During the meeting, the following flyer was distributed. My comments follow.
- "City already increased plot numbers from 40 to 60! Community Garden Committee says further expansion is very probable and desirable, including back fields bordering Long Hill Ave and Laurel Wood Drive." The Community Garden Committee is drawing up a concept of plots based on the response from the citizenry. There are already over 50 sign-ups from Shelton residents, so in my opinion they are being frank and wise to recognize the reality today and what it may be in the future. That said, this is still conceptual and design stage.
- "No representation from our neighborhood on the Community Garden Committee" The Committee was created as an ad-hoc committee to the Board of Alderman for those who expressed interest in the task. It's up to the BOA to add or modify their committees. I don't think the Long Hill School PTA has a representative from the neighborhood simply because the school is next to a residential area. I don't see the logic in the claim to have committee representation based upon geo-location. The involvement to comment, critique, question, challenge, complain, and otherwise voice opinion is available during every meeting during the public portion of both the Board of Alderman and Garden Committee.
- "Complete disregard for the safety concerns of our neighborhood. City never explored other options." This is an outright falsehood. The Conservation Commission looked at all the City's Open Space properties, eliminated those that were not in agricultural use, and examined those remaining for soil types, drainage, etc as to suitability for community gardening. This was all public in our meetings, and was further specifically reiterated and explained at our Conservation meetings to the public who came out on Mar3. The Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Engineer both examined the proposal and rendered affirmative referrals that it is an appropriate use for the parcel.
- "Car traffic into residential roads expected to be 400-500 passes per week. As the garden expands, so does the traffic in the Long Hll area, and our streets." I'll start with the low side claim of 400 passes. Assuming that's one car's in and out travels, that's 200 visits per week. Assuming the high end currently stated of 60 plots, that's 3.3 visits per plot per week. Summary: Given assumption of the least number of visits claimed, and highest number of plots mentioned, the flyer's contention is that every single plot will have a unique caretaker and be visited by them every other day. Imperical data from other community gardens show that is not the case.
- "Devaluation of our property due to traffic and garden access on Longview Road, Laurel Wood Drive or Long Hill Avenue". I'm not an expert in property valuation, but the implication is that access from any abutting road into this property for such use is going to negatively impact all surrounding properties. I would doubt that.
- "Potential increase in crime and vandalism" The parcel is currently fields and has had ATV activity (addressed promptly by the police) and illegal hunting (addressed promptly by the DEP), both to a minimal amount. Anytime there are "improvements" to a property (playscape, ballfields, etc) that can serve to attract youth, there is a potential for negative aspects. That said, the likelihood of a garden attracting crime to a neighborhood is an unlikely outcome.
- "Already concerned residents are receiving misleading and incomplete information from the City Conservation Agent. How much worse will we be treated if/when the huge garden goes in" I can say without hesitation that the Conservation Agent is pro-active toward informing the public as to what is occurring. Her statements are consistently factual. The garden proposed is a small area of 1 field our of a parcel acreage of many acres. It is not a "huge" area.
