Wetlands Agency To Discuss FedEx Proposal Wed Night

Reminder: FedEx's proposal to build a facility on the former Aetna property in Westfield is on the agenda for tonight's Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency meeting. The meeting is scheduled for 7pm in the city council chambers.

An 'open public forum' is also part of the meeting. A previous community meeting with the Westfield Residents Association was cancelled by FedEx. The public will be able to comment during the P&Z process as well, assuming the project progresses that far.

A Soaring Sight on Higby Rd.

Yesterday afternoon at about 5pm, I was driving south on Higby Rd. from Country Club toward 66. As I approached the stop sign at the Sisk St. intersection, I noticed a very large bird flying northeast from the Higby Mountain area. As it crossed overhead at just over tree height, I was able to see that it was a Bald Eagle. He (or she) was just stunning, and it was a real treat to see!

I think of eagles being near the river normally, and so I'm not sure where this one was off to, but the unusual low height to the ground for transit seemed to suggest someplace very local. Here's some interesting facts about Bald Eagles in CT from the DEP website:

The bald eagle was no longer a nesting species (extirpated) in Connecticut by the 1950s. When Connecticut's first official Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species List was passed in 1992, the bald eagle was classified as an endangered species. That same year, the state documented its first successful nesting of bald eagles since the 1950s when a pair raised 2 young in Litchfield County. Leg bands revealed that the nesting pair came from a reintroduction project in Massachusetts sponsored by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Five years later, a second pair of bald eagles successfully nested in Connecticut. The nesting population has increased gradually and, in 2010, 18 pairs of bald eagles made nesting attempts in the state. Nesting attempts or territorial pairs have been documented in 6 of the state’s 8 counties. Due to the increase in nesting pairs in recent years, the bald eagle's status in Connecticut was reclassified as threatened in 2010 (emphasis added).

Wintering eagles come to Connecticut looking for open water in which to feed when the land and waters in Maine and Canada are frozen. If harsh weather in Connecticut causes any open water to freeze over as well, the eagles continue to migrate farther south. Up to 100 eagles winter in Connecticut, from December to early March, along major rivers and at large reservoirs. The number of wintering eagles has been increasing slowly, depending on the severity of each winter. With the increase in nesting and wintering eagles in Connecticut, there is still a challenge to reconcile human recreation and shoreline development, which decrease suitable habitat, with the specific needs of this state threatened species.

Despite their large size, eagles are easily disturbed by unpredictable human activity, making delineated protection zones necessary around areas of high eagle use, particularly nest sites and winter roosts. Disturbance at nest sites may cause the birds to abandon their nest, even if there are eggs or young in the nest. Because winter is a stressful time for eagles, it is important that preferred winter feeding areas be protected. If the birds are frequently disturbed from feeding and forced to travel to a different area for food, their lives may be threatened. Adult eagles are more easily disturbed than juveniles.

How You Can Help

Winter is a difficult time for any wildlife species, including bald eagles. Food is harder to find and cold temperatures cause energy stress. If you see one or more eagles feeding or roosting, leave them alone and observe them from a distance.

It is also important to stay away from nesting areas to avoid disturbing the birds. Several Connecticut bald eagle nests are located on private property where there is no public access. Respect posted areas and do not trespass on private property to view eagles.

The Bald Eagle is officially listed as a State Threatened Species, so please try to contain your excitement when you see one (and be careful not to disturb it)! I was so thrilled to see one (a passion from my childhood) in the most unusual place that I almost drove off the road. It's a good thing I didn't have a camera with me or I probably would have crashed for sure. If you're in that part of Westfield and you see an eagle, let us know!

Free Flu Clinic Wednesday At Westfield Fire Station

The fourth in a series of free flu clinics will be held November 30, from Noon - 8:00 p.m. at the Westfield Fire Firehouse, 653 East Street. The vaccine will be given by injection only (flu mist is not being offered). Anyone 3 years of age or older and in good health is eligible to receive the vaccine. Insurance is not needed and residency not required. There is a limited supply of vaccine which will be given out on a first-come, first- served basis. Appointments are not needed. Other free flu clinics are scheduled as follows:

•December 6: Coles Road Fire Station, 105 Coles Rd. Cromwell. Noon - 8:00 p.m.
•December 14: South Fire District Firehouse, 445 Randolph Rd., Middletown. Noon - 8:00 p.m.

The flu clinics are sponsored by Mass Dispensing Area (MDA) 36: the towns of Cromwell, Durham, Middlefield, and the City of Middletown.

Participants can save time by obtaining a consent form on-line at the City website

For more information call: (860) 632-3426 (Cromwell), (860) 349-8253 (Durham), (860) 349-7123 (Middlefield), or (860) 344-3482 (Middletown).

