Stadium Lights on Cottone Field

[Jubashero]

Oh yes – “free” money via grants. I remember when the Army Corps dredged the cove. This “no-cost” action required that spaces on the dock be opened to all including those outside of Wethersfield. Thus, the Town went to an annual lottery system for those spaces. A sound solution for our Town Council in time of a budget crunch. On the other hand, my Dad used the dock to moor a dingy that he used to get to his “bigger” boat on a buoy. He loved to go to the boat, even if it were just to sleep. But with the advent of the lottery system, he could not be assured of a space on the dock for his dingy and he was too old to load and unload his dingy. Therefore, he sold his boat and never went back out to the cove. It wasn’t all that bad because the Cove soon became MDC’s cesspool. The point is “free” money does affect the quality of life. A word to the Councilors, talk to your constituents that are not parents with children in school when making decisions. Remember, for every household with two school-age children, there has to be eight households without children in order to pay enough taxes for the school and town services.

Back to the question at hand, payment for use of Cottone field. The problem is going to be upkeep at the end of life for the existing turf. Will the Town charge groups using the field for damages to the turf that may be considered normal wear at that time? And if injuries result, who pays for the Town’s Town Council’s Attorney? At what point will the Town replace the turf as it ages? I seem to recall that the proponents for the turf claimed that the turf will substantially reduce the maintenance costs from the $25,000 per year cost for upkeep of natural grass to $2,000 per year for the turf. I think if you factor in the capital costs for replacement turf alone, we will end up paying $50,000 per year, perpetually.

[morganika]

Correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure many of you will)
my Dad told me because we accepted state money for that field we cannot control access. When I read the post about the cove dredging, I assume my Dad must be right. It seems to me we keep making the same dumb mistakes.

Also, about the day of silence, what are people so afraid of, that somebody has a brain and can think, who are you trying to silence, no pun intended, by stopping the day of silence.

AND I highly approve of the remark about council listening to people without kids in the system. I would be one of those people and I am STEAMING about tax increase after tax increase for stuff that has no affect on me whatsoever. Frankly, although I was raised in Wethersfield I am quite sorry I bought a house here.
We've pretty much already decided we would not stay here for retirement, we expect we'll be forced out by taxes.

[SyZyGy]

M:

Sy

[morganika]

Sy yourself

[oldetowne]

get a room.

[standish]

Dear Morganika,
Nobody's trying to "silence" anybody. To everything, there's a time, place and season. Inside a public school classroom is neither time, place, nor season for this issue. If a teacher wants to present issue(s) in a forum of ideas, that's one thing. For the administration to sanction and endorse this single-sided message in the classroom is entirely inappropriate. The Gay-Straight Alliance has the first amendment right to express itself outside of the classroom, as any student group does. I, and others, support that right. I, and a great many others, do not want such indoctrination (when it is this lopsided a presentation, that's what it becomes) taking up class time, in any way. The administration has a sufficiently difficult job within current class time to maintain measurable learning. Nor is it the job of public education to promote a singular political agenda. In fact, if schools spent less time with socialization and more time with quantitative studies, public education might, once again, become globally competitive. Keep sexual politics out of the classroom. lt shouldn't be part of the implicit curriculum.

[hodiddly]

Morganika, You sound like an extremely selfish person - If you grew up in town then you should understand a few things. First, as you went through the school system here, many people without children were paying taxes so that you may get an education. Second, not all tax increases are directly related to schools, many are directly related to services that affect all residents in town. Schools are one of the single most important benefits a town can offer its residents, children or not. Wethersfield went YEARS with minimal, if any, tax increases, and look where it got us. If Wethersfield is to look forward to a prosperous future, its residents will also have to have forward thinking. I agree that council should hear from all types of residents, those with and without children, I just hope that everyone remembers that they were children once, too, and (without trying to sound to sappy and Whitney Houston on you) - children really are the future.

[morganika]

Hey Ho,

I realize that since I do not agree with you, that makes me extremely selfish.

