New Petition part 2

[SyZyGy]

oldetowne, and others of your impressive ilk,

I get the impression from several of LouS' recent posts that he playing a role.

He is not really involving himself in the discussions and daily give and take as he has in the past. Yes, I too have noticed his "tortured language" (your term), since at times I have been accused of using the same. So I recognize it when I see it (as a Supreme Court justice once said about pornography).

I get the feeling that LouS is doing his job of keeping the opposition busy and at the same time tempting them to tip their hands so as to display their upcoming tactics and strategies ( to be used before the Council and the Voters). And, apparently we have more than obliging him.

Do we really think that facts and reason will divert the pro-lites/jox phalanx? A lyrical two-by-four might - but certainly not facts, fairness, reason or concerns for adjacent residential property owners. No, they have made up their collective minds.

LouS is just jerking us around. "Please orate..." "...has anyone that is against this looked to Newington"... "Any input...would help..." LouS is not doing any serious discussing here, though he is encouraging us to do so. He wants us to keep busy doing homework for him.

Consider this:

What about all the pro-neighborhoods, pro-zonng (for the Town), pro-reason folks such as us just logging off of this forum for the next two months, until after the 5/24/2005 referenda? Why should we be trying to explain to people who don't want to be given a reason to change their minds?

Let the juveniles, jox and post-jox who scurry around this forum chanting lights, lights, lights just play among themselves.

This forum has fewer than 250 posters, though there are many lurking (probably every Town Council member and the town administration, etc.) trying to keep a finger on the pulse of the people.

A forum such as this in a town such as this with politics such this can be addictive. This forum is fun, but I am not sure that contributing to what is in essence a one-sided "discussion" on this subject will serve the vast majority of the people of Wethersfield who are being controlled by a powerful, well-financed, Democrat-fascilitated, faction which has been recently schooled (? Neo-con Müller, et al., despite LouS' ascertions to the contrary and Hyper-lib Stienmertz) in power politics.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. Then too, strange bedfellows makes for interesting politics.

Oldetown, Leigh, etc., keep your heads down and your powder dry. Work with those you trust.

I will be back - after the referenda.

In this one regard, I will concur with LouS:
"I look forward to the next part of the process to unfold."

Logging off this (and similar) threads,
Syzygy
p/s: Please do not take the above personally; I think that what you have been doing has been masterful; and, I do believe that you should run for Council, Sy.

[standish]

Syzygy,
I prefer to remain in dialog and not cede the bully pulpit. If tactical issues need to be discussed, rest assured that I will choose the appropriate forum for such delicacies. However, I hope to convince at least some of the visitors and regulars here that it's a bad idea to exempt Council from 50 years of embedded, organic community values as expressed in our carefully defined plan of development and zoning regulations. Nor do I necessarily believe that a given Council will exercise the expertise and perspective at the same, high level of competence as those engineers, real estate attorneys and other experts that previous and current Councils have appointed to TPZ (many of whom have served thereon for more years than some on Council have been out of college).

[JackAss]

Let's take bets that our good friend Syzygy will be back before 5/4.

My guess he is tapping his fingers on whether to log in or not. That must be his version of an April Fools joke.
Your not fooling us sy.

[LouS]

Let me be frank here.

We are playing by the rules. We are using the full court press, the whole field, taking the clock down, etc., etc.

For 10 years this has been approached at each and every angle. If you scrutinize the latest petitions you will see that a vast number (majority?) of signers were not the "jox" group.

Never, did P&Z look to make pole height an adequate change to cover sports lighting. WTXA, and others have chosen, as is their right, to fight not only the field, but specifically here, the lights at a sports field.

Our intent is to get lights at Cottone Field. We are working within legal confines. It is too bad that everyone that may be up in arms about this latest turn of events wasn't as concerned about getting this potential updgrade to the field done in a different manner.

standish, if you could convince P&Z to adopt language that would allow lights and we could get the process done this way, I can guarantee that the 4.4 hearing would not be needed.

[LouS]

And as a follow up, not interested in years of discussion, break out groups, focus groups, etc.