Third Congregational Church Community Open House on Sunday

The Third Congregational Church is on Miner Street, one block west of the Westfield Fire Station on East Street. Their community open house, BBQ and Fun Fair is from 11 to 3 on Sunday, September 12.

Public Input Session #1 -- Draft Plan of Conservation & Development

The first public session to solicit input from city residents on the Plan of Conservation and Development was held this evening from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. in the Hubbard Room of the Russell Library. I didn't actually do a head count, but I'd say between 30 and 40 people were in attendance. The meeting began with a presentation by Catherine Johnson, P&Z Commissioner (seamlessly assisted by Dave on the powerpoint), on the contrast between "historic" or traditional neighborhood design as opposed to post-1950s suburban "sprawl". Johnson noted that the state wants to see municipal planning policies that offer a sustainable model, and the phrase that is being used at the state level is "responsible growth". (This thinking reflects the work of a Governor-appointed task force, whose February 2008 report may be read here. Appendix B, "Responsible Growth", on pp. 10-12, gives the basic statement of goals, which seem similar in many respects to what is often referred to as "smart growth".)

The main aim of the meeting was to hear ideas from city residents about how Middletown should plan for future development. For the most part, discussion focused on particular areas of concern for distinct neighborhoods. Westfield and Westlake were well represented. Of particular concern to Westlake folks is the fate of the open space or "park" there -- one is unsure what to call the land, and no one seemed to know who currently owns it. All were agreed, however, that it is a nice area and that it should be better maintained. According to one speaker, named Bill (sorry, I didn't catch the last name), the Westlake area contains about 15% of the population of Middletown, yet it is neglected by the city. (The population of Westlake relative to the rest of the city can be seen on the density map in this earlier story; Westlake is represented by the large circles to the north.) Many Westlake residents wish to see the city take charge of the open space and maintain it, especially the paths that run through it.

What was particularly impressive, at least to this writer, was the high rates of owner-occupancy in the Westlake area. Upwards of 85 to 90% in some of the condominium associations, according to those present. (Please forgive me if I'm getting the terminology or numbers wrong.) The associations represented included, if memory serves, Beacon Hill and Trolley Crossing. In any case, the residents in attendance wished to correct the impression that Westlake is full of "transients" who don't care about or have a stake in Middletown. The people in the room were evidence that some "Westlakers" (my term, not theirs [at least, I didn't hear it used]) have lived in Middletown for over 40 years. And many feel a loyalty to and love for Middletown, so much so that they regret the convenience of shopping in Cromwell and wish that there were better shopping opportunities nearby. (My comment here was that perhaps one of the auto dealerships could be converted to a grocery store.) Another speaker, John Wilson, noted that Westlake boasts a diverse population, whether in terms of ethnicity, age, or income. And the bike and walking path is heavily used by all. In pleasant weather you would not be surprised to see anywhere from 200 to 400 people out for a stroll. Often one will see three generations of a family walking together -- yes, there are children in Westlake too.

Two or three people (including me) spoke of the need for better transit connections, both in town and between towns. There was some concern that there are too few arterial roads in Middletown and that we need to connect some of the suburban side roads that terminate in cul de sacs. Others were more concerned with the need for better bus and rail service, and the old trolley routes were mentioned with great longing. Johnson brought out the old trolley map for Connecticut. Another point raised was the need for better pedestrian connections, both in the downtown but also within and between other mini-centers such as South Farms, Washington Square, etc. One person spoke of having to drive to the Super Foodmart on Washington Street even though it was only about 800 yards away from her home, simply because the sidewalks are so unappealing. (I know I wouldn't care to walk on the edge of Route 66 myself.) The need for bike lanes and more bike paths was also expressed. Though it wasn't mentioned, perhaps one way of encouraging more bicycling would be to lower speed limits in town, especially in the downtown neighborhoods.

Another challenge that faces Middletown, noted by me, is how to regain access to the river. Given that the CT DOT has de-prioritized the redesign of Route 9 at both the southern (Acheson Drive) and northern (Arrigoni Bridge) interchanges (reported recently in the Design Review and Preservation Blog, where you can also view the plans), this may be an opportune moment to begin thinking anew about reclaiming the valuable waterfront. It is, after all, the reason Middletown exists. (It is a great pity that we weren't able to convince the CT DOT of the merits of the "tunneling" option. That would have been the shovel-ready project to end all shovel-ready projects.)

One speaker, whose name I did not catch, wondered about the possibility of making the Main Street less expansive -- if not narrowing it, simply making it more user-friendly. This prompted John Wilson to remark that Heidelberg, Germany, has many similarities to Middletown (including being a historic river city), and that the town fathers there decided to pedestrianize the entire Main Street from church to church.

