport Connection

Posted on October 11, 2025 | 2 comments

StoryFest — The Westport Library’s annual literary festival — kicks off its 8th year on Monday.

That’s also Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

There is a Westport tie-in.

Actually, several.

At 7 p.m. Monday (October 13), Julian Brave NoiseCat launches his new memoir, “We Survived the Night.” He’ll join Ramin Ganeshram, executive director of the Westport Museum for History & Culture, for a keynote conversation.

The book’s official release is the next day.

Julian Brave NoiseCat

StoryFest — the largest literary festival in Connecticut — draws scores of authors and hundreds of readers, writers and fans each year. With an interdisciplinary career, NoiseCat’s work aligns with the mission: a celebration of storytelling in all forms, across all types of media.

His writing has appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post and The New Yorker. In 2021 he was named to Time Magazine’s “100 Next List of Emerging Leaders.”

NoiseCat’s film “Sugarcane” was nominated for an Academy Award. It follows an investigation into abuse and missing children at the Indian residential school NoiseCat’s family was sent to in British Columbia.

The writer/filmmaker will be introduced Monday by Valerie Seiling Jacobs. It promises to be more than a cursory recitation of his bio.

Valerie Seiling Jacobs

In 2012, Jacobs — a longtime Westporter and corporate lawyer for over 2 decades, who had pivoted to a second career teaching writing at Columbia University — met NoiseCat in her small “University Writing” class.

It was a demanding, intensive course. The first-year student immediately stood out.

“He was so focused on improving his writing,” she recalls.

The topics he chose — social justice, climate change, Native Americans — were important to him. But he wove them into larger stories, Jacobs says.

That’s what his current writing does too, she says. “It’s personal and investigative, while serving a larger purpose.”

For the next 3 years, Jacobs read his work in the Columbia newspaper. A few years later, she saw an article on Native American rights in The Guardian.

“It was fascinating. Then I noticed his byline,” she says. She reconnected with her former student.

His writing showed up often in her news feeds. She saw “Sugarcane” in New York. She was proud — but not surprised — when it won awards, including Sundance Film Festival and Critics’ Choice.

They corresponded occasionally. When she learned he’d be at StoryFest, she told him she lived in Westport. They arranged for Jacobs to introduce him.

NoiseCat’s new book has received plenty of advance praise. Rebecca Solnit called it “a beautiful, wrenching, important masterpiece, both a memoir and something that reaches far beyond the personal.”

Oprah Daily named it one of the best books of this fall.

More than a dozen years after Julian Brave NoiseCat took Valerie Seiling Jacobs’ intensive writing course, she is not at all surprised.

StoryFest runs from October 13 to 20. It opens with NoiseCat’s book launch, and ends with a 10th anniversary celebration of Shonda Rhimes’memoir “Year of Yes.” Tickets for the NoiseCat event are $30, and include a copy of the memoir. The price is the same for 1 or 2 seats, and 1 book, A signing follows the talk. Click here for full details of StoryFest ’25,

2 Comments

Posted in Education, Library

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 , , , , ,

[OPINION] The Air We Breathe

Posted on June 8, 2023 | 28 comments

Valerie Seiling Jacobs is an attorney and long-time resident of Westport. A former co-chair of Save Westport Now, she currently teaches writing at Columbia University. She recently helped lead the campaign to regulate gas-powered leaf blowers in Westport.

Valerie writes:

In the past week, ozone and fine particulate levels in Westport have repeatedly exceeded the maximum thresholds set by the EPA — in some cases by more than 3 times the recommended level.

This recent bout of pollution is the result of fires in Canada. But it doesn’t change the fact that Westport — indeed, all of Fairfield County — already had a serious air quality problem.

According to a 2022 report issued by the American Lung Association, Fairfield County is one of the most polluted counties in the nation.

Smoke from Canadian wildfires blanketed Westport yesterday. (Drone photo/Charlie Scott)

The entire state has a problem. In 2021, there were 21 days where the ozone levels in the state exceeded the healthy level. In 2022, the number jumped to 23.

You might dismiss those numbers as not relevant to our town. But on many of those days, Westport either had the highest levels in the state or tied for first place.

At the rate we’re going, we are almost certain to beat last year’s record.

