Summer Sorenson
In the span of two weeks, a wave of institutional voices arrived that months of coverage on Ridgefield’s waterfront development had struggled to produce: a conservation nonprofit weighing in on wildlife impacts, a port defending itself point by point in a Q&A posted on its website, and a city council formally requesting consideration of citizen concerns in writing.
Amid all this, a downtown rally opposing the development was followed by a packed Port of Ridgefield Commission meeting — both on Sept. 9.
The Friends of Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge’s letter, dated Aug. 27, cited “serious concerns regarding the Port of Ridgefield’s proposed waterfront development plan in its current form and its real potential to impact habitat and wildlife on the Refuge, directly and indirectly.”
The letter continues, “While we express clear, substantive opposition to high-density residential concepts, multi-story structures, and high-impact parking near Carty Lake and Lake River, our goal is not to block waterfront revitalization, but to actively shape a conservation-first gateway model through constructive, collaborative engagement with the port.”
On Aug. 31, the port posted a Q&A on its website, summarizing their responses to the summer of engagement that included presentations at local community organizations and tabling at local events.
The answer to “what can the community impact?” regarding the development included: details of the 9-acre waterfront park, public parking, an office building, a boutique hotel, a mixed-use building and a residential building. The answer continues: “The port is actively working with Palindrome to incorporate community design ideas and feedback in the following areas,” and the list mentions “housing, location, type, size and density” and “access to the shoreline and Lake River for boaters, kayakers and other users (including parking, ADA access, day use dock and boat launch).”
Concerns over density, wildlife impact and site access were voiced frequently by citizens at two Port of Ridgefield Commission meetings attended by this reporter on Aug. 12 and Sept. 9. The complaints persisted at the Sept. 9 meeting despite the port's Q&A, posted Aug. 31, stating its openness to community input on housing type and density.
The downtown rally on Sept. 9, organized by Preserve Ridgefield Waterfront, consisted of around 20 individuals carrying signs and chanting statements such as: “No apartments, no hotels,” “Save our waterfront!” and “Dark skies, no lies.”
As the rally circled Ridgefield City Hall, Mayor Matt Cole and Councilmember Rian Davis came out to speak with them.
“We’re not trying to hide,” Cole said.
Cole thanked the rallygoers for their efforts; a few rallygoers echoed their appreciation to Cole and Davis for taking the time to listen to their concerns during the spring and summer.
Port Commission meeting Sept. 9
The rally attendees and close to 100 total residents then filled the available seating at the Port of Ridgefield Commission meeting, many waiting to contribute their voice to what turned out to be well over an hour of public comment in a two-hour meeting. At least 20 speakers raised the necessity of housing on the site, traffic, continued boat and trailer access, the selection of Palindrome as developer, and transparency complaints.
City of Ridgefield weighs in
On Sept. 10, the city council’s letter to the port both validated the concerns of citizens and expressed gratitude and eagerness to move forward productively.
The letter states, we’ve “heard our constituents’ fears.” It continues, “Once you have a refined plan ready to review, the city stands ready to work with you on applications and agreements that will help address and alleviate those fears.”
The list of items the port is to produce includes a formal master plan, traffic, economic, and environmental analyses, and design details with 3D renderings.
Port Commissioner Scott Hughes publicly acknowledged the letter, stating in a formal response, “We agree that planning for the future waterfront redevelopment must address these values and concerns. The city’s requests … will be addressed through a detailed process that includes planning, legal agreements, design, engineering and permitting … The redevelopment must be grounded in community values as well as the environmental, economic and physical realities of the site. This is complex, and it will take time.”
Voices missing from the process
To date, the vocal majority that can be found are in opposition to the waterfront plan as currently proposed. There are those in support of the development, but their voices are difficult to find. One resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said, “About one-third of my friends are against the development, one third are for it, and the other third don’t have an opinion.”
The developer, Palindrome Properties, was contacted by phone — where a message was left with front desk staff — and by email, twice, but did not respond to requests for comment earlier in this series.
What’s next
The port has stated all along that it will host a community meeting this fall, at which time it will announce its findings from the summer engagement and inform residents of what’s next for the development based on all the underlying factors. The date for that meeting has not yet been announced. The Reflector will share those details as they become available in this continuing series on the development.
This report was first published by The Reflector Newspaper.