The poor state of our trees was also noted, by none other than the son of Kerste deBoer (sorry, I didn't catch his first name). Kerste deBoer worked hard years ago to protect the lovely row of specimen trees on Long Lane (at one point, the city or state wanted to widen the street, which would have severely damaged the roots). This is why the area is now known as the Wadsworth/deBoer Arboretum (Wadsworth, because it was originally planted by the Colonel). One person observed that "Middletown used to be called the 'Forest City'", prompting Bruce Spaman (Middletown's former Urban Forester) to pipe up and acknowledge that it is still known as the 'Forest City', though the plight of our trees is admittedly pitiful. Ellen Lukens suggested the wonderfully commonsensical expedient of simply having a policy that states that whenever a tree is taken down by the city, another must be purchased to replace it.

Also worth noting is the fact that P&Z Commissioner Deborah Klekowski was in attendance. She spoke about some of her concerns as well, including how we are not doing enough municipal planning for an aging population. This means better sidewalks, access to medical care, etc. We need to do more to ensure that we can "age in place".

It was a productive meeting, particularly because there were so many new faces -- not "the usual suspects" that show up at Common Council and P&Z meetings. The NEXT meeting will be on 16 April, same time (6:30), same place (Hubbard Room, Russell Library). The special focus will be conservation and open space.

Westfield snow

Most residents of Middletown are fortunate enough to live near open space, and a winter snowstorm offers a great opportunity to explore. In Sunday's snowstorm, my family strapped on snowshoes and skis and headed down a wonderfully quiet street in Westfield. We turned onto city-owned land and climbed around the base of one of the hills in our area. For awhile, we were on a Blue Trail, and it was a very peaceful, gentle climb around the side of the Mountain. Twice we flushed deer who had been nestled into small excavations in the snow.

We wandered off of the blue trail and traversed across a large hayfield at the edge of the city-owned land. Farmers typically do not mind snow shoers and skiiers on their fields, which lie dormant in the wintertime. In the far distance was a farm with its tall silo only occasionally visible through the swirling snowflakes, it was a scene of bucolic farmland in winter. A stream flows gently through the field, draining water off of the mountain. Two ducks flew off, no doubt startled to see humans in their private paradise. The scene could have been in Northern Vermont, or even in Wyoming, but it was right here, within 3 miles of downtown.

Moody School brings out the candidates!

Several candidates chose to spend the critical home from work hours campaigning for votes at Moody School in Westfield. Rosa DeLauro, Paul Doyle, Matt Lesser, and Catherine Johnson were all there between 5:00 and 6:00 PM, each with several of their supporters.  The crowd of politicians and campaigners, with all their signs, greeted every voter arriving from the parking lot.  All of the candidates exuded cheer and caring, and many voters stopped to speak with them.

Inside the gym, Districts 4 and 5 are on a pace to shatter records for turnout.  At 5:45PM, 80% of the eligible voters had cast a ballot in District 4 (1233/1550) and 74% in District 5 (1054/1426).  Neither number includes absentee ballots.   Amazing.

Last chance to comment on Army Reserve Training Center site

The Army Corps of Engineers will host another meeting about the proposed Army Reserve Training Center in Middletown, tonight, Tuesday Sept. 30, at 7 pm in Council Chambers at City Hall.

The four sites still under consideration are:

Bysiewicz Industrial Park, Middle Street
Cucia Park, Smith Street
Boardman Lane, with access from Ken Dooley Road in Westfield
Mile Lane, on the former Nike base and Army Reserve Center

Consensus seems to be forming in town for Cucia Park.

For information on the sites, or to comment online, the Army Corps of Engineers has created a blogsite.

Westfield Falls

One of Connecticut’s most beautiful waterfalls is a little-known gem right here in Middletown. Westfield Falls is visible from I91 North between exits 20 and 21 (although you have to look carefully). To access it on foot, go to the sharp curve in Miner Street, where there is a parking spot next to a nice picnic area. Hike down the trail leading from the picnic area. The falls are straight ahead. To get to the bottom of the falls you can take a small trail leading off to the left from the parking area
The falls has a height of 26 feet, and consists of an upper and a lower section. Westfield Falls is part of same stream that crosses Country Club Road near Smith Park. This stream, called Fall Brook, goes underneath I91 and eventually joins with the Mattabesset River.

Army COE Press Conference: a summatorial

Middletown Eye correspondent JAM

My sincere apologies for not posting sooner: I was traveling internationally with my husband and 3 small children and having one of those experiences requiring several stiff drinks to forget…ask me some other time if you’re really bored and want to laugh hysterically at someone else’s pain.

