Greenwich conservation director: tear down everything at Tod’s Point

Not by the hair on my chinny chin chins

Not by the hair on my chinny chin chins

Denise Savageu, the employee we for some reason have turned over the entire town to (along with her counterpart, zoning staffer Diane Fox) is dead set against anything left standing at Tod’s Point.

Savageu gives a lot of blather about “conversations” and “long term planning, but here’s her bottom line:

“Whenever you build a building or a bridge, it has a lifespan,” said Savageau, “There may be another discussion on whether to rebuild it another time in the future, and that should be part of the bigger discussion. As a town asset, we should ask what will the town do if this does get damaged again.” [Rebuild it with private funds, Denise - Ed]

Understand that every original building at Tod’s is below the new FEMA flood elevation. In fact, even the ticket booth is in violation – will the staff there lower a basket for visitors to place their beach cards in? Savageau’s logic demands that it all be torn down, so this isn’t just about the old barn, it’s about every building down there. Her dream is clearly a windswept collection of dunes and woods, preferably without evil humans despoiling her sanctuary.

You can get the full flavor of this “conversation” in an earlier post here, “Wonder where the concession stand is?” but in essence Savageu and Fox have bought the global warming-imminent flood Kool-Aid of Al Gore and spiked it with vodka: everything along our coast must be razed and rebuilt, if it’s rebuilt at all, on 9′ stilts. This isn’t required by federal law, and, like the Tod’s Point buildings, the money involved is private – as private as the property homes in Shorelands sit on – but these two petty hysterics want it gone, all gone.

The Planning & Zoning Commission is entirely free to ignore the recommendations of these two staffers. Will it? There’s no record of common sense ever rearing its ugly head on that panel before, but let us push on, like the groom in a second marriage, and perhaps we’ll witness the triumph of hope over experience.

37 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

37 responses to “Greenwich conservation director: tear down everything at Tod’s Point

  1. Austin Powers

    That’s a man, baby.

  2. Proving once again we need a Town Plan, not a zoning map or a special interest plan of continuous dabblement that caters to special interests.
    We choose to live here not just to support government regulations and fund grant seekers.

  3. Anonymous

    The malignancy of the government cancer writ small.

  4. Libertarian Advocate

    but these two petty hysterics

    THAT’S SEXIST!!!! Waaaaah, Waaaah, Waaaaah…..

  5. Anonymous

    Tangentially related. Bad attitude of CT government and Ruger’s press release announcing their new 220,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility in Mayodan, NC.

    http://www.ruger.com/corporate/news/2013-07-08a.html

  6. Publius

    Unfortunately the presence of overweight self loathing liberal government smartest person in the room do gooders is not limited to Greenwich. Take a look around at the federal, state and local levels and you will find an army of Denise Savageu’s wreaking havoc.

  7. Mickster

    I love it – another headline that’s bears no semblance to the underlying article. It seems that these people just want a discussion. No harm in that.

    • The “discussion” called for by Savageau is her tool for stopping the Friends of Greenwich Point from rebuilding the barn. When used for such purpose, that’s not a discussion at all, and there is “something wrong with that”.
      “These people” you refer to is a body of one, albeit a large body. And as for using the headline I did, I was just cutting through the fog and obfuscation by focusing on her argument, its implications and its logical, inevitable result – note her references to the bridges at the Point having a limited life span and when that life has reached its end, a “discussion” should be held on whether to rebuild them. The lady wants, as I said, a garden of eden devoid of humans.

      The fact that you read the Greenwich Time article and came away with the impression that all Savageau wants is a chat over a nice cup of tea shows that the Greenwich Time and Savageau achieved their aims.

      • Mickster

        I love when people like the Friends of Greenwich Point take it upon themselves to do this at their expense, BUT will they also take on the responsibility for any future damage to goods, equipment, foodstuffs etc etc that arise from future floods? Or do I have to pay for that? That’s the kind of discussion I want to have.
        I have probably spent more time in cow barns than most anyone else in Greenwich, can take them or leave them, but still willing to have this discussion.

        • Ben Dover M.D.

          There is evidence that exposure to cow manure rots the human brain.

        • In addition to Dr. Ben Dover’s analysis of the cause of your incomprehension, Mickster, there’s also your demonstrated illiteracy or, as we call it here in your new country, “the Irish Problem”. The same group offering to rebuild the barn has also offered an endowment to maintain it – if that’s not in the current Greenwich Time article it was certainly mentioned in my linked-to post of June 27th. In short, the discussion you’re so desperate for has been held, the question answered, and the only thing left to be resolved is how soon we can load Denise Savageau into a wheelbarrow and get her the hell out of Dodge. Perhaps your people can help with that.