Both ozone and particle pollution are extremely hazardous to our health. The Lung Association in Connecticut says both “can cause premature death and other serious health effects such as asthma attacks, cardiovascular damage, and developmental and reproductive harm. Particle pollution can also cause lung cancer.”

Officials warn people — especially the elderly, children, pregnant women and those with asthma — to restrict outdoor activities on days when the air quality is bad.

Children are among those warned to restrict activities when the air quality is poor. (Photo/Dave Briggs)

Yesterday, the town finally issued its own warning. But the town doesn’t tell people that the DEEP and other environmental organizations have a long list of other recommendations for such days, including driving less, postponing running energy-demanding appliances, delaying refueling your car, avoiding aerosols, turning up the air conditioner thermostat, avoiding the use of gas-powered gardening equipment, and more.

It’s time for the town to up its game when it comes to the environment.

First, the town needs to help to educate residents about the steps they can take to improve air quality. While it’s true that we cannot avoid the fallout from massive fires or from power plants, we as individuals can take small incremental steps that can have a big collective impact.

Second, the town needs to phase out its own use of gas-powered gardening equipment. At the very least, the town and its vendors should refrain from using gas-powered gardening equipment on days when our ozone or PM2.5 levels exceed, or are projected to exceed, the EPA thresholds.

Other towns have stepped in to protect their citizens. It’s time for Westport to do the same.

(“06880” is your hyper-local blog — and a non-profit. Please click here to help support our work. Thank you!)

28 Comments

Posted in Environment, Local politics

Tagged ,

“Conflict Of Interest” Charge Roils Baron’s South Debate

Posted on April 25, 2015 | 64 comments

As the RTM prepares to vote this Tuesday (April 28, 7 p.m., Town Hall auditorium) on whether to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision to designate the Baron’s South property as protected open space, legislators have another issue to contend with.

Westport resident Valerie Seiling Jacobs sent this “open letter” to all RTM members:

As many of you know, I have been opposed to the proposed senior housing project on Baron’s South for many years. My view has long been that the deal proposed by The Jonathan Rose Companies was unfair to taxpayers since the town will get too little in return for donating such a valuable asset. And it has always puzzled me that Ken Bernhard, who co-chaired the Baron’s South Committee and is one of the project’s prime cheerleaders, seemed so determined to push ahead with the project—even in the face of growing evidence that the project was seriously flawed and could not meet the town’s needs.

I learned today [Friday] that Mr. Bernhard has multiple conflicts of interest that were never disclosed. First, Cohen & Wolf, the law firm in which he is a principal, is counsel to the Jewish Home of Fairfield, which stands to gain a lucrative contract for services if the Rose project goes forward. In fact, in a bulletin last summer, the President of JHF touted how great the business would be for the JHF. Second, Martin F. Wolf, another senior attorney at Mr. Bernhard’s law firm, sits on the Board of Directors of the JHF.

Mr. Bernhard’s failure to disclose these connections and conflicts is especially egregious given the sensitivity of this issue and Mr. Bernhard’s past behavior. At a Board of Finance meeting in October 2012, a number of members of the public complained that the RFP process appeared to have been rigged in favor of The Rose Companies—a suggestion to which Mr. Bernhard took extreme umbrage, demanding an apology. Nevertheless, in response to concerns about conflicts of interest, the members of the Baron’s South Committee were specifically asked to stand and state whether they had any financial interest in the Rose Companies. Mr. Bernhard did not stand. His failure to reveal his firm’s interest in this project may have been technically correct — since the financial interest was in another entity — but it was still materially misleading. As an attorney and a former elected official, Mr. Bernhard should know better.

A path in Baron's South. (Photo/Judy James)

A path in Baron’s South. (Photo/Judy James)

For Mr. Bernhard to have served on the Baron’s South Committee without disclosing these connections, which fatally compromised his ability to objectively evaluate the responses to the town’s RFP, violate fundamental principles of justice and fairness. This is the equivalent of a judge owning stock in a corporation that appears in a contested matter in the judge’s court. And I note that this is not the first time that Mr. Bernhard’s ethics have been called into question. In 2010, he was forced to pay a $3,500 penalty after his improper campaign contributions were discovered.

