Town Council Meeting 12/6/2004

[tooold]

Good clarification and suggestions.

I just want it to be fair to the average voter.

[tomterific]

Re: the WTXA settlement and the court ordered referendum: does any body know if the wording of the question will be required to be precisely what the petition contained, or is there an ability by the plaintiffs or by the town council to change anything in it? I'd have two types of concerns: a)-change some wording just to make it more understandable, and b)-change the wording so that the intent is NOT what the plaintiffs wanted. "a" would be acceptable if it's non-partisan; "b" would probably be partisan.

[SyZyGy]

Original petition read:
"The Town of Wethersfield shall not keep, maintain, or cause to be kept or maintained any permanent or temporary floodlights, spotlight, other reflector-type lighting for illumination of sporting events on any municipal owned property."

NightScream, welcome to this forum. But, please help me with your recent comments and questions.

I have reiterated the original petition's language (above); please note that it refers to "illumination of sporting events," (which happen to be, implied,) "on any municipal (sic: should be municipally) owned property." Also, I would like to suggest that you also now (re-)read my post in this thread entitled "Russ & Danny & Jack -Spin Doctors" on: Dec 9th, 2004, 12:15pm.

NightScream wrote: I'm very simple in my thinking but, why doesn't this lighting issue stand on it's (sic) own merrits?

• I am not following you here; what do you mean that this issue should be able to 'stand on its own merits'? Please elaborate and clarify this.

This ref. (sic) would implicate all M (sic) properties, (as told to me by town employees). Is this true?

• If by your "M" you mean "municipal" properties, I have every reason to believe that the employees who you have referenced are suffering from Ms. Fillo's article in the Hartford Courant. I have every reason to believe that she misstated herself in this regard FOUR times. This shows the power of the press to make and disseminate mistakes which, then, the otherwise uninformed or unfortunate reader might spread further by word of mouth. Simple answer to your question: No (based on what I know at present).

I guess my question should be generalized to reflect a more sound point, "Why are ref.s in general written to encompass more than one item or agenda?

• NS, unfortunately, I do not "get" what you are trying to convey or ask here? Are you saying that you don't understand (or do not see the necessity of) all of the provisions or details in the wording of the petition? If that is the case, then, perhaps we should ask one of the framers (WTPA) of the petition exactly why it was worded that way and why the petition was not limited to just the issue of Cottone Field lighting

If truely (sic), the project worth it's (sic) weight in the public's eye, then surely it should stand the critics and "no-votes" of the time.

• What?

A well formed plan and sound argument should/would surely convey a vote of confidence.

• What plan? What argument? What vote of confidence? Are you suggesting that this recycled referendum (saved from Town Council's "trash can") is a some kind of litmus test? Who is being tested? What is to be learned if one side or another "wins"? Will our fair Town fare well either way?

[SyZyGy]

Accidental duplicate posting of above has been deleted. Sorry.