You claim many of the tax increases don't have anything to do with schools. It doesn't seem that way to me. I do like what they did with Stillman school, my alma mater. They took a beautiful building and actually did something with it. But there are many other things I disagree with.

I know I am in the minority in this town. I'm not a snob, I'm a liberal, I'm not interested in sports..... Like I said, we are sorry we bought our home here.

[Jubashero]

“It’s for the children.” If you don’t understand that, you’re either selfish or obstructionist. One would have to think that this is the first generation that has thought of their children. This phrase has been so overused that, to me, it is a fancy way of saying “the ends justify the means”. But it’s not my opinion that counts, ask your children what you are teaching them by supporting those who circumvent the laws, the checks and balances of this town’s democratic processes to achieve your noble cause.

In this forum, I voted for the lights. I have no selfish reasons. Some would argue that no town funds should be spent, but I realize that this would be unrealistic and anticipate some monies being spent. My reason for voting for the lights was based on the argument that the parents wanted to attend the games and a night game was preferred due to the busy schedules of today. I also believe that the Town’s processes for permitting the lights will evaluate the adverse impacts on all citizenry and result in the best design. This process may be too slow for some, but I would take this system over an efficient dictatorship any day. Who knows, in the end, maybe the Town will use eminent domain to acquire the abutting properties, or maybe the Town Manager will have to buy and live at one of the properties, or maybe a soundproof wall will have to be built around the field. Whatever the outcome, the waste of resources on foolhardy projects that has been the norm for this council will be minimized by letting the established systems and not politics determine the best design. So I say spend money but wisely. Isn’t that what is the best for the Town and its children?

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

More Heat Than Light

Wethersfield voters went to the ballot box to settle the town´s most controversial political issue, but everyone agrees it´s still no closer to a resolution

by Meir Rinde - June 2, 2005

The hottest political question in Wethersfield for the past year has been, on the face of it, a simple one: Should the town install lights on Cottone Field at Wethersfield High? It's a typical small-town issue, requiring leaders to balance student athletes' needs against cost and neighbors' objections.

Nickl Lacy Photo:
Rocco Orsini, left, and George Ruhe
headed the opposition to the
installation of lights at Cottone Field.

But in Wethersfield, Cottone Field has become the equivalent of the Iraq War or a judicial filibuster. It's gotten the most press, drawn the most comment at Town Council meetings, occasioned a lawsuit and induced private citizens to spend thousands of dollars to influence the outcome. This month voters went to the ballot box to decide the issue, but everyone agrees the results did nothing to resolve the matter.

To George Ruhe, the Cottone Field fight is about reining in irresponsible public officials and protecting a minority view. Ruhe, 79, has lived in Wethersfield for 43 years, raised three children there and served on various town commissions. He's a retired manufacturing engineer, a Republican and a member of the Wethersfield Taxpayers Association or WTXA, which opposes the lighting plan.

"These are wants, and wants of people should not be paid for on the backs of the people who do not have these wants," Ruhe said, referring to the lights and to artificial turf for the field.

The lights were one of the top issues in the 2003 election, when Democrats who favored putting them in won back the council after a two-year Republican interregnum. But Ruhe said the dispute isn't about Republicans versus Democrats, or even young versus old.

"The fault line is an overemphasis on sports," he said. "Many parents are vicariously living their own frustrated sports lives through their children. In a town like ours, where the taxes went up, and then the schools literally came begging for books ... the feeling is that priorities are being inappropriately dealt with."

Cottone Field had been a muddy mess for years when, in 2003, then-Deputy Mayor Dan O'Connor, a Republican, proposed putting in lights and artificial turf. The council later approved the plan, but the WTXA and some people living near the school collected signatures to force a public vote. The town rejected the petitions as invalid and last summer the WTXA sued.

The turf went in nonetheless and the town settled the lawsuit by agreeing to hold a vote on the lights. Voters faced two questions this month. One would have banned all outdoor lights on town property. It lost by a