On to the real subject at hand – I attended the Army COE press conference on Thursday, July 31st. Here’s my summary and my thoughts (hence the “summatorial”):


Diane McCartin, the Army COE project officer, Lt. Col John Whitford, the CT Army National Guard Public Affairs Officer (POA), and Pedro Wasmer, one of the Boardman Lane property owners, spoke with the media for just over half an hour. The expressed purpose of the conference was to get factual information out to the media, and to get misinformation “under control.”


Diane McCartin spoke first, listing the reasons why Boardman Lane is the Army’s preferred site. In all fairness to the Corps of Engineers, it should be pointed out that calling Boardman Lane the “preferred site” means that the site isn’t final yet, as an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required before the COE can decide whether the site is suitable to build on. By the way, an EA is a process similar to the inspection you go through when you’re trying to buy a house. There are two possible outcomes: a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), meaning there are no problems with the property and the purchase can go forward, or, there’s enough issues identified that a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.

So why does the Army COE like Boardman Lane? Diane’s explanation was very simple:

• The property is “embedded in an industrial zone”
• There’s a willing seller
• The Army has interpreted similar BRAC language (shall be built in _________ if suitable land can be found) to mean in that specific town. Army attorneys apparently have kicked other property choices back when those choices were not located within the city limits of the mentioned town.

Ms. McCartin went on to point out that the expressed objection is the location of the base, not the base project itself. She emphasized that this will not be a “traditional base” (not completely fenced in, mostly classroom/service oriented, no live ammo), and that the Army COE will comply with all federal laws, specifically the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its Section 106, which deals with historical properties. Additionally, the Army did consider brownfield sites such as the Pratt & Whitney site in Maromas, but because the extent of this property’s contamination is not known, the Army can’t proceed with a new project that might endanger the employees who would eventually work there. She also pointed out that the public will have a chance to comment on the project on August 27th, and that the ongoing EA will address all the public’s concerns.

Lt. Col John Whitford, the CT Army National Guard’s Public Affairs Officer (PAO), spoke next. Intent on correcting the “misinformation” the media has reported lately, Col Whitford discussed the units relocating from aging facilities in Putnam, New Britain, Manchester and Newington. He talked about personnel numbers (70 full time employees during the week, roughly 400 reservists 2 weekends a month), vehicles (ranging in size from HUMVEEs to tractor trailers), and the services the new base will provide for citizen-soldiers.

Finally, Pedro Wasmer, one of the property owners, spoke about his surprise over the flood of concern regarding his potential buyer for the Boardman Lane property. He claimed to be offended at the federal/state representative intervention in the process, stating that this is Middletown’s business, not anyone else’s. He also commented that the issues this particular property has would be the same for ANY buyer and that he believed the Army is doing and would do way more than a “normal” buyer would to address those issues.

The Q&A period covered topics such as the timeline for the EA, the “if” language in the BRAC legislation, technical details on the base itself (construction details, traffic patterns, services provided, “Wesleyan-like” integration with the surrounding community), and residential proximity to the base location. The base light pollution is supposed to be less than a Target parking lot, and there will be no new civilian jobs created (all jobs are relocated Army or federal civilian jobs).

Now for the editorial part:

I confess that my first foray into the world of Lois Lane was not motivated entirely by a concern over the public’s right to know…I’m one of the homeowners affected by the Army’s Boardman Lane choice. I was really distressed over the “media only” meeting, because I’ve seen, over the last few weeks, what the media chooses to air in sound-byte fashion, and I strangely agree with the Army’s position that the relevant facts at hand have not been reported in a way that captures the nature of the struggle. So, as the newest contributor to the Middletown Eye News, I attended this press conference to hear ALL of what the Army had to say. I kind of felt like a spy (yes, my press credentials were legit) and I was torn between listening objectively and wondering how I could find holes in the Army’s position to strengthen the opposition’s cause.

In the battle for the public’s affection, it was obvious why the press conference unfolded in the way that it did: the setting at the old armory; the formerly-Cuban property owner who escaped no-private-property hell to achieve the American Dream; the CT Army National Guard Lt. Col who waxed poetically about citizen soldiers and ancient state facilities to be replaced by a shiny new federally funded facility; the project manager who emphasized over and over that federal law would be complied with (yes, the passive voice); and the completely annoyed Mayor and State Senator who were denied access to the press conference. The whole thing had the atmosphere of a 3-ringed circus, and very little conflict resolution occurred between the Army COE and the various Middletown stakeholders.

