Fairfield Beach Access Endorsement for First Selectman 

[13 October 2019]
Pursuant to a poll of its membership, Fairfield Beach Access endorses Brenda Kupchick for First Selectman of the Town of Fairfield.

Why this statement?
Brief background information:

Our group is focused on ensuring long-term stability in maintaining reasonable access to recreation zones at beaches and public open spaces for families with dogs. Through a conciliatory and respectful approach, we advocate inclusive public policy regarding public access, acceptance, and welfare of families with dogs in Fairfield County. For more than a decade, we have maintained effective working relationships with the First Selectman’s office, the Public Works Department, Animal Control, and the Parks and Recreation and Conservation Department Commissions. We are grateful to all who have served on these bodies—both in a paid professional and volunteer capacity—for their ceaseless support.

But… the problem at hand:

In 2017, the Town’s Conservation Commission formed a subcommittee and began the process to implement a plan to rescind and restrict off-leash access for families with dogs at all of the Town's public open spaces, with the parallel implementation of a dual-fee permit for (planned)
four specific properties.

As part of that process, the Commission contracted One Nature LLC to evaluate the Lake Mohegan parcel, which is the locus of problems that led to complaints about off-leash dogs.

The goal of eliminating off-leash access was brought as a personal ambition by one member, and has been realized in a manner substantially similar  to his effort to bring permit-based hunting into these public open spaces, in 2009. At the outset, he transparently directed other Commission members: “Listen… as soon as we put dogs on leashes and enforce it at Lake Mohegan, you’re gonna see the number of people there just drop right off,”
[18 October 2017].

In this, using the subcommittee” proposal as a device of segregation, he has shamelessly advocated for essentially privatizing certain open space parcels: which will only provoke development of “class warfare” from which the Town may never recover from.

Over time, the subcommittee deliberations devolved into a disheartening spectacle: whereby the members have worked to devise a policy of exclusion that is in search of a justification.

Despite our efforts to broaden the debate, the subcommittee has ignored examination of ethical and legal concerns, including the possibility for vacating the Town’s shield of liability pursuant to P.L. 11-211, the Recreational Land Use Act; and even the current chair acknowledges that their proposal is likely unenforceable. That many subject to their plan are seniors, who may be financially unprepared, or, others who suffer burdensome tax bills already, hasn’t earned their consideration for a moment. The “waiver” aspect of the proposal would likely become the focus of
legal challenge.

The public has suffered the subcommittee’s self-congratulatory posturing for two years, most especially the chair’s ongoing proclamation that the subcommittee worked with “due diligence” and that “we listened” to the opinions and survey of public stakeholders.

In fact: the subcommittee’s final report does not mirror a single sentence that any of the residents who took effort to bring public comment—and a measure of rationality—to them. Not a single sentence.

Why we need leadership from the First Selectman’s office:

Members of the Conservation Commission are not elected: they are appointed by the First Selectman.

As such, they reflect the First Selectman’s personal choice, and, absent his involvement, we must interpret that he has been satisfied
with their methodology.

After repeated complaints from public observers, Mr. Tetreau’s guidance, oversight, and hoped-for intervention to ensure a reasoned and reasonable debate within the subcommittee is not adequate.

On behalf of our members—and indeed those Fairfield constituents who vote—we asked both candidates in late summer what we might expect in their approach to this issue.

Our Email was lengthy. Though late in the evening, Brenda responded within the hour, pledging her work to incorporate an evenhanded, respectful, and common-sense approach to negotiating changes in the Town's open space leash rules.

Despite follow-up, Mr. Tetreau has chosen not to respond.

And we must accept: that this is what we must expect, going forward.

Why the problem is important to this, and any election:

Families with dogs are a generally underrepresented constituency in Fairfield.

These citizens see that many of the Fairfield parks, open spaces, and public venues have areas dedicated for soccer or field hockey, baseball fields, jogging, skateboarding, juvenile playgrounds and other recreational uses: some constructed within exceptionally valuable properties or at great expense. Many of these settings enfold extended facilities and necessitate costly ongoing maintenance.

These taxpaying residents freely support these and a myriad of other “passive” or “active” recreational purposes as a matter of ordinary consideration for others; and as good public policy. However, they and many others, believe that supervised off-leash activity for families with dogs within designated areas of beach or certain public open space areas also represents valid use of public space: but which, unlike other recreational designations, costs the Town of Fairfield virtually nothing to administer.

Yet every year, we must beat back efforts to end access to Jennings Beach and the public open spaces.

Simply put: families with dogs are bitter and exhausted, telling us: “enough is enough.”

Our position on amending policy for access with dogs in public open spaces:

We have never suggested that change is unwarranted. Indeed, complaints about “the Lake” are surely justified. Nevertheless, we believe that change needs to fairly accommodate the needs of all who have interests in the Town’s public open space properties. The subcommittee’s proposal fails this standard on too many levels to detail in this statement. (For more information, please see our existing page, here).

We will ask that the RTM undertake and protect its authority to review the subcommittee’s proposal when it is approved by the full Commission, pursuant to §35-12 (D) of the Town Code, which stipulates that any change in “use or administration” of public open space properties must have RTM approval.

The RTM must accept that as constituents who vote, we will not allow the Conservation Commission's proposed plan in its current form.

In the immediate, however, we are unhappy that Mr. Tetreau has chosen to effectively abandon interest in the issue, and expect that he would continue to be unresponsive to legitimate concern about the makeup of the Commission, which has shown a nearly unified dismissiveness to our pleas to integrate values of respect and coherence in its deliberations.

According to Brenda: “The best outcomes are achieved when all voices are heard. All opinions should be welcomed and valued.”

We need involvement from the First Selectman’s office, and believe that Brenda will be a more effective partner as this process moves through the necessary legislative process.