|
|
Post by standish on Mar 22, 2005 16:00:55 GMT -5
Right you are... it was Syzygy. Sorry for the misplaced attribution. The only grassy knoll in Wethersfield is the ancient burying ground, aka The Village Cemetery.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Mar 22, 2005 17:36:28 GMT -5
On Monday, March 21, 2005, during the public comments section of the Town Council meeting, both Mr. Rhue and Mr. Orsini of the WTPA said that they had heard others refer to this petition (what I have called the "PZC-bypass petition") as the John / Miller Petition or words to that effect. In nearly the same breath it was also implied that there might be some association between this petition and the development of the meadowlands previously refered to as the "interchange" (?) land (East of Middletown Avenue, South of Maple Street and West of Elm Street and US I-91, south to the Wethersfield line with Rocky Hill). Did I mis-hear them? Have I mis-paraphrased them (ibid.). Do they know something that we don't know? Have they, two honorable men, been misled? Haven't you heard similar comments yourself around town? A heavy, in-kind contributor to the rebuilding of Cottone Field, Miller surely has purely eleeomosynary intentions. If he chooses, he could dispel this apparent rumor and / or clarify his involvement (if any) in the recent PZC-bypass petition drive at the next Town Council meeting. Miller, an avid sports spectator, was probably smiling because he enjoys a really good game..... Oh, Leigh, there are a LOT of grassy knolls in Wethersfield - outside of the Olde Towne. Perhaps you need to get out a little more often. How about nice football game at WHS this autumn, under the new stadium lights, maybe just sitting on the grassy, tree-less knoll at the south end of the field? (By the way, Lee Harvey Oswald worked alone, right? That's what the Government said. That has to be right!) Since OT weighed in, I will: I am a pragmatist, not a Mel Gibson character. |
|
DaveH
Gold Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by DaveH on Mar 23, 2005 1:56:54 GMT -5
Szyzgy;
Do you want to put yourself in line with a judge. Terry Schiavo was sentenced to death by a "judge".It is bad enough that these out of control judges make up laws from the bench and over step their bounds.
Sy, I would think that you support a representative form of government, but then again who knows.
To sit there with your yellow sweater tied around your neck and drag John Millers name through the mud is BS.
John Miller is a great American, person and a great asset to The Town of Wethersfield!
Maybe instead of jumping on people "sy" you should run for office, after all you have all the answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Mar 23, 2005 6:42:35 GMT -5
Dave,
You wrote: "It is bad enough that these out of control judges make up laws from the bench and over step their bounds." It seems to me that you might want to be a little more careful about what you say about judges, considering what recently took place in the Chicagoland area. The judicial system (judges) are intended to be the arbiters of contention where two parties see a problem differently and the judge applies the laws of the land to the presented facts with discretion (that's why they are called judges!) in my humble opinion. Don't you like this system? It's sounds quite American to me.
You wrote: "...I would think that you support a representative form of government..." Last time I looked, we still have an American form of governing which involves laws of our land and three branches of the Government one of which IS the judiciary. You got a problem with that, Dave? Love it or leave it, Dave.
You wrote: "John Miller is a great American, person and a great asset to The Town of Wethersfield! ... along with a lot of other great citizens too.
Just remember, I am a pragmatist and oldetowne is a cynic.
What's your perspective on the nature of humanity?
What ticket are YOU running on this Autumn?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Mar 23, 2005 7:43:51 GMT -5
I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused....
John Miller is a good man. Dave H is a good man. Lou S is a good man. George Ruhe is a good man. Leigh Standish is a good man. Dr. Ken is a good man. I know them all. I probably know some of the other anonymous people on here too. They just have different opinions on one particular issue (right now) and how to address that one issue.
The thing that really is distressing to me, however, is that the "process" that has been followed for 50 years in town, that of public hearings, site plan reviews, regulations, deliberations by the P&Z, ZBA, Council, etc., and the rights of aggrieved persons to appeal those decisions to court, is now being discarded for the purpose of accomplishing a single discrete goal that could easily have been accomplished through the existing procedures. The fallout from the elimination of these safeguards could affect everyone in town in ways that have yet to be imagined. Furthermore, the concept that the decisions of a state court judge, based on legal precedent, statutes and rules of procedure that apply to every person, place and thing in the State of Connecticut, are somehow seen as inherently unfair and inferior to the whimsy of an untrained, per se politically motivated, volunteer Town Council is terribly troubling.
I guess you do and say what you need to in order to get the job done.
|
|
|
|
Post by LouS on Mar 23, 2005 8:21:46 GMT -5
John Miller is a small part of the lights and fields push. However, in Wethersfield, the state and nationally, John has always taken the road he felt needed to be traveled, and because of this stands large.
There is a process and it will be followed.
One question I have, from the post regarding Orsini and Rhue and the development of the meadows...this could be a great area for a well and soon planned business development...are they against adding to the tax rolls...I did not get a read on this? I know it is not the proper area, but if someone could let me know. Thanks
|
|
RGarrey
Gold Member
WCTV "Wethersfield Live" Channel 14
Posts: 84
|
Post by RGarrey on Mar 23, 2005 9:17:43 GMT -5
As I have stated before I am against this referendum. I am against it for the same reason as some of the others on this forum have expressed. It would remove some very important safeguards that are in place to insure that all proposed projects meet certain minimum criteria and standards. Remember the Town is the #1 landowner in town, it is critical that they are held to the same standards as everyone else.