From my own perspective, I was offended that the project manager insisted that the Boardman Lane property was “embedded” in an industrial zone. If you look at Middletown’s zoning map, (click here and choose the zoning map option on the map that appears, then zoom out a bit) the Boardman Lane property is at the very edge of the industrial zoning in that part of Middletown. There is a small section of industrial zoning in the corner along Middle Street and Country Club Road, but for that, the entire west and east side of the Boardman property is zoned residential. I specifically asked Ms. McCartin what was to the west of the property, and she had to ask one of the “site experts”. The answer was “there’s a few houses up there.” When I asked her to clarify if she knew HOW MANY houses, she admitted that she didn’t know. Well, for the approximately 400 houses within ½ a mile of the proposed base (Bell St., Sawmill Rd, Boardman Lane, Old Farms East, Timber Ridge, Atkins St., etc.), or the 600+ homes within 1 mile, or the 1000+ homes within 1.5 miles, “I’m not sure” just doesn’t cut it. We know that the Army would have to undertake major earth moving operations to build on the ridge, and we also know that blasting (yes, there’s ledge on the property) affects wells up to 2000 ft from the blast zone (The homes on Bell, Boardman, Sawmill, and Old Farms East all have wells). We know that an entrance on Boardman Lane is ridiculous, an entrance on Kenneth Dooley Dr would turn the Timber Ridge neighborhood into a not-just-residents-throughway between Atkins and Middle Streets, and no one has dared to comment on what could happen to property values in the area. The property itself has so many concerns: wetlands, historical value, what happens to the cute & fuzzy animals currently living there, the property owners’ rights to develop, economic benefit to Middletown, and the list goes on and on…

Did the press conference resolve any of these issues? No, the Army has only said that the EA will address all these concerns. Ms. McCartin did say that her “experts” believe an EA will be sufficient, which means she expects a FONSI return (finding of no significant impact). With no other information to conclude otherwise, I guess that’s Army speak for “you might have concerns, but they won’t be enough to interrupt our project.” In case the Army hasn’t figured it out yet, that attitude isn’t going to win any friends OR influence any people in a positive manner.

I will say that I feel bad for the CT Army National Guard…it’s kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are legitimate concerns over the state of current facilities (aging, not technologically up-to-date, struggling to get by on State funding). I’d get excited too over the promise of a brand new, fully federally funded, facility that meets the needs of our citizen soldiers. I will also say that from my own personal experience in uniform (Coast Guard, 12 years), the military in general has a hard time standing up for itself…those who willingly put their lives in harm’s way don’t like to call attention to themselves, even if the cause is necessary and right. But, don’t confuse the issues: that the National Guard needs new facilities is a separate problem from Boardman Lane as the right site. Let’s not be like the kid in the shoe store who wants shoes so desperately that he accepts shoes that don’t fit rather than getting nothing at that moment, and then gets blisters every time he wears the shoes (this actually just happened to my 8yo, so the lesson is fresh in my mind).

The Army COE does need a place for its base, the National Guard needs new facilities, the residents surrounding Boardman Lane picked their home location for a specific reason, and that reason deserves respect and protection, Mr. Wasmer ought to be able to get a return on his investment, Middletown should be able to promote/develop its business community, and the cute animals on the Timberlost Farm need a home too. While there seem to be tons of competing interests here, a winning solution for all won’t be found by grandstanding, political posturing, or railroading. It might be easier or faster to do one or more of those things, but it won’t be in everyone’s best interests (not the “optimal solution” – oh is my economics professor proud now…!).

Don’t confuse me for an idealist – I’m not saying the world is a rosy place and we can all get along if we just think happy thoughts together. I’m saying that in the long run, this project will be completed faster, at a lower cost threshold (a savings of YOUR tax dollars), and everyone will be happier if we just agree to answer the same question at the same time: is Boardman Lane the best possible choice for the Army Reserve Training Base? More specifically, the question shouldn’t be “CAN the Army build on Boardman Lane,” but rather, if the base MUST be in Middletown (as the Army claims), where is the best place to put it? Arguably, the elected city officials are in the best place to answer this question (and they already have). If there is a hierarchy of whose-interests-are-most-important, I have to vote for private property first, the city second, the state third, and the federal government last. That means the “fight” is between the homeowners on and near Boardman Lane vs. Mr. Wasmer and company. If Mr. Wasmer is just trying to get a return on his investment (which we would ALL want if we were in his shoes), then maybe the town has a responsibility to step in and change the property’s zoning both to preserve its unique characteristics AND make it a viable investment. The state issue of supporting the National Guard’s need for proper and modern training facilities shouldn’t be dependent on Uncle Sam’s willingness to pay, and the federal government, as long as we’re using CT as a historical cattle prod, would do well to remember its existence is thanks largely due to the Connecticut Compromise of July 16, 1787 – each side gave up a little to gain a lot.

Rosa Delauro convenes a meeting on the Army Reserve Training Center

Representative Rosa Delauro invited Westfield residents, city councilors, and the owners of the property coveted by the Army, to talk about the proposal to build an Army Reserve Training Center on Boardman Lane in the Westfield section of Middletown.

Because it was a private meeting, I agreed not to report on the meeting itself, but only on the press presentation which followed.

