To All Ridgefielders --
Since December 1997 I have served on the Site Selection Committee, the Board of Selectmen and the School Construction Committee, attending more meetings than I care to remember. I have read the reports and walked the hills. In my mind, there is no doubt that the Route 35 location is an excellent location and it offers a better value to the town than any other reasonable option.
If the site is so good, then who is responsible for the defeat of this referendum? In all honesty, I am, as well as Mr. Morelli, Mrs. Bunyan, and all the members of the Boards of Selectmen, Education and Finance who assumed the approval of this logical next step was a foregone conclusion. It was incumbent upon us to present the facts clearly and energetically, and we failed in that essential task. But it is our duty to the town to ensure we don't make that mistake again.
This essay is my contribution to the debate. I hope to answer some of the most common questions and misperceptions about the new school, and I would like to address specific worries from the authors of many letters to the Press.
Question 1: Is the Rt. 35 location the best location?
Richard Stearns
claims an updated and modernized Notre Dame school on West Mountain Road
would hold 400 students and meet the town's requirements. Ellen Burns
suggests the town acquire the IBM Property (by eminent domain, if
required). Prospect Ridge and other locations also have been suggested.
Answer 1: As a member of Site Selection Committee, all of these proposals, and many other, are suboptimal. The Site Selection Committee reviewed 120 different parcels of land; none worked as well as the Rt. 35 location. For example, the Notre Dame school is an old facility on a very high hill. It would be difficult and expensive to upgrade the site to modern State requirements, and the result would be a small school with fewer facilities than the other elementary schools.
The IBM property is a large and spectacular remnant of the forest primeval. But it is in the wrong place for a school serving the whole town. Terri O'Connell suggested the IBM property is a red herring generated by the efforts of a "well organized group" that is opposed to any school spending; I suspect that is correct.
Question 2: In a charming and honest letter, John Sheehan and his wife shared some heated discussions about the new school. Many households in town probably endured similar debates. Will the school fit? Where will the fields be? Where will teachers park and busses turn? These are great questions.
Answer 2: As currently envisioned, everything will fit. The site is 58 acres, which includes roughly 34 acres of water and wetlands and 24 acres of firm soil. For the most part, the site offers excellent building conditions. Tests borings describe the area as having several feet of organic soils, followed by fine silty material, then glacial deposits, and then bedrock no more than 20 feet below ground level. So far, so good.
Wetlands constraints and flood plain requirements reduce the 24 acres to approximately twelve buildable acres. Within those twelve acres local zoning regulations further shrink the site to about 8.5 acres of hard surfaces (buildings, parking lots and roads). The proposed new school, a future elementary school, a fire house, plus all the driveways and parking lots total about 6 acres. All of the buildings and roads fit.
What do not fit entirely are four acres of playing fields to the north of the school. Current plans show these would partially encroach on wetlands. (Some of the access roads might encroach on wetlands, depending on the final configuration.) Any impact on wetlands requires a review of the Ridgefield Wetlands Commission, and larger changes require reviews by the State and perhaps even by the Army Corps of Engineers. There is a risk that one of these regulators might completely stop the project. But all of these bodies require specific and detailed proposals. and nothing can happen until the blueprints are developed to the level of detail those regulators require. The failure of the funding resolution means that we cannot develop those answers.
Question 3: A number of writers asked about the availability of public water, given the water company's current moratorium on large new water customers.
Answer 3: Yes, there will be sufficient supply of public water for the school. Contrary to earlier reports the moratorium has nothing to do with minimizing development; the town simply does not have enough water from current sources to meet current uncontrolled demand. Quick and easy additions to our water supply have been eliminated because of recent Federal regulations which tightened the requirements on public water supplies (large portion of Ridgefield's water comes from a pond which does not meet these new Federal requirements). Therefore, Bridgeport Hydraulic will install a new pipeline from Georgetown up the old railroad bed and connect to the Ridgefield system. Under a consent decree, the State is requiring the BHC finish this work before the end of 1999. Even if this project is delayed by a few months, the combined State and Federal pressures on BHC will insure that it is completed long before the new school might need it.
Question 4: James McCulloh spoke for many Ridgefielders when he asked serious questions about the traffic on Route 35.
Answer 4: The preliminary traffic study for the Rt. 35 shows Rt. 35 handling about 800 cars per hour at the busiest hour of the day. The new school would add about 290 vehicle trips to that volume. Clearly Rt. 35 will need to be improved to respond to the increase in traffic.
What causes the delays on Rt. 35? Fundamentally, the delays are caused by the poorly designed intersection of Rt. 35 and Farmingville Road, and are compounded by the entrance into Copps Hill Plaza. Here are the likely changes the State will make to smooth the traffic flow: add a new traffic light at the school, then add turning lane into the school. Add a left-hand turning lane and signals from Rt. 35 onto Fairview Ave., and synchronize the three traffic lights. This will greatly improve the traffic flow and minimize delays.
In my opinion, there simply is no need for expensive bridges through the cemeteries and over the wetlands when simple road improvements will do the job.
And here's the big secret the school opponents have not mentioned: Rt. 35 was already slated for upgrades and improvements by the State. Indeed, the First Selectman asked the State DOT to delay those changes until the school plans were finished so the new requirements could be incorporated into their plans. All of these changes will be funded by the State.
Question 5: Can a school near Rt. 35 be made safe for the children?
Answer 5: Yes it is, but we have to be smart about it. Dr. Wallace, in a recent interview, noted that he has seen many schools on busy roads, some even on highways. I personally have seen great schools in New York City built on roads with eight lanes of traffic. Traffic and children are not inimicable; the systems simply have to be engineered to accommodate them. Answers might include fencing, special speed limits, sidewalks along Rt. 35 and walk lights across to Copps Hill and the condominiums. No rocket science here, just simple planning.
Question 6: Are there environmental issues on the site? Edith Gleason hypothesized the site might harm the wetlands which feed the Norwalk River watershed. In a charming historical essay, Tom Venus noted the site may have too much water for development.
Answer 6: As a dedicated environmentalist, I am confident that this site can be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner. For example, none of the proposed buildings will directly impact the wetlands, and the proposed access roads will generally cross filled land. Lower lands will be used for merely for playing fields and extra park spaces will be provided with porous non-paved surfaces which will be plowed in the winter (not gravel, as some snipers have suggested). There will be room on the site for nature walks and environmental studies, and at least 30 acres of land, water and wetlands will remain completely untouched. There will be no wells drilled and no septic systems installed. In short, a more environmentally benign design is hard to imagine.
Nonetheless, all of these plans will require detailed submissions to the local zoning board, the local wetlands board, and probably to the State and Federal wetlands protection agencies, but good planning should be able to produce designs they will find suitable.
Question 7: Is there pollution on the site? The environmental study seems contradictory.
Answer 7: In this century, the Rt. 35 site has been a quarry, farmland and a nursery. In June 1998 the ALTA Corp. issued a "Phase 1" Environmental Study on the Route 35 property. The study found no evidence on the site which would suggest environmental problems such as industrial chemicals or hidden toxic waste on the site.
There are environmental problems on land surrounding the site, specifically on the Pamby property and Copps Hill Plaza. There also are several underground storage tanks which have leaked and then been "remediated" (Village Pontiac, Young's Hardware, and a couple of the gas stations in town) The report also cited the town's salt pile as a source of possible contamination, and even the well-documented pollution on the old Perkin-Elmer site 1.5 miles away. Because it is theoretically possible that those locations could cause "non-permanent degradation of water quality" the stream on the property is classified as a "C/B" resource -- it is not fishable nor swimmable, but neither is it a threat to public health.
In my day job, I work with these reports frequently. In my opinion there is nothing in this report which set off any alarm bells nor suggested the site would be unsuitable for a school.
Question 8: What will the new school cost?
Answer 8: That is the $610,000 question! The purpose of this referendum was to approve funding to develop detailed plans for the new school. The funding would have paid for advanced wetlands studies, computerized mapping work, aerial surveys and some preliminary roadwork. Once that data was collected, the funding would have produced detailed architectural plans, followed by weeks and weeks of tabulations by the construction manager to estimate the most likely construction costs. Then we would have another referendum to approve the total costs of constructing the new school. Now, all of those issues will lie fallow until some decision is made.
In summary, [Democratic Board of Education member] Bob Opotzner is right: while the Rt. 35 location is not ideal, "no location is perfect." Rt. 35 meets most of the town's requirements and has fewer and more manageable problems than any other site in town.
There is a sad note in all of this debate, and I think Charley Barr hit it most accurately when he found some opponents to the referendum really have a goal of derailing the large school project altogether. For example, James Wainger fulminated on the "arrogance and incompetence" of the town government. To these individuals, many whom will vote against any public spending on any issue, I urge them to come to the meetings, to review the maps with us, to read the reports and to walk the lands. I am sure that reasonable people with open minds will find the Rt. 35 proposal a modest and suitable plan.
So people are collecting signatures for a petition for another referendum. The public is invited to walk the property on Sept. 19th -- I'll be there, maps in hand, to talk to anyone who would like to see the lay of the land. In addition, the Board of Selectmen have set aside their meeting on Sept. 23rd for a total review of the efforts of the School Construction Committee; the public is invited to attend and ask questions.
Lastly, I invite every voter to pick up the phone and talk to us about your questions. My home phone number is 438-0005; I've told my wife to expect your calls. All the other selectmen and board members are in the phone book. We need great schools, which means we need this new school, and the Rt. 35 location will work for all of us.
-- Mike Jones
GO TO
Campaign News
Brought to you by the Ridgefield, Ct.
Democratic Town Committee, Rudy Marconi, Chairman
Paid for by The Ridgefield Democratic Town Committee, Mary Gelfman, Treasurer
This site hosted by
Web-Connect of Ridgefield
