To the Editor:
What is a city? It is much more than bike lanes and multi-family housing. Yet, those are the predominant themes emphasized in this draft Comprehensive Plan. To substantiate its overwhelming land use changes, the planners cite examples from other cities, mostly much larger in population and in some cases, located in vastly different climate zones.
Before I cite the overwhelming contradictions embedded in the plan, I would like to start by mentioning how the plan and its team were assembled. The Technical Advisory Team did not draw from a broad segment of thinkers. Those chosen were mostly pro-development and pro biking interests or those in the mayor’s close orbit. The role of the Neighborhood Ambassadors was not to meet with the neighborhoods and carry their wishes and concerns up to the planners; rather it was to force feed down what the planners had in mind for the neighborhoods, giving rise to the widespread thought that the plan was already formulated before opinions were even solicited. Largely, the Ambassadors did not meet with their constituents, even after multiple attempts to contact them. Who were these Ambassadors? Some were very new to their neighborhoods; other had not kept up with developments in their neighborhoods. This leads to the question – what were the criteria for their selection? And why were some neighborhoods chosen for meetings with the planners while others were left out?
Positive highlights of the Plan include building design standards, the encouragement of retail uses, tree planting, landscape buffers and other pollution mitigating ideas, including limits on vehicle idling (which should include all commercial vehicles).
On a high level, for the most part, this plan eviscerates single family zoning in Stamford, seemingly sparing certain cherished parts of the city. It’s impossible to believe that the input of single family homeowners was taken seriously by the planners in the development of this report. This is the most serious flaw: the refusal to adhere to property rights and the implied contract that single family homeowners believed they had when they purchased their homes. Social engineering underlies every aspect of this report. Contrary to its representation, the report DOES NOT CAPTURE THE SHARED ASPIRATIONS OF MANY AND IS ANYTHING BUT INCLUSIVE.
The 2015 Master Plan preserved for the most part “the look and feel of established neighborhoods” (page 17). The 2035 Comprehensive Plan TEARS APART THE LOOK AND FEEL OF ESTABLISHED (single family) NEIGHBORHOODS BY PROMOTING LARGE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WITH NO OFF STREET PARKING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLUSTER HOUSING, DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES. JUDGING FROM THE EXPANSION OF HOUSING IN STAMFORD OVER THE PAST DECADE, CAR USE WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE AND THE CREATION OF SUFFICIENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE.
This Comprehensive Plan is clearly missing certain key elements conveniently swept under the rug that would speak loudly for quality of life in Stamford: the need for the Glenbrook Community Center to reopen as a community center and the restoration of the popular boatyard that was demolished illegally, as well as a neighborhood compatible use for the Haig Avenue property.
The longitude and latitude of Stamford are ignored in the relentless push for bike lanes which serve a mere fraction of Stamford’s population. Stamford is a northeastern city with limited months of temperate weather suitable for bike riding. Furthermore, people don’t bike ride to the supermarket or take their children to after school activities on a bicycle. Stamford’s streets should not be “prioritized for bicycle and pedestrian mobility.” (page 27). Automobile and bus uses are the predominant modes of transportation, so bikes and pedestrians need serious consideration for safety, but should not be prioritized. The car is hereto stay. Proposals to make travel more difficult for motorists is found in many portions of this report. Slowing down traffic with lower speed limits and traffic calming measures only adds to the congestion and the pollution from automobiles.
If buildings cause 59% of the pollution, as indicated in the report, WHY are we pushing more and more building construction? And with new buildings come more new cars, more trash (10% annual growth cited) and more wastewater disposal needs, adding to the municipal budget. More building also adds more impervious surfaces which results in increased flooding in the streets of our coastal community. Infrastructure improvements have not kept up with increases in population thus far and population increases have actually resulted in serious environmental concerns. Therefore, I do not believe that the contradictory visions/solutions outlined in this report will comport well with Stamford residents, neither will they comfortably accommodate a 12% population increase by 2035. Rather, the recommendations in the report will only serve to exacerbate the problems the authors purport to solve.
—
Shelley Michelson is a homeowner in Stamford. She holds a Masters Degree in Urban Planning and is a municipal finance analyst.