New Petition part 2

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

The following is a snippet of an email thread among the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and our Town Attorney. The topic was the wording of the two explanatory texts for the referenda scheduled for May 24, 2005, regarding lights on municipal property and regarding exempting the Town from its own zoning regulations. I found this email from our Town Attorney quite "informative". It seems to suggest a certain perspective about how the citizens of town are viewed. I felt I had to share it with the rest of the dedicated commentators on this forum: [Emphases are mine.]

~ ~ ~

From: John Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 1:22 PM
To: Sassano, Dolores; Therrien, Bonnie
Subject: RE: explanatory text

Thanks. The statute says the legislative body may (but does not have to) authorize an explanatory text, the town clerk prepares it and the town attorney approves it. I think we should consider their comments only as a means of avoiding complaints. We are not bound to accept their comments. SEEC has no jurisdiction over local questions like this.

John W. Bradley Jr.
[Town Attorney,
Town of Wethersfield]

~ ~ ~

[oldetowne]

Not a surprise.

[tomterific]

Very interesting e-mail. But, I'm just curious. How does the good FootDoc get access to such documents? Is it from an FOI (Freedom of Information) request? Does it get leaked? And just how can us ordinary folk get to see items like this?

[SyZyGy]

And just how can us ordinary folk get to see items like this?

Just take two leeks and call the good Doc in the morning

;D

[SyZyGy]

The following was posted (in another thread) by Rick Garrey, President of WCTV-14 and host of the it program "Wethersfield Live", as 'RGarrey' on 5/8 - without any 'highlighting' - and is worth repeating here:

"I want to clarify who is going to appear on my program, "Wethersfield Live", for the next two weeks. Next Friday the 13th State Rep. Tony Guererra will be on to discuss veterans isuues at the state level. On Friday the 20th members of the Wethersfield Taxpayers Assoc. will be on to discuss their views on the upcoming referendum. The proponents of the lights did not request time on my program. The proponents and opponents of question #2 have both produced programs that will air on channel 14 this month. I will try to get the scheduled times that they both will air and post them on this forum.

I will also take this time to once again state my opinion on the referendum. I will be voting no to question #2 for many reasons which have been stated on this forum. I also want to add that I am not against lighting on athletic fields in town. The referendum question [#2] is not about sports lighting, it is about planning and zoning rules that affect every piece of land and building that the town owns and thus affects every neighbor and neighborhood that those properties are in. Remember, voting no to question #2 does not mean you are against lights. A proposal for lights can be brought before planning and zoning and if it fails an appeal can be brought to ZBA. This is the system that has served this town well for many years and has allowed lights to be installed on a softball field, tennis court and basketball court in this town already."[endquote]

Click

Question #2 is NOT about "lights" - it IS about tampering with our current system of Zoning - for the selfish desires of aging, former, athletes; some coaches; and sports-focused parents. They, as a group, are ultimately spectators looking for entertainment at a more convenient time than during daylight and are looking to vicariously revisit their own lost youth. Other powerful forces in our town who have their own, separate agenda: land 'reform,' development and redevelopment.

Question #2 is NOT about the WTPA - who are just a convenient whipping boy for the testosterone crowd. Question #2 is NOT about the "Courts" or "Judges" (who, horrors, may not even live in Wethersfield! [sarcasm]) - that might delay the desparately desired stadium lighting for all WHS athletics fields.

And, Question #2 is NOT about our pampered "kids" or pampering "our children" - that is just a smoke screen.

[tooold]

Syzygy, missed your comments but now remember why they really weren't missed. your points are always clouded by your attempt at being negatively creative. your description of pro light people just brings back the memories of your verbal diarrhea in written form. although your points may or may not be valid, they get lost in the crap that you spew.

LET THERE BE LIGHTS VOTE NO ON 1
AND VOTE YES ON 2

[oldetowne]

Well, it's Monday so I might as well get abused early in the week...

I think that question 1 is too restrictive to be approved. We have ordinances and procedures in place to decide where lights should be - use them. I plan to vote against question 1 and don't really see any reason to say anything more about it.

For essentially the same reason, I oppose question 2. While lights may be a great idea for Cottone Field, and I have yet to see the actual plans and decide for myself, I think the proposed exemption is just as excessive as the ban in question 1. Again, we have an elaborate system of regulations in place. Use them or amend them.

