Fairfield Wants Penfield Light, PETA Drops Out of Running. But Will There Be Fish Sticks Served There?

When the federal government announced some time ago that it wanted to get rid of its lighthouses and was looking for local governments or non-profits to take them over, it prompted some odd plans, including one considered for a while by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which is based in Darien.

PETA's plan was to submit an application to the federal government to take over the Penfield Reef light in Farifield and convert it into a cafe and a memorial to honor dead fish. It also wanted to use other lighthouses as the sites of "fish empathy projects." Here's how PETA described it:

In all seriousness, we're applying for the lighthouses to serve as the international headquarters of our Fish Empathy Project, where we would install interactive displays promoting the protection of fish. Plus, it would be the perfect place to house the world’s first Fish Empathy Quilt.

After we submitted our application for the Penfield Reef Lighthouse, we found out that an official with the City of Fairfield—backed by the local Historical Society—is trying to obtain the lighthouse. So we wrote to him offering to bow out of the competition (which, incidentally, is just between us and him right now) if he can ensure that no cruelty to fish (such as angling or fish sticks) takes place on lighthouse grounds.

So that was PETA's ultimatum to the town of Fairfield: you want the lighthouse and we want the lighthouse, but we'll back off if you guarantee there are no fish sticks there. I'm not joking. Apparently PETA was willing to give up its plan for a memorial to dead fish but only if Fairfield made two concessions, one of which was a promise not to serve Mrs. Paul's Frozen Fish Sticks at the lighthouse.

Whether the town caved to the demand, I can't say. The Connecticut Post reported yesterday PETA never actually got around to applying and that it looks as if the town will be the only applicant. Inexplicably, the Post story ignored the questions of whether there will be fish sticks there once the town owns it.

So now that I've made fun of them, let me make a serious point about PETA, namely that it does a lot of good, important work but that issues like fish memorials and bans on fish sticks make it look silly. Concentrate on the anti-fur campaign, which is effective and worthwhile, and campaigns against factory farming, which is an atrocity (the factory farming, not the campaign), in my opinion, and forget the fish sticks.

Fairfield Replaces Its Environmental Watchdog on a Big Project Because He Was Too Tough

There’s an interesting conflict going on in the town of Fairfield, when the First Selectman has brought in a consultant to make sure that environmental regulations are being adhered to by a big development, because the people who should be overseeing it – the town’s Conservation Departmen – were being too tough.

The head of the Conservation Department is Tom Steinke, who long-time Long Island Sound-watchers know as the former co-chair of the Long Island Sound Study’s Citizens Advisory Committee. From everything I’ve heard, his reputation is golden. But apparently First Selectman Kenneth Flatto didn’t like it that Steinke was keeping a close watch on the so-called Metro Center, a project that the town is co-developer of. The Connecticut Post (here) describes the project as …

… a joint effort of the town, state Department of Transportation and Blackrock Realty, would include the town's third train station, 1,500 rail commuter parking spaces, a hotel, office buildings, a health club and retail space.

The project, slated to be built on 35.5 acres across from BJ's Wholesale Club on lower Black Rock Turnpike, was unveiled in January 2001, but construction has yet to start, despite several groundbreaking photo opportunities and missed construction milestones.

Environmentalists in Fairfield have several reasons for being pissed off at Flatto for pulling Steinke. Some of them have to do with their assertion that by doing so, Flatto violated the town charter. Others are annoyed because Flatto seems to be one of those think-skinned elected officials who doesn’t take kindly to public criticism and shows little compunction about letting the criticizer know how he feels:

Some environmentalists said they were reluctant to criticize Flatto on the issue for fear that he might take retribution against them on other initiatives.

"Any of the times I've criticized Ken, he's called me immediately, come over or left a note at my door, being very upset," said Miner, a Democrat.

Ritter, an unaffiliated voter, said Flatto was "very public in his unhappiness" with her when she criticized a power line project that was later scuttled.

Brown said Flatto used to call him at home after letters he wrote to area newspapers were published until Brown filed a complaint against Flatto with the town's Ethics Commission.

Brown said his complaint didn't go anywhere, but that Flatto got the message. "He'll go after you He won't call me, just because he knows better," he said. "I kind of said, 'Do it again, and I'll file a complaint with the Police Department.' "

As for the question of whether Flatto’s action violates the town charter, the Post provides a lot of he said-she said but doesn’t do the one thing that might throw some light on the issue: quote the relevant section of the town charter. Granted, there must be some room for interpretation, but how about letting us read it and see for ourselves?

Sharing Long Island Sound's Upgrade Costs: More on Westchester's Dilemma

I wrote yesterday about Westchester County's sewage upgrade dilemma, which boils down to this: the county is facing a huge nitrogen removal cost at its Long Island Sound plants but the way its sewer districts are set up, that cost must be paid by only a relatively small portion of the county's population.

I wrote that I, a county resident who does not live in a sewer district, would consider an increase in my county taxes to pay for the Sound cleanup but first I'd like to have an idea of how much that increase might be.

Edward J. Bateson, chairman of the Town of Fairfield's Water Pollution Control Authority the commission that oversees how Fairfield's sewage system is run -- sent me his thoughts on the issue, and they're similar to mine: Long Island Sound is worth the extra cost. Here's what he wrote:

Apportionment of treatment plant upgrade costs over indirect users of the sewer system is a tough sell.

In Fairfield, CT about a decade ago we dealt with the subject. As a municipality we spread the $38 million upgrade cost over the entire towns' tax base, not just sewer users. I believe we are only one of two towns in CT to take this approach.

I was originally opposed to this. After months of debate I changed my mind. I changed my mind for several reasons. The main reason being that it aint all about nitrogen removal goals, engineering studies and low contract bidders; it is about Long Island Sound. It is our legacy and the example we set for generations to come.

All of us benefit from clean water - even those that do not have their sewage treated at the plants in question. Why should I pay for a highway upstate that I have never used, and probably never will use? Its' what we do. Collaborative resources to advance the publics' best interest. In this case the best interest of the public being a cleaner Long Island Sound.