Delauro reported that at the meeting Westfield residents, and others from Middletown, council members, the mayor, Sebastian Giuliano and Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, discussed and debated the proposed Army Base. Westfield residents oppose the siting of the training center in Westfield for a number of reasons, from environmental and traffic concerns, to questions about the economic impact of the base. New concerns about water, sewer and flood issues surfaced.

At this point Delauro, Giuliano and Bysiewicz are all opposed to building the training center on the site in Westfield. All cited the intractability of the Army, and their lack of communication on the topic, as problems in solving the siting issue. Delauro and Bysiewicz are also amenable to having the training site built outside of Middletown, while Giuliano stills supports building the training center on one of three city-recommended sites, a site adjacent to the Pratt and Whitney plant on Aircraft Road, a site next to the Kleen Energy plant on River Road, and a site behind an auto junkyard on Saybrook Road. All three sites are technically in Maromas.

Delauro has promised to lobby Secretary of the Army Geren, and along with Bysiewicz has authored a letter to Governor Jodi Rell, who is commander-in-chief of the Connecticut National Guard, and may have some influence in determining where the training center is built.

The press conference drew all four local TV stations, two newspapers, the state TV station CTN, and at least three radio reporters. Delauro, Bysiewicz, Giuliano (the three political leaders who are most deeply involved in the issue) and Jennifer Mahr, a representative of the Westfield Residents Association addressed the gathered reporters. Then a parade of less-directly-involved, though concerned, politicians including state representatives Ray Kalinowski, state senator Paul Doyle and state representative Joe Serra (who was not at the meeting with residents because of a dental appointment), took the opportunity to express their opinions for the gathered press. Also in attendance was state representative Brendan Sharkey who represents governor Jodi Rell's push for smart growth.

It's become clear that the Army will have a fight on its hands if it insists on the Boardman Lane site, but it's not clear whether they will abandon Middletown, or reconsider building on brownfield sites.

The Middletown Common Council meets on August 4th to consider a resolution which will oppose the Army Corps of Engineer's choice of the Westfield site.

As Mayor Giuliano indicated, that to make the site buildable, "thousands of tons of trap rock will be shifted into wetlands. If the city had asked the Corps of Engineers to approve the site for the building of the new high school, they would have stopped us."

The army training facility, where will it stop?

Commentary, by fishmuscle:

The military base is on a tour through Middletown, stopping to visit the most beautiful, unspoiled land it can find in our city.  During the spring it meandered in Maromas, apparently savoring the clean air and water of a beautiful meadow on Freeman Road.  This summer it decided to wander in Westfield, drawn by the solitude of small country lanes, the beauty of a farm in continuous operation since 1750, and the extensive wetlands on Boardman Lane. At first, few of Middletown's residents seemed to notice the military base, but this has been changing.  At each of the stops on its tour, the military base has been joined by others who also cherish the treasures of Middletown.  Some came because they wanted to know if the training facility was going to destroy the beautiful, unspoiled land that is one part of Middletown's treasure.  Others came because they wanted to know whether the economic costs to the City would destroy the financial part of Middletown's treasure.  At each stop, the military base has had more and more of Middletown's citizens following along.  Many of those who at first treasured only the meadows of Maromas now also appreciate the wetlands of Westfield.  All of those who treasure the financial strength of our city have followed along.  Now the mayor and common council may join other city residents in questioning whether the military base should stay at its current stop in Middletown.  The citizens of Middletown will rightly applaud this effort by our elected officials to protect the natural beauty and financial strength of our city.  However, this effort is not enough if the mayor and council members become tour guides who steer the military base to another site in Middletown. It is long past time for the mayor and council to guide the military base out of Middletown. It is long past time for the mayor and council to recognize that at every stop on the tour, opposition has grown; if there is another stop on the tour, the opposition will dwarf what has happened at previous stops.  Our city has indulged the military base in a tour of our precious resources for long enough.  

WRA on the radio

Stephen Devoto, from the Westfield Residents Association appeared on WTIC-AM this morning to talk about the planned Army Reserve Training Center in Westfield.

You can listen to it here.

Draft Common Council resolution opposing Army Reserve Training Center on Boardman Lane

It appears that the Middletown Common Council is preparing to propose, debate and vote on a resolution to oppose building an Army Reserve Training Center on Boardman Lane, in the Westfield section of Middletown.

In a draft of the resolution obtained by the Middletown Eye, the town is calling the Boardman Lane site "completely unsuitable," and supports the use of city resources to assist in preventing the use of Boardman Lane.

Citing concerns about wetlands, water pressure, site grading of the property, traffic, destruction of protected species, loss of historic farm property, the Army's rejection of alternative "suitable sites," and National Environmental regulations, the resolution will be offered for debate at the next meeting of the Common Council on Monday August 4.