As I said to Lou back a month or more ago, I think it's an irresponsible delegation of power to the Town Council especially when the proponents of the lights have done nothing to try to work within the system that we have in place and only want to eliminate the safeguards that we all enjoy.

No application has ever been made to the ZBA. No application has ever been made to P&Z to amend the regulations to allow taller lights. If you read the minutes of the hearing at which people suggested it, you will see that (1) one wanted all town property exempt, (2) one wanted municipal sports fields exempt, and (3) one wanted the pole height changed. Get your story straight guys. You will also see that the town planner said he would come back with a proposal. That process has been entirely circumvented. Whether that was done out of fear of what P&Z would do or what the WTXA would do is irrelevant - they just chose to rewrite the rules to suit their goals.

Many people think lighting the field is a laudable goal but they are being misled as to what voting "yes" on question 2 will accomplish.

Will it allow the Town Council to erect those lights the following day, week or month? No. The town still has a lighting ordinance that has to be observed. There is also a tug of war between the Council and the BOE as to who has jurisdiction over the field. (The town attorney has said that it's the BOE who has the final say.) Does the exemption from zoning mean that there can be no appeals by the WTXA or the neighbors? No. The decision of the building inspector (Dan O'Connor's cousin) to give the town a permit to install the lights can be appealed to the ZBA. There goes a couple of months. Can they appeal any action taken by Council, BOE or any board or commission on the basis of FOI violations, no matter how technical? Yes. Can they appeal a decision not to go to P&Z under 8-24 for their review and comment - even if the project is exempt from zoning regulations? Yes. Can they petition under the charter to challenge the action of the Town Council to approve and install the lights and call for a referendum on that decision? Yes, and if timed properly that petition would hold things up for six months to a year.

I don't mean to be a jerk here (although many of you probably have already reached the opposite conclusion), but it is ludicrous to suggest that voting for question 2 means that these lights will be in place in time for the fall 2005 season. These are real issues that are being glossed over while the pro-lights guys tout the zoning exemption as the magic silver bullet to silence the WTXA and the neighbors. Instead, it's a shotgun blast into every neighborhood with town property in it and a sledgehammer for the Town Council to use to try to hurriedly create a legacy before the November elections.

Bottom line is that, even if you support lights without reservation, question 2 doesn't solve your problems. It just creates a whole bunch of different problems for everyone.

[SyZyGy]

'tooold' wrote elsewhere in another self-servingly titled thread today. To which I will respond here:

You recently hacked up few really choice 'adult' terms between your Bud-Lites: "verbal diarrhea" and "crap". Did Dandy put you up to it or did you just watch a Dandy-Lew half-hour diatribe one too many times on your TiVo? Didn't you realize that what you were watching was just that: verbal diarrhea and crap.

Maybe the truth hurt so much you couldn't stand it. You had to lash out. As Dandy-Lew, you found that you needed a scapegoat. Their tribe is mesmerizes by his by pounding on the drums: WTXA & Judges, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. And the Bud-Lites-soaked followers chant: "Go Dandy, Go Dandy, Go Dandy, GO!" With Dandy and his ilk it's just: gimmy, gimmy, gimmy, now, now, now, sports, sports, sports, Bud-Lites, Bud-Lites, Bud-lites. Since we don't like dah rules, we gunnah chang'em. "

But you are conflicted and you let it show: "your points may or may not be valid." Well maybe you are just getting "too old."

Click

I will close with some words of that worldly wise Wethersfield wizard, "oldetowne," (above): the Q2 "...zoning exemption ... it's a shotgun blast into every neighborhood with town property in it and a sledgehammer for the Town Council to use to try to hurriedly create a legacy before the November elections. Bottom line is that, even if you support lights without reservation, question 2 doesn't solve your problems. It just creates a whole bunch of different problems for everyone."

[tooold]

syzygy,
what is the commercial?
thank you

[SyZyGy]

[In another thread with a self-serving title, LouS said...

"his administrator (Lou Sanzaro - who is running what amounts to a PAC without being a PAC)" If you do your diligence, you will see that this statement is incorrect. I have been registered for two years.

Or, so you say!