All of these facts bolster the conclusion that the Rose Companies’ proposal is a bad deal for Westport and its taxpayers. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision to designate Baron’s South as open space was the right thing to do. I hope that you will decide NOT to overturn that decision.

Thank you.

——————————————————————–

I asked Ken Bernhard for his side of the issue. He said:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Ms. Jacobs’ letter to the RTM. It distresses me that the discussion about a project designed to address the needs of hundreds of Westport seniors who require affordable housing options has devolved into the kind of ugly debate endemic in Washington — specifically, don’t discuss the issues; unleash a personal attack on your opponent.

Curiously, Ms. Jacobs appears to be guilty of the very offense that she charges me with, i.e. an undisclosed bias.  She does not divulge in her letter that she is the co-chair of a political party, Save Westport Now, whose agenda appears to oppose development in town regardless of its merits. Apparently, the unanimous consensus of the RTM sub-committee to overturn the vote of her party’s candidates has given rise to her invective.

I have lived in Westport for more than 40 years and for most of that time, I have been actively engaged in the community’s affairs. I have given of my time by holding positions on the ZBA and the Board of Selectmen. In addition to serving as town counsel for 3 administrations, I have represented Westport in Hartford. Throughout this time I did, and still do, provide free legal services to many of the non-profit organizations in town. I sit on multiple boards providing my time and energy helping our friends and neighbors. It’s all been a labor of love.

The risk, of course, in being so active is that occasionally there are instances where the roles may overlap. These instances are part of life in a small town and are not considered conflicts in the forums in which these things are adjudicated. A community cannot function without this reality of professional and personal overlap of its citizens’ talents and interests.

Early springtime at Baron's South. (Photo/Judy James)

Early springtime at Baron’s South. (Photo/Judy James)

Five years ago, I was asked by First Selectman Joseloff to give more of my time to Westport by sitting on the Baron’s South Committee. The 8-person committee was made up of volunteers serving in a private capacity. None of us had, nor did we ever have, any decision-making authority.

Since that time, I have donated at least 300 hours serving on this committee, a large portion of which was spent long before there was a proposal to do anything. When a concept for providing affordable housing for seniors was ultimately advanced, the town sent out a request for a proposal. Our committee of volunteers reviewed the proposals and made a unanimous recommendation to accept the proposal submitted by Jonathan Rose. The decision to work with Jonathan Rose was made by elected officials.

The substance of Ms. Jacobs’ letter is that she claims I have a conflict of interest in serving on the Baron’s South Committee because she has learned that one of the 50 lawyers at my law firm does work on totally unrelated matters for Jewish Senior Services, an organization that has joined with Jonathan Rose to provide services if and when the project is approved and built at some time in the very distant future. (Ms. Jacobs is incorrect when she asserts that Attorney Martin F. Wolf is a senior attorney at Cohen and Wolf in that he is “of counsel,” retired from active practice years ago, and has no financial interest in it).

Ms. Jacobs would argue that I should have conducted a conflicts check with my law firm. This would have been appropriate had I been serving as legal counsel or in any other professional role — but I was not. I was acting as a private citizen in a private capacity doing volunteer work for my community. Ms. Jacobs can spin the facts and connect the dots any way she pleases, but there is no legitimate substance to her point.  Her criticism is inflammatory and its purpose is more about advancing the political agenda of Save Westport Now than anything else.

We have an important issue confronting our community, i.e. whether to preclude the use of Baron’s South for any municipal purpose, even the expansion of the senior center, or to leave open the discussion on how best to use this valuable town asset for affordable housing or otherwise. Reasonable people can disagree, and Westport deserves a respectful exchange on this issue.

——————————————————————-

In a related development, RTM moderator Eileen Lavigne Flug will recuse herself from leading Tuesday’s discussion. She is of counsel to Cohen and Wolf. In a comment on a previous “06880” story, Flug wrote:

While Cohen and Wolf does not represent Jonathan Rose Companies, it has come to my attention that Cohen and Wolf represents the nonprofit Jewish Home for the Elderly of Fairfield County, Inc. on certain matters, although not on the proposal for senior housing at Baron’s South. While I myself have no connection with the Jewish Home for the Elderly of Fairfield County, Inc., and while I believe the connection to be attenuated since the matter before us is a zoning issue and not directly related to the proposed senior housing project, in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict and any concerns about the RTM’s process and deliberations, our deputy moderator Velma Heller will be running the meeting.