[standish]

LouS said:

standish, if you could convince P&Z to adopt language that would allow lights and we could get the process done this way, I can guarantee that the 4.4 hearing would not be needed.

Unfortunately, that's not an option. Neither you, nor anyone else, can legally rescind a petition consisting of other registered voters' signatures. It's either going to pass as an ordinance and force another petition drive or go to referendum. That's the problem. Once opened, Pandora's box cannot be easily closed.

[oldetowne]

and at the risk of "piling on", yet another football metaphor, I have to ask the same questions again that I did the other day:

"... [you assert that] "someone" has been trying to get lights on Cottone Field for ten years and the "process" has prevented that.

Has any application ever been made to P&Z or ZBA? Has an actual lighting plan ever been submitted to the Council, the Board of Ed, P&Z or ZBA? Has an application for a variance from the existing regulations been submitted to the ZBA? Has a proposed amendment to the new zoning regulations been drafted for review by town staff and P&Z? Has the Council asked the manager to add the lights to her capital improvement budget for the next year? Has any single identifiable concrete step been taken to get this beyond the talking stage and into the "process" which you claim has failed so miserably?

I don't think ANY of those things has occurred. Instead, high school kids and kind hearted friends of John Miller circulated petitions, telling voters that "it's for the lights". It may well be "for the lights", but it shows yet another example of working outside of the processes and procedures that everyone else - citizen and business alike - has to follow so that a quick fix can be achieved without regard to the consequences."

As an alternative to the blanket exemption blunderbuss, you're asking for a guarantee that P&Z would be a rubber stamp for the as-yet unknown lighting plan?

[LouS]

I did not adequately make the correct statement. Thank you for clarifying this.

My main thrust though was to show that there was a reason for the direction taken.

Oldetowne, I have been working on this issue for that long and we have had numerous meetings with the previous town manager, BOE and town representatives and the outcome then was to develop the 20 year plan for Mill Woods that included a potential multi-use field.

You keep saying that we are working outside but in fact, are working within the guidelines of appropriate processes and procedures.

Newington, apparently, has not been noted for any "disturbances" since they have incorporated this into their procedures.

[standish]

LouS said:

Newington, apparently, has not been noted for any "disturbances" since they have incorporated this into their procedures.

LouS,
Rick Garrey summed it up when he said something to the effect that, although he hasn't been through his windshield yet, he's still going to wear his seatbelt. I believe you're a decent person who's doing his best to accomplish a goal in which he believes. I credit you for your love of youth sports and desire to see the best for them. I am sure you are only doing what you believe is best for the town. I think you have altruistic motives. I don't even begrudge you for thinking that exemption is the answer to your issue. But, I truly believe that this is not the right way to achieve your ends. Even if you win, we all lose.

[RGarrey]

I have not been on this forum for a few days but I am glad to see the discussion continues. You all know my views on this petition. I have spoken with Lou S. in the past and I know that his motives are with good intention. I agree with Lou on many of his opinions on youth sports as stated in other threads on this forum, I am also a supporter of youth sports and spend more time than I probably should, coaching, filming and supporting youth sports in many ways. I also would like to see a lighted field in town but as I have stated before we must consider the impact to the neighborhood and we must not remove these very important safeguards just to facilitate the installation of these lights. I must also add that I respect Lou for his civility in these discussions and for not posting anonomously! I still disagree with this petition but I will not make this a personal matter with anyone. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and be good "sports" about it.

I also found this exerpt from a P&Z meeting where the Chairman states his opposition to exempting the town from the P&Z process. Just thought it was interesting.

WETHERSFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2004

Mr. Miller said that the town officials have been discussing putting up light posts at an athletic field in Town. He is of the opinion that there is a problem if the Town's proposal is not allowed under the zoning regulations. He said that the Commission should consider pulling municipal land out of the zoning requirements.
Commissioner Oickle publicly disagreed with Mr. Miller on that issue. He said that the Town should have to meet all of the same standards that the public has to meet. Mr. Miller brought up the example of a school in a residential zone not being the same as a house in a residential zone. Commissioner Oickle said that the Town should be able to meet the same standards, and if not would have to come before the Commission. Mr. Miller again said that his opinion is that there is something wrong if the governing body of the town is proposing something that is not allowed by another body of the town. He added that Farmington exempted town land from zoning regulations. Chairman Hammer replied that in his experience with Farmington, he did not recall that the town exempted its public facilities.
Mr. Miller again said that this issue was called to his attention and that he is concerned with the ability to put up streetlights. Chairman Hammer reminded the public that the Commission is not proposing a change to the regulations to limit the height of lights that in fact the regulation has always existed and no changes are proposed.

Full minutes of the meeting are at wethersfieldct.com/B+C/PZC_10-05-2004.html

[LouS]

Thanks for the post.

Very interesting information. I had forgotten about this interaction.

[standish]

It was George Oickle who stated his opposition to exempting the town. Joe Hammer (chair) only said he was unfamiliar with Farmington's action to exempt lights. Later, Dan O'Connor said Farmington had actually done so. All were in agreement to take up the issue of lights at a future meeting, rather than continue with the discussion at this referenced meeting. I suggest that, those interested, read the entire context of these minutes.

[oldetowne]

Good points Leigh and Rick. Also think it's worth mentioning that those minutes are about the only actual discussion of the lights that have ever taken place in front of either P&Z or ZBA.... ever.

Lou's description of his efforts over the past ten years explains why he and others may be exasperated and feel that they have gotten nowhere. But as he pointed out, the focus - to the extent there ever was a focus - apparently was on Millwoods and the Cottone Field issue wasn't on anyone's radar screens until a week or two before the last Council election.

[LouS]

oldetowne,

Let me clarify this. During the past 10 years, as I stated, many suggestions were brought forth. Much of the discussions centered around Cottone Field. Lights were on the front burner, but due to the "newness" of the effort state-wide (limited towns had them) and the fact that Wethersfield would be ahead of the curve, was a frightening place for the then council, as well as voters.

The issue of the reconstruction of Cottone (renovations time) and the horrible planning and the fact that no one took responsibility, made lights a secondary issue at that point.

When (over the past two years) there was a perfected artificial surface developed and used that could be used to rectify all the problems at Cottone and make this a state-of-the-art field, is when the artificial surface became a factor. Instead of looking at this as an additional "new suggestion" I believe it should be regarded as simply an option that was part of the process of field design, again, something that has been ongoing. At that point, I (we) decided to try and make it a campaign issue, and the facts speak for themselves. Wethersfield was indeed ahead of the curve in its selection of this type of field.

Now the lights. This council and BOE, all answered questions regarding the lights during the past election. It is no secret how they responded. The lighting issue will run its course. Do I wish that "someone" in the past 10 years had the desire to try a get P&Z to reestablish acceptable limits for sports lighting? Absolutely. However, this did not happen, which brings us to this resolution.

It appears the question will be voted on in May and it appears that there is substantial community backing and hopefully, there will be council acceptance of this at the time it passes.

The town manager may push to define the referendum question (during tonight's session) as "giving the town exemptions", however, the driving reason for this question and the support of it goes directly to the issue of Lighting Cottone Field.

Additionally, I appreciate the way Rick handled his show on Friday night, I did catch a portion of it later...he always gives credence to both sides of the issue.

[LouS]

Since we are responding under this area, I will continue.

Someone called into Rick G's show Friday and mentioned the suggestion of moving "Cottone Field" and its development to the existing soccer field area.

There was misrepresentation of facts during the call-in. One is that it was an option and it was discussed and looked at. Do you know what prevented this from becoming a realistic option? No, it was not the NIMBY groups from the corresponing area, as they have always been supportive of the fields. It was because the field dimensions (within the newly resurfaced track) would not safely hold the football field. The track would have to be ripped up. Also, the cost of installing bleachers was to the tune of over a half million dollars.

This is another problem that the supporters of the field and lights have run into and will probably hear a good amount more of misrepresentations throughout the referendum process.