Why is it that we have to DRAG information out of you and Danny? Why did you not volunteer this information here (yeah, where?) with full disclosure and details. If you are a PAC and acting as a PAC and not an individual (with NO concert with ANYONE else) why does not all of your "literature" reflect the fact that you are a PAC. (Sounds like you have really set yourself up for a SEEC complain and guess where THAT might lead - the Courts in front of a, oh, no!, a JUDGE who probably is smart enough NOT to live in Wethersfield?)

Two years, ago, eh? Well, lets talk facts then.

By any chance are you referring to the nebulous "Wethersfield Youth Organization" which I believe was registered with the Clerk in late 2003 or early 2004 - where Danny was named as the president and you were named as the VP, etc., etc., - where the stated purpose of the PAC (if I am not mistaken) was to assist candidates for elected office who are simpatico with the "organizations" goals?

You apparently have not registered as a PAC for the purpose of influencing the outcome of these referenda of 5/24/2005 - unless this happened in the last week. Right or wrong? Give me the facts!

And, if the WYO PAC is not the PAC you are talking about, then give me (and all the people on this forum to whom your mantra has been "state the facts") the full facts about "your" PAC:

• when was it registered? ,
  
• with whom was it registered?,
  
• if it has an ID number, please provide that number (e.g. SOTS office)?,
  
• who are all of the "officers" of this PAC?,
  
• what is the stated purpose of "your" 2 year old PAC?,
  
• is the purpose for electing candidates?, or
  
• is the purpose for influencing a referendum question or questions?

As far as "discussion and debate," I really don't believe you are interested in either in this forum. That is why I decided to bow out of engaging you about what 3-4 weeks ago; you are just jerking us around, I think I said.

Come on, Lou. Give us ALL of the facts about your 2 year old PAC, right here, right now, in detail.

We are all waiting on you, big guy.

[SittingBull]

syzygy, you sound as if you ready to take your ball and go home. maybe your message is only shared by a small group and not the people ready to move forward.

in another thread you mention the admin taking your right to post. maybe you should buy advertising space and then try switching to decaf.

[SyZyGy]

I had previously posted in part:
"... Come on, Lou. Give us ALL of the facts about your 2 year old PAC, right here, right now, in detail. We are all waiting on you, big guy.

I guess LouS is hiding behind his smokescreen again.

Hey, Lou, morganica's cat got your tongue?

Or are you AFRAID to share with the world, right here, all the details and FACTS that you CLAIM are so important is you bogus "discussion" or "debate"?

I guess he is consulting with his attorney about the risk he is going to take by being HONEST (for a change?) in this forum - by stepping out from behind his swamp gas and providing the ANSWERS to my questions.

(I hear that the fines that can be imposed can be significant depending on the width and depth of the infractions as far as PAC's are concerned - or people ACTING AS IF they are a PAC - or conducting activities inconsistent with the stated purpose of the PAC.)

So, what does he do in the meantime, he calls up some of his little heard from minions to throw sand at the people who are using their heads, instead of another part of their anatomy (below the belt and above the knees). [You know who you are; you are the m i n i - p o s t e r s. Why don't you guys go back into hiding for another year; you certainly are not providing much "factual" information here. And, because of that, you have GOT to be a big disappointment to LouS.]

Well, Lou, it's been about 18 hours since you last p o s t e d to me with your usual PHONY sportsmanlike behavior. I had expected better from you; I can't say the same for Danny Boy. Oh, I am sure you have some good excuse (like: you have run away or run out of facts with which to answer my specific and pointed questions honestly.

We are all - STILL - waiting on you, big guy.

[LouS]

I will respond at an appropriate time.

May be, if your nice and identify yourself it may prod it along a bit.

The message must be too strong as you seem to be attacking the messenger(s).

adios

[MeBabyMe]

I'm not sure what the big deal is over a PAC. What it sounds like to me is a possible end around if the Anti-Lights folks lose. Come on people, how does this effect anything. You all sound like a bunch of little kids and your mommy took your cookies away. Time to give it a rest and just put it to bed. No one out here cares, especially me.

[oldetowne]

The laws exist and apply to everyone. If people choose to brazenly violate them, they should bear the consequences. If people innocently violate them, they probably won't get fined or anything. Do you think that if the shoe was on the other foot, there wouldn't be a ruckus about it?