Baron's South, with the baron's Golden Shadows house in the distance.

Baron’s South, with the baron’s Golden Shadows house in the distance.

64 Comments

Posted in Downtown, Environment, Local politics, People, Real estate

Tagged , , , , , ,

Valerie Seiling Jacobs On Senior Housing: Say “No” To Text Amendment

Posted on September 17, 2014 | 33 comments

Valerie Seiling Jacobs read Bart Shuldman’s letter advocating a “yes” vote on the Baron’s South senior housing text amendment. She takes the opposite view:

In 2011, after careful deliberation, P&Z adopted regulations to allow the construction of senior housing on Baron’s South and twelve other town-owned sites so long as 60% of the units meet the state test for “affordable.” Now, P&Z is being pressured to loosen those regulations, including reducing the required percentage of affordable units from 60% to 20%. Indeed, some people are claiming that without these changes, Westport will never get senior housing.

This is simply not true and P&Z should not give in to this pressure. First, these regulations pertain only to town property. Developers will still be free to construct senior housing on privately owned property.

Second, reducing that percentage runs afoul of the very rationale that P&Z originally used to justify the use of town-owned land for this purpose. As P&Z previously recognized, if the Town is going to donate an asset for this purpose—as opposed to putting the asset to its highest and best use, which P&Z recognized was NOT senior housing—then the town still needed to receive something valuable in return.

Under the existing regulations, that value consists of: (1) senior housing for a tenant population that is predominantly needy and which might not otherwise have housing options; and (2) credits toward a moratorium against some of the more onerous provisions of §8-30g, a state statute that applies to towns (like Westport) that fail to meet a threshold level of affordable housing.

The proponents of this amendment have tried to justify this switch from 60% to 20% on the ground that an additional 20% of the units will be restricted to “moderate-income” tenants.

But that argument is misleading. If adopted, this Amendment will likely result in a tenant population that is overwhelmingly well-to-do.

Part of the Baron's South land.

Part of the Baron’s South land.

The income test for those so-called “moderate” units is so high (just under $113,000 for a one-bedroom) that wealthy people will still qualify. A person could have $4.5 million in the bank and be collecting maximum Social Security and still meet the income test. Why should the town donate a valuable asset for the benefit of people with those kinds of means—folks who can afford to live anywhere? It’s one thing for Westport to subsidize a project for the genuinely needy, but a whole other thing to subsidize this population.

Moreover, these so-called moderate-income units will not satisfy the requirements of §8-30g, which means that they won’t gain the town any points when it comes to the moratorium. Basically, the town is getting very little in return for giving up a valuable asset (not to mention open space).

To make matters worse, this amendment proposes to exclude all of the units, including the market-rate units, from the existing town-wide cap on multi-family units. (Currently, no more than 10% of Town’s housing units can be part of multi-family projects.)

But there is no principled reason to allow that kind of increased density. With thirteen potential sites in play, we could easily find our fire, police, ambulance, and other town services seriously overtaxed.

This proposed amendment is being driven solely by a developer’s financial demands—and those demands cannot be reconciled with the core rationale of P&Z’s previous decision, nor can they be reconciled with our existing zoning regulations or the Town Plan of Conservation and Development, which place a premium on open space.

I recognize that P&Z is in a difficult spot. Some seniors are truly desperate for this kind of housing. And I understand that some people are saying that the 60% requirement is not workable.

They may be right—but the answer is not to roll over and settle for nothing more than what is already required. Developers are already required to dedicate 20% of any multi-family project to affordable housing (or to make a payment in lieu).

And, by the way, the promise that we will reap the benefit of property taxes is also only what taxpayers are already due. Of course these developers should pay real estate taxes—after all, they are not paying rent.

The answer is to go back to the drawing board to see what other types of concessions the town can negotiate in exchange for providing this kind of subsidy.

Let’s hope that P&Z has the courage to stand up for all of Westport and to do what is right for everyone. Settling for 20% is simply not good enough.

33 Comments

Posted in Downtown, Local politics

Tagged ,