The mayor, council members, and concerned residents will be meeting on Monday July 28 with Representative Rosa Delauro to discuss opposition to the plans of the Army Reserve and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Common Council and the Military Base

At Wednesday's Common Council meeting, the primary topic of discussion was the Military Base on Boardman Lane. There was extensive coverage of the meeting in both the The Middletown Press and The Hartford Courant.  Three local news channels also ran 2 minute segments on the controversy, Eyewitness News 3, NBC30 (no link), and Fox61 (no link).  Their reports are largely accurate in conveying the story, but because of press or air deadlines, all of the reporters left prior to some testy exchanges towards the end of the Military Base discussion.

It seemed clear that the Mayor and the Common Council were shocked to see 150 residents, 5 reporters, and 3 TV cameras at their meeting.  At the beginning of the meeting, Councilman Daley said the Common Council would be taking up a resolution at their August 4th meeting to oppose the use of the Boardman Lane site for a Military Base, he felt that this resolution would pass with overwhelming support. Mayor Giuliano tried to head off public comments by stating that he does not think this is a good site, but the Mayor did not repudiate his statement on July 1st to The Hartford Courant, where he was quoted: "I don't think it's a bad site, and I don't begrudge Cromwell some economic benefit."  Nor did he take the opportunity to clarify his statement earlier yesterday to Eyewitness News 3 (towards the end of the video), "Overall a good thing, ... unlike some of the residents out there who think this is going to be a big negative for them, I really don't think it is." 

The ambiguity in the Mayor's position infuriated many residents, and after the public comment period of the meeting, there was a period of heated discussion between residents, Mayor Giuliano, and Councilman Pessina.  Residents asked that the Mayor very forcefully tell our federal elected officials not only that this land is unsuitable for the building of the military base, but also that there is NO suitable land available in Middletown.  Councilman Pessina and the Mayor defended their lack of action by blaming federal officials for this situation, but many in the room did not buy it. Paul Torop said it was a strategic error by the city to oppose the siting of the Army Base in Maromas while at the same time generically supporting the construction of the Base in Middletown.  Residents demanded that this error be corrected.

Readers of the Middletown Eye will be interested to know the response to residents' frustration at the lack of public notification of this or other public meetings in Middletown.  Mayor Giuliano claimed that this special meeting was posted on the city web site (it is not).  Councilman Daley then said that the one thing that had changed in his 30 years of public service was that there is no good newspaper coverage of city meetings.  This was thankfully not true of this meeting, but his point is valid and underscores the vital role that news coverage plays in civic engagement.  

An open letter to our elected officials about the army base

To the elected officials who represent the residents of Middletown:

On behalf of the Westfield Residents Association, a 27-year old neighborhood association, I am writing to you with respect to the proposed Army Training Facility on Boardman Lane in Middletown. We are active, concerned citizens of Middletown, and we are dismayed by the decision to place the Training Facility on Boardman Lane. This decision violates both the letter and the spirit of Congressional legislation, and we ask that you do everything in your power to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from taking this prime land from Middletown.
The Base Relocation and Closure act of 2005 mandated that a Training Facility be built in Middletown, “if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities.” The goals of this mandate were to provide intangible benefits to Middletown by integrating the military with residents and to provide tangible benefits to Middletown by the commerce associated with such a facility. We think the goals are laudable. Unfortunately, the Boardman Lane location does not realize either of these goals. Fundamentally, the Boardman Lane location violates a federal act: it is not land “suitable for construction of the facilities.”
The isolation of the site precludes any meaningful interaction between the soldiers receiving training and the town. Boardman is a small country lane with 9 houses on large lots, a cemetery from the time of the American Revolution, and the 88-acre parcel of pasture and significant pristine wetlands. Boardman Lane is a secondary road that is utterly inadequate not just for the number of cars, but also for the heavy military vehicles and trucks making deliveries (no through trucks are allowed on Boardman Lane). Two streets feeding Boardman, Bell Street and Sawmill Lane, are even smaller. These three streets are part of several different cycle groups’ featured rides through Middletown, two of them are also part of the Mattabessett hiking trail. None of these isolated, small country lanes are capable of handling the enormous increase in traffic that the Training Facility will generate. Boardman ends on Middle Street, which although only 2 lanes, is a major through fare for people working at Aetna and the many other companies within the IT zone adjacent to I91, as well as for people getting on or off of Interstate 91 to travel to or from Middletown. There are significant line of sight issues for any traffic turning from Boardman Lane onto Middle Street, which is already an overburdened and dangerous street. We fear that the only interactions that Middletown residents will have with military personnel is in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
The location of the site very far from any Middletown retail district precludes any economic benefit to the city. Boardman Lane is far more convenient and far closer to the hotels and cafés of Cromwell, Berlin, and Meriden than it is to those of Middletown. Middletown’s businesses will not benefit from the presence of this training facility in Westfield. The citizens of Middletown have strongly supported the preservation of open space. This land is zoned IT, and may not be preserved in its current condition of beautiful farmland and wetlands. However, it would be unfair for this land to be covered with the equivalent of two Walmarts and their parking lots, when the city bears a loss of tax revenue and an increase in the need for city services such as fire protection and water and sewer, as well as a decrease in the quality of life for our citizens. The loss of 88 prime acres zoned for Interstate Trade (IT) development forces Middletown citizens to pay higher taxes to support an Army Training Facility that provides no benefit to them. It is simply unfair to ask Middletown to make such an enormous sacrifice.
In addition to these traffic and economic issues, we note that the geology of the site will be very problematic for construction. This site is between two traprock ridges, Higby and Lamentation Mountains, and as would be expected, the ground is extremely wet and drains poorly, many of the houses in the neighborhood have special drainage systems to keep buildings dry. This site could require extensive blasting prior to construction. On ledge of the type found throughout this area, blasting forces travel large distances, and are known to damage homes and wells over 2,000 feet from the blast. Finally, there are significant concerns about whether there is adequate water pressure to accommodate a facility of this size.
In summary, the Boardman Lane site for this Training Facility does not meet the intent of the Base Relocation and Closure act of 2005. It provides no benefits to the city of Middletown, and comes at an enormous cost to our community’s future. Please do everything in your power to urge the army to place the training facility in another location more suitable for the army and also more suitable and fair to our community.
Instead of Maromas or Boardman Lane, the Westfield Residents Association suggests that the Army look at an urban site that will revitalize an under-utilized property, in line with “smart growth” principles. This will provide the army with an opportunity to integrate itself as a valued institution within the community and within a neighborhood. An urban site will provide the City with economic and community benefits that are meaningful both to the community and to the military, and will fulfill the spirit and the law of the originating legislation as it was intended to benefit both the army and the community of Middletown.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Middletown. We look forward to a meaningful sharing of ideas that meet both the military’s needs as well as the needs of the host community.  

