This Week’s Letters to the Editor

Editor’s Note: The Letters to the Editor section in the Woodbridge Town Chronicle is a place where community voices can be shared and heard. In the print newspapers of years past, letters to the editor were often the liveliest section, where readers spoke directly to one another, the broader community, and its leaders. To submit a letter for consideration please refer to the submission guidelines.

Board of Selectmen commits to responsible stewardship and non-development of Fitzgerald Property

To the editor,

Tucked into a long meeting on August 26, 2026, the Board of Selectmen made an important commitment to conservation. Many Woodbridge residents would be surprised to learn that the popular Fitzgerald property, which hosts a dog park, community gardens, and jogging and hiking trails, has no formal protection. In the August meeting, the Board of Selectmen took an important step towards lasting conservation of this beloved space. It voted unanimously on a resolution committing to responsible stewardship and non-development of the property, and to authorize First Selectman Mica Cardozo to sign a letter stating the same. While not a formal legal protection, this resolution and letter represent a powerful statement of the board’s commitment to maintaining the Fitzgerald property as open space for all to enjoy.

The resolution and letter were issued at the request of the Conservation Commission, which had taken the lead in helping the Town apply for a $150,000 CT DEEP Resilient Forestry Practices Grant for Fitzgerald. If awarded, the grant would provide funding to apply much-needed professional management to Fitzgerald’s long-neglected forest patches, including targeting invasive plant species, selectively removing unhealthy trees, and opening canopy gaps to allow understory regeneration, all of which will promote forest health and future climate resilience. It was recognized that DEEP would be much more likely to award the grant if Woodbridge could convey a strong commitment to preserving Fitzgerald — sentiments that are now clearly stated in the resolution and letter.

Although the pledge to preserving Fitzgerald was made in the context of a specific grant application, its implications are broader. The board has made a strong commitment to keeping Fitzgerald open space. However, the letter and resolution establish intent, not legal protection. Although work remains to ensure that future generations will enjoy Fitzgerald, we should take a moment to celebrate the Town's important first step toward this goal.

— Ben Carlson

The writer is the current Vice-Chair of the Woodbridge Conservation Commission.

Struggling seniors can't afford to pay for a new school

To the editor,

My wife and I are seniors and have lived in Woodbridge for over 20 years. We are struggling to try to pay already outrageous high home taxes imposed on us like the rest of the senior population that want to continue living in our town. 

The house we bought was a 1974 fixer upper house that needed a lot of repairs which we have slowly been doing through the years. There are a lot of homes in Woodbridge built around 1920 that the homeowners aren’t having demolished and replaced with a new home just because they need repairs or updating. 

We are opposed to building a new school. I know the Woodbridge school system prizes itself for being a blue-ribbon school and puts a lot of effort in maintaining this status with our taxes. I’ve seen a lot of people in our town that come here just to use our school and then move out when they no longer need the school anymore. 

I think it’s about time the Town of Woodbridge actually did something more for us seniors who have been here for over 20 years that have helping the town’s schools with our taxes and no longer use them and actually give us seniors a well-deserved tax break — like no taxes on seniors for the school or it’s system. 

— Joseph Neumann

Beecher proposal shows disrespect for voters and taxpayers

To the editor,

For my money, the disrespect and disregard displayed by the majority party at Town Hall is shameful.

The majority disrespects voters, providing just three weeks to decide a hugely consequential referendum on the single largest bond issue in Town history — $118.5 million for a new elementary school — with no public hearing and no opportunity to scrutinize materials used to prepare the ballot question.

The majority disregards and would lay to waste $13.345 million approved in 2014 — by a whopping 74.4% of voters — for school renovations made since. I’m slack-jawed by the eagerness of the majority to scrap that popular plan to extend the current school’s life by 20 -25 years and condemn to a landfill the significant upgrades to the building envelope, HVAC systems, insulation, and school security.

The hasty approval they seek means the $6 to $7 million still owed would be for improvements the majority wants demolished.

Beyond that disrespectful disregard for taxpayers and their money, the board of education decided to spend tens of thousands of dollars — meant for students — to ‘sell’ the idea of a new school and the massive new debt it would require.

Less than a year ago, ahead of town elections, the Democratic slate, stacked with Beecher Road School zealots, didn’t campaign on the need for a new school. Now, suddenly, it’s become an urgent matter.

It seems less than a year ago: 1) they covered up the need, 2) they’ve since been surprised by it, or 3) their plan all along was to spring it on unsuspecting residents and provide no time for scrutiny, debate, or alternatives. Any of these seems a gross failure of stewardship, by an administration re-elected by only eight votes.

For decades before this administration, the Town adhered to strict budgetary guidelines, keeping its comprehensive debt below 10% of the annual budget. If this new, massive bond package goes through, the Town’s debt to operating budget ratio will exceed that ceiling by nearly 15%.

By any standard, that 15% increase is irresponsible. The Town Hall majority should be ashamed. Vote no October 13.

— Laurence Grotheer

The writer is a former member of the Board of Finance (2006-2010), and a former member of the Board of Selectmen (2010-2015).

Editor’s Note: Letters reflect the perspectives of their authors. They are published to foster dialogue about issues of local concern, including questions of governance, transparency, and accountability, as well as topics such as highlighting upcoming or past events from community groups. To submit a letter for consideration please refer to the submission guidelines.