The Stanley Wasson site is one of the most flood-vulnerable areas in Waterbury—yet it’s now being considered for large, high-density housing next to existing homes already at risk.
This location flooded in 2011, 2023, and 2024. This video shows the river water and flow on July 11, 2023 at 12:45 AM. The water continued to rise until 2:00 AM.
WHY BUILD HERE?
Addressing the housing crisis is essential, but it must be done without increasing danger for current or future residents
disclaimer: This is not “anti-housing”—it is pro-safety, pro-resilience, and pro-community platform.
Waterbury has clearly written policies that explicitly state housing should be safe, prevent undue harm, and risk to the community.
Unified Development Bylaws provide for orderly community growth, promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning establishes site plan review requirements and zoning districts, including Flood Hazard Overlay Districts, with specific standards for proposed development. Requirements are designed to prevent overdevelopment; to mitigate negative impacts to the natural and human environment; minimize effects to the historical and aesthetic character of the community; and ensure design and construction of development in flood and other hazard areas are accomplished in a manner that minimizes or eliminates the potential for flood loss or damage to life and property.
- from the Waterbury Local Hazard Mitigation Plan adopted 2024
A RISKY PROPOSITION
With lasting effects on our entire community.
The perspectives above are shared through op-eds originally published in the Waterbury Roundabout. The publication is not affiliated with the Stanley Wasson Community Alliance. Both authors have kindly granted permission to share their work here.
It’s true that flood-resilient buildings can be engineered—but that protects the structures, not the people who live nearby or the future residents who may face evacuation or costly remediation.
Building in a floodplain is a risk. The river will rise again, and no one can predict the timing or severity of future storms. The Town must plan for the worst-case scenario, not the best, and avoid placing others in harm’s way.
Removing a green space that currently protects homes from flooding isn’t progress—it’s irresponsible.
Additional concerns and lasting effects. Responsible planning looks beyond the building footprint to consider the wider impacts on Waterbury—traffic, parking, emergency access, and the strain on public resources. Smart growth protects lives, property, and the long-term health and safety of the entire community.
THOUGHTS FOR CONSIDERATION
Transparency and clarity vs. false courtesy and a public narrative
Predetermined or Public Process?
There is growing concern that this project’s outcome may have been shaped before genuine public input was sought. True public engagement means giving residents a real voice in shaping outcomes—not simply informing them once the path has already been chosen. Waterbury deserves a process built on fairness, facts, and trust.
Our opportunity. The Town suggests that acting as a “go-between” will give residents more influence over the project. In truth, this structure could limit oversight and blur responsibility between the Town and private developers.
When the same entity promoting the project also controls public communication, transparency and accountability suffer—and residents are left with the illusion of input rather than meaningful participation.
False Narratives and Public Perception. Scare tactics and misinformation can distort public understanding. For example, claims that “the State will sell the land to another developer” are false. Under current law, the State cannot sell the property to another developer—the authorization to subdivide and sell the parcel is rescinded if the Town of Waterbury does not purchase it (H.493 *2023). The State would need to pass new legislation to subdivide and sell the land.
Similarly, it is misleading for the Town to use the Randall Meadow project as justification for building at Stanley Wasson. These are independent efforts with no shared design, engineering, timeline, or funding. Neither is complete, and the Town does not yet own either property. Linking them suggests a level of protection that simply does not exist.
When facts are replaced by narratives, trust erodes. Waterbury residents deserve clear information, honest communication, and decision-making that puts public safety before politics.