Stephen H. Devoto

on behalf of the Westfield Residents Association

Westfield residents discuss the Army Facility

About a hundred residents of Westfield gathered Monday evening at the Westfield Residents Association (WRA) annual picnic and quarterly meeting.  They were joined by three members of Planning and Zoning (Catherine Johnson, James Fortuna, and Matt Lesser), and by Representative Ray Kalinowski (100th district).  Ron Goodrich superbly grilled the hamburgers and hotdogs, and the picnic tables groaned under the weight of baked beans, pasta salads, scrumptious desserts, and that sweetness-masquerading-as-salad, ambrosia (without which no potluck would be complete).  Stuffed with each other's delicacies, and in the middle of catching up on neighbor's news, the business meeting commenced. The customary secretary's report, treasurer's report, and summary of recent P&Z and I/W meetings affecting Westfield were dispensed with fairly quickly.  We then turned to the main item of new business that brought a much larger than normal turnout to the meeting, namely the proposal by the army to build a training facility within the core of the Westfield section of town.  Many residents of Bell Street, Boardman Lane, and Timber Ridge Lane spoke of the devastation to the area that would be caused by the presence of a large military facility with its associated trucks and traffic.  These streets have the scale and feeling of country lanes only recently paved (which in fact, they were).  Other residents spoke of the impact on the Westfield Fire District and the Middletown City budgets that the army facility would have (the Army would pay no taxes for city services, and its permanent staff are likely to contribute children to our overcrowded and underfunded school district).  Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz has spoken with several residents and told them that she wonders why a huge base is being built in a town that does not want it, when there are so many towns in Connecticut that DO want the base.  Rep. Kalinowski spoke and offered his full support for WRA efforts to convince the Army that this land is not suitable for construction of the facilities.  He announced that he was arranging a public meeting for the army to discuss the training facility with the neighborhood residents. 

All of the Westfield residents present pledged to attend the special Common Council Meeting this Wednesday evening at 7PM. There will be two items on the agenda, the Contract with the Firemen, and consideration of the WRA letter to Common Council asking them to support an effort to relocate the army facility to a more suitable site in Connecticut.  

Reconsidering the welcome mat for the Army

(Pearse Pinch photo)

An interesting article in today's Washington Post indicates that the Army may not be as nice a neighbor as they would lead us to believe. Considering the fact that the Army intends to conduct its own environmental testing, and come to its own environmental conclusions in their plans to build an Army Reserve Training Center in Westfield, on Boardman Lane, this article is a must read. It may come as some surprise to town and state officials that the army, which refuses to build on brownfields, also refuses to clean up the worst of theirs. And they're the biggest polluter in the country.