Also this past weekend I had a lengthy discussion with a business owner here in town. He first heard about this petition on my program last Friday. He feels that if this passes it would be a slap in the face to business owners who have to comply with the P&Z regulations. Business owners have had to incur added costs and delays in openings or change plans to comply with the rules. If this petition should pass then the Town could bypass these rules right next door to a business who would be forced to comply. I think that sends the wrong message to the business owners.
Lou, as far as developing in the meadows, I know that this idea has been brought before the voters in the past and was shot down overwhelmingly, If I recall correctly. As much as people want development and increased tax revenue, I don't believe they are willing to sacrifice such an environmentally sensitive area that is also an important flood plain. These are the comments I have heard in the past in regards to developing the meadows.
|
|
|
|
Post by LouS on Mar 23, 2005 11:40:31 GMT -5
Rick,
It would be great to get a representative from Newington on your show to see what the track record is after they had passed the same resolution.
Also, let me dream and view a cineplex encorporated with a Clinton-style outlet mall, right off the major highways? It is one of the only ways that we could manage tax increase costs and take away a bit of the burden from homeowners.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Mar 23, 2005 11:57:31 GMT -5
Lou - A little duplicitous political advice. I am with you on the Interchange Zone - I thought it was a good idea but the spineless chameleons on the Council back in the 90s ran away from their own proposal so fast it was scary when they saw which way the political winds were blowing. And a Putnam Park II wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the grand list. But even suggesting those things as a possible result of the enactment of this proposed exemption will get you a vigorous, articulate, well-heeled and well-organized set of opponents that you currently are not having to contend with. Stick to the lights and let the sleeping dogs on the other side of Silas Deane Highway lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by tooold on Mar 23, 2005 11:58:26 GMT -5
It looks like things are in motion. LouS had a good idea to gather information from a Newington representative. It looks like this may go to referendum either way.
The more factual information we have the better the decision that will be made.
I would suggest that each side strive to gather as much factual, historical and accurate information from other towns that have gone through this process as possible and I leave non-factual information out.
|
|
RGarrey
Gold Member
WCTV "Wethersfield Live" Channel 14
Posts: 84
|
Post by RGarrey on Mar 23, 2005 15:35:11 GMT -5
Lou,I am a supporter of a Putnam Park II project. It would build up on the existing site. I would also support limited development in the area around the Putnam Bridge. Rather than retail though I would much rather see a corporate/office park. The tax revenues are much higher and typically they are much more attractive and can be designed to blend in with the landscaping. Of course our ideas mean nothing unless a developer is interested in building the project. But to bring this back on topic I would prefer the Planning and Zoning board to have a vote in that kind of a change in land use as opposed to whatever council may be in power at that time.
I will try to contact someone in Newington if I have time to see if their ordinance is the same as we are proposing, and if so what if any issues have arisen. I also agree in getting as many facts as possible. That is why I urged supporters of this petition to call into my show because it is always important to hear both sides. But no matter what Newington says I don't believe it will change my mind, but I may be wrong. To me it is similar to saying that I have been driving for 20 years with no seat belt and haven't had a problem yet, it doesn't mean the dangers don't exist and can't happen at any time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Mar 23, 2005 15:37:06 GMT -5
Actually it is a lot simpler than that. The new petition will only have to go to referendum IF the Town Council does not approve it after a public hearing. If they do approve it, it becomes "law" in town - immediately! Of course, it will not cost the people of Wethersfield a dime more if the denied, 2nd petition is scheduled for a referendum on the same day as the WTXA's (May 25).
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Mar 29, 2005 8:54:07 GMT -5
Press release from WRTC
WETHERSFIELD REPUBLICANS CALL ON COUNCIL
TO LET THE VOTERS HAVE THEIR SAY
March 29, 2005
Wethersfield, CT ---
At its regular monthly meeting held on March 23, the Wethersfield Republican Town Committee unanimously adopted a resolution which directs the Town Council to submit the ordinance proposed in the recently submitted petitions to the voters at the scheduled May referendum.
The proposed ordinance, which would exempt all town property from compliance with town planning and zoning regulation, is set for a public hearing on Monday, April 4. At that meeting, the Town Council may choose to adopt the ordinance or send it to the voters.
“The petitions were designed to streamline the process for putting lights on Cottone Field, but the proposed ordinance goes far beyond that one project. It is a blank check for this Council and all future Councils to do anything they want with town property at any time,” said Rich Roberts, chairman of the Town Committee. Tom Fitzpatrick, a former four-term Council member added that “This eliminates all of the checks and balances that have been in place for over fifty years and puts every property owner and taxpayer at risk. The public is once again being sold a bill of goods.”<br>
The impetus behind the resolution was the fact that the Council could send the proposed ordinance to referendum at no additional cost, since there is currently one scheduled for mid-May on another proposed ordinance. Doing so would avoid the estimated $12,500 that each town-wide referendum costs. In addition, both the Republican Town Committee and Republican members of the Town Council have consistently and repeatedly asked that matters such as the installation of lights and artificial turf at Cottone Field be submitted to the voters because of the magnitude of the impact, both financially and on the neighboring property owners. Each time, the Democratic majority has refused to honor that request.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Mar 29, 2005 11:49:43 GMT -5
Good. I'm curious to see how quickly this gets picked up by the press (i.e., not at all).
|
|
|
|
Post by tomterific on Mar 29, 2005 13:36:37 GMT -5
Saving some dollars by having 2 referendums at the same time is a nice idea. BUT, the public will have had 5 or 6 months to ponder that 1st question (the one from WTXA that the Town Atty. tried to shoot down), whereas this new question (exempting the Town Govnt. from regulations) will only have a few weeks for the citizens to think about. So, on balance, I am against putting them both on 1 election in May.
|
|