  8. Anonymous

    Denise Savageau doesn’t like people very much–I have contacted her on 2 occasions to urge her to take the threat to humans from coyotes in town more seriously–she continues to insist that “attacks on humans are extremely rare” despite them taking place on multiple occasions in the past 2 years in Rye and East Lyme, and coyote attacks on humans being a regular occurrence in California.

  9. Long Time Central Greenwich Resident

    No bathrooms? Thousands of people going to the bathroom where at Greenwich Point? Innes Arden Cottage which was just rebuilt demolished?

    Honestly, you can do without food concessions, but not without bathrooms on Greenwich Point.

  10. Long Time Central Greenwich Resident

    Seriously, if the town has to rebuild bathrooms and a shelter for the lifeguards after bad storms, the town can afford to do this. Otherwise, Greenwich Point is not going to be usable as a town beach.

    • You miss the point (so to speak): Denise Savageu and her eco-allies don’t want people using parks, they don’t want parks, period. Hence their insistence on letting Binney Park Pond fill in and revert to swamp and the eradication of buildings at Tod’s – “if we don’t build it, they won’t come.”
      Econuts see humans as outside of nature, not part of it, and to them, the perfect world is one devoid of people. See, e.g., “The World Without Us”, a number one seller among the Savageu set.

      • Long Time Central Greenwich Resident

        People will come to the beach in the summer and they will stay for long enough to need to use the bathroom. The bathrooms as I understand it are functioning. To demolish them is a health concern precisely because many people use the beach in the summer and will use the beach even in the absence of bathrooms.

    • Mickster

      Long-time,
      It seems like we’re all missing some point here, according to CF. if the discussion is over, it’s over – why are we debating anything here? I’m all for rebuilding the cowshed to provide bathrooms etc for the patrons. Just get it done. I can think of a lot better ways of spending $750k++ than a cowshed but not my money…

      • The “discussion” isn’t over, Mickster, because our conservation director demands that nothing be done until we decide not to rebuild anything at Tod’s. For some reason, the P&Z is going along with this and is delaying and delaying and delaying while awaiting direction from Heaven or Al Gore, whoever dials in first.

        But your general conclusion is correct: I’ll do all the thinking for your here – you just crawl under the shade of a wheelbarrow with a couple of pints and I’ll wake you if you need to be concerned about something.

        • Mickster

          Why don’t you do that – but if it involves math or spelling I’d rather take care of that myself.
          BTW readers could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that a lot of these rants are just attacks on Town Hall staff in general. Don’t let yourself get used in that way – there are many helpful people who do us a great service there every day.

      • Anonymous

        Mickster….what is your problem here? There is a private group able and willing to fund the building—construction and maintenance in the event of a storm. Your taxpayer money is nothing. Just sit back and enjoy, buddy.

        I think its a tremendous offer as compared to the Byram Pool folks who want to build an Olympic size pool (and a toddler pool!) pay for the initial first sum—and leave that huge maintenance legacy (including expensive liability insurance) to the taxpayer for decades to come.

        • Mickster

          I’m 100% behind the idea. I will probably get to use the new facility more than most as I’m down there daily. Just like the idea of discussing the project and to hear other viewpoints – however wacky – too. That’s all – no more, no less.

  11. housecat

    Am I correct in thinking that these positions – like all others that actually matter – are appointed by our political hacks?

  12. Anonymous

    dude looks like a lady.

  13. GPC Supporter

    CF – Your points about the desire for “discussions”, and how this is often a smokescreen for throwing up delays, is right on point. Lots of discussion has already been had on this topic.

    Consider:
    1) The Greenwich board of selectman unanimously approved the Old Barn project.
    2) The Greenwich RTM unanimously (!) approved the Old Barn project.
    3) On the national level, FEMA has considered and balanced the desire to preserve historic structures, and has created an exception for historical buildings in the flood zone, which is available for the town on this project (see FEMA Floodplain Management Bulletin on Historic Structures.)

    Greenwich’s Conservation Commission has not yet reviewed this project, although interestingly the town conservation director weighed in without (I understand) guidance from her Commission. Hopefully the Conservation Commission will also support this project, as it has supported the Greenwich Point Conservancy’s projects at the Point in the past.

    I also understand that the Conservation Commission will take this topic up at its next meeting on July 18 (note that the public can attend these meetings).

  14. TownieGirl

    Town hall is making everything awesome about this town suck.