PUBLIC OPINION

The Planning and Zoning Commission begins hearings to decide whether Westport will experience greater sprawl or responsible growth. Either these commissioners will allow the Westport Weston Family Y to abandon downtown and relocate their commercial-scale facility to a residential neighborhood, or they will practice a little "tough love" by denying their application and set this venerable organization on a course to work with local leaders in finding a solution that fits with contemporary planning theory and the community's best interests.

The Y has launched a well-financed public relations campaign based on the mantra that they have nowhere else to go - and, if Westport doesn't approve their plans, they will go out of business.

The selling of their downtown property, for which no contract has been made public, has been said to be executed to generate building funds, but one may ask was it also done to leverage approvals from town boards and generate empathy from residents?

The Y has said they've investigated over 30 locations - none of which would work for them. Of course, it was the Y which set the parameters for what they insist their members require. But the immense 102,000 sq. ft. facility begs the questions: "Is all this necessary?" "Isn't there room for some compromise?" Their desire to have the biggest and best of everything, including a 50 meter pool, is the reason why no other site works for them.

However, there is, and has always been, another legitimate solution. The answer is a "mixed use" initiative on Baron's South. Sure, this was turned down before, but the times, circumstances and public awareness have changed. While First Selectman Joseloff has his own plans for this property, through proper planning we can achieve both his overall goal and a new Y. Here are the land exchange specifics and benefits:

1. The Y can fit on Baron's South -- even with its currently-proposed large footprint -- as the Weston & Sampson Study engineer confirmed.

2. A Y at Baron's could be accessed from several directions (Compo, Imperial, Post Rd.), easing traffic congestion concerns.

3. This facility could work in harmony with the Senior Center, which has been so successful that it already is slated for expansion -- with a request for a pool of its own, that would not be needed or funded by taxpayers.

4. Senior housing units could still be built on the southern part of the property, with the benefit of offering the residents walking access to both the Y and the Senior Center.

5. Affordable housing that Mr. Joseloff has sought could be constructed on the Imperial Avenue lot, also as suggested in the Weston & Sampson Study.

6. Workforce housing could be built on the five Sunny Lane properties, giving our town employees an opportunity for a real residential experience in Westport, while keeping that neighborhood from becoming a paved parking lot.

7. The Mahackeno property could be preserved as precious open space, with public access for ten months of the year (the Y running the camp during the summer).

8. The issue of septic versus sewer would be moot - the Y's savings from not having to build a septic system could be used to redesign their facility to work at the Baron's South location.

9. Public sentiment, now bitterly divided, would unite strongly behind this downtown solution, aiding the Y's lagging fund-raising efforts.

10. Instead of both Baron's and Mahackeno being developed we can save one, to the benefit of all.

The Y, as one of Westport's most important core service facilities, needs to remain centrally located both physically and spiritually.

We hold our hands out to the Y Directors and Trustees and ask them to join us in accomplishing something that will truly benefit their membership and Westport. We call on our Planning and Zoning Commissioners to lead our town on a path to responsible growth.

We urge all residents to come to the Planning and Zoning hearings and speak up, tell our commissioners that there is an alternative to Mahackeno -- and it's right downtown.

Diane Cady RTM District 1
Matthew Mandell RTM District 1
Judy Starr RTM District 1
Michael Guthman RTM District 2
Sean Timmins RTM District 2
Amy Ancel RTM District 3
Robert Galan RTM District 3
Catherine Talmadge RTM District 6
Jonathan Steinberg RTM District 8
Kevin Green RTM District 9