A Baker’s Dozen of Solutions/Problems Just for Fairfield
Nearly 20 years ago, Fairfield was named #1 in the Northeast and Top 10 overall by Money magazine places to live in America. However, due mostly to developers having their way on a state level, it is in danger of being the town that once had it all but blew it. That’s on my and your watch. It is dire, but it’s not too late.
I firmly feel that a unique opportunity exists right now for Fairfield to control its own destiny. We can reestablish ourselves as a leader in the state – a model for 168 other towns to look toward. This is not easy, as our adversaries are stronger than ever. But we can call baloney on external forces seeking to define us and shape our future. We should be a town that stands on the shoulders of those who came before us and listens to their advice, while doing our own plans and maps. A community that sheds opacity and answers the governor’s call for solutions in the environment, affordable homes, energy, and more.
This plan and its companion 1960 plan are town treasures
There are two things, most importantly. a narrative outline of a Plan. This is the good stuff. This incorporates the convos, input and thinking from friends and neighbors, town leaders, elected officials, board members, long-time and lifetime residents, and countless others who love Fairfield as much as I do. It’s meant to pull us together, start the dialogue and re-embrace and save the natural splendor we are blessed with by sheer luck.
Then, below is a Baker’s Dozen areas of improvement. Beyond our town lines, I’ve written on this at the-voice.com, like how the state abuses the goose that lays the golden eggs (Fairfield County). corruption, creating an energy plan, retaining our water rights, and more. It’s vital that the narrative stay on the positive as much as possible; our reputation has taken enough hits. So here is a Baker’s Dozen of areas we can work on for our mutual benefit, in no order of priority:
-
Over the past 25 years, the state of CT has acted illegally to pursue its goals, which is to build. And the environment and nature get in the way. In Fairfield alone, the state – what the French call l’état – has compelled the town to eliminate the town planner and assistant town planner; the director of conservation and binned his lifetime of great work for the town; the entire Department of Ecology department, as they called it then, and more. We must re-establish Town Services, with independence (important). They do not work for the town, they are independent and work for the people of the town.
-
There is little internal accountability as we are a two-legged stool. Fairfield has a legislative branch (RTM) and executive office (First Selectman) but no judicial arm, no court of public opinion, and unacceptably low levels of governance or oversight. Each of the many departments operates like a fiefdom, with nobody caring or daring enough to say anything beyond their desk. This willful ignorance/benign neglect extends everywhere. We need full transparency, in every department. Times have changed but the system hasn’t. Fairfield would regain trust by putting everything online for full disclosure. Many progressive towns have done this and as you can imagine, it stops sketchy behavior before it starts, if the bad actors know it will all be online. This includes following the money, which will raise alarms. But it restores City Hall to what it is supposed to be – town services. And by serving their constituency – us – those in those roles will ultimately gain satisfaction, beyond a guaranteed lifetime gig or fat pension. In ancient Rome, service to the state was the most-noble calling. And most importantly for some, by cleaning up our act by being honest and transparent about everything – as is our right – may surface significant financial benefits, as well.
-
There is an issue with the hiring process for the new Director of Planning and Zoning role. Legally and for best practices, it should be posted and candidates interviewed. The role is too important for a social promotion from within, for this and all members of the rebuilt Town Services team. This is especially true as we have not had professional, independent planning in over 35 years. Our last great plan that we wrote ourselves was 1976. It is timeless and we can total build on it, but there’s a ton of work to be done on the POCD in many areas.
-
We have a right to emails, texts, projects, etc. from departing personnel. There is simply too much institutional knowledge at risk of being lost. This is not a hard job – an IT storage professional can gather the files; plus much has to be scanned in. This includes a search & recovery for files from Thomas Steinke, who is the greatest gladiator for the environment this town has ever known, before he was shown the door, at the insistence of developers. There is a wealth of information on many areas of Fairfield covering virtually everything that is at our fingertips but at risk of being lost forever, because I don’t think many people beyond me are aware.
-
The state acted in its own interests in burying the town plans written by our village elders and replacing them with vendor-written plans in 2000, 2016 and 2024. The are literally 180° opposite protecting the fair fields of Fairfield. The current POCD is weak and only has value as an appendix. It’s not really the vendor’s fault. They produced exactly what the big money commanded. But reporting to builders is not what’s good for Fairfield. It has made-up charts, and fake neighborhoods (Commerce), a lack of understanding of what is Fairfield (or desire to care) and is entirely slanted for builders to the point of dystopia. There is a continual push to define Fairfield as a city, which it’s not; it’s a large town with many neighborhoods. There is higher density, more stories, made-up reasons to build, etc. This is witnessed by its executive summary, where 8 of the 10 items are about construction.
We can develop a Plan worthy of Fairfield that protects our natural beauty, which is what our previous leaders told us to do. -
Fairfield has a right and good fortune to return to the authentic plans and maps that were written internally. They stress conservation, the outdoors and warn of builders. The foresight, writing, insights, pictures and maps are excellent and authoritative. Each gives you a feeling of the era. A small platoon of outstanding Fairfield librarians and I found the five missing volumes deep in the Fairfield history museum shelves. What they have in common in is stressing, at times, imploring, to protect the outdoors. I think this should be required reading for everyone. The volumes are:
The seminal work upon which all others stand
1947 Pilot Study, the seminal work, reflecting the vision of a post-War country
1948 Town Plan, built upon the pilot study, the way it’s supposed to be
1960 Comprehensive Study, perhaps the most poetic
1976 Master Plan, with an irreplaceable trove of photos, maps and analysis
1979 Master Plan, issued just 3 years later. Why? -
For independence and to remove the pressure from outside interests, all contacts should first go to the re-established team in Town Services (customer happiness reps, planners, conservation directors, water & energy liaisons, etc.). Everyone (employees, boards, etc.) should have a distant relationship with developers to greatly reduce access to our people. Town Services, which did exist in Fairfield but was eliminated, will have a concierge-type, customer-first approach. This independent team does not work for the town and is there solely to service its constituents. It has no official org chart capacity, but everyone willingly cooperates fully for whatever is needed. It is like an octopus, the first point of contact for everything, including development projects. Fairfield would greatly benefit from getting with the times and having a system where an application is submitted (via app), a rep from Town Services works with the applicant to assemble needed materials, and only then does it proceed. Everything should be mobile, secure and efficient. It will save everyone time, open it up to true public input (and implicit approval), remove pressure, increase quality, remove risks, and standardize & streamline workflow.
-
Similarly, we need a better process. In just Planning & Zoning, the TPZ commission and TPZ board of appeals are subjected to ruling on often-complicated plans on the spot. Sometimes fat files are uploaded for their consumption hours before a meeting. This puts them under unnecessary pressure and reliant on presentations that can have fog sculpture or simply lies. The TPZ’s commission final vote should be only after they have had plenty of time to review files well in advance, tracking it through the process, seeing the public convos and debates. There is now pressure to restrict community input, which is the exact opposite of what Fairfield needs.
-
We should greatly expand our Boards, like the TPZ commission, to include representation from all Fairfield’s neighborhoods. The way it is now, with a small board, a third-party just has to convince a handful of people to maintain power. And you can look at anyone’s track record to see the consistency in their voting. Also include term limits. Again, there is now a push to limit even more public input, and the voices that do get to speak are not heard. We want the opposite: to exponentially increase involvement and the authority of all the neighborhoods.
-
Institute a second-chance program, where all violators of the law, from minor offences to major felonies, including white-collar criminals, no matter how wealthy they may be, must go through a confidential program emphasizing ethics and the way Fairfield does things.
-
No dark money LLCs: All businesses must disclose the officers and financing sources (banks), and insurance.
-
The end of the practice of submitting zoning changes to accommodate projects with ease. It’s a waste of time and manipulative to give private sector interests the ability to submit changes at will, on speculative plans, no less, meaning they apply for zoning changes before they’ve formally submitted a project. And other crazytown stuff.
-
Strong emphasis on owning, not renting. This is the DNA of Fairfield, in the 1850s, when it was really West Bridgeport – a place where you could own your home and live in the “country” instead of in an apartment near the mills and factories where you worked in CT’s largest city. On this instance alone, Fairfield can tell developers that will not support the lower quality of life that renters have. It’s against the health and safety of the residents, which is the town’s first priority to ensure. The American Dream is built on home ownership. This will help deflate the specious argument of “housing”. A house is not a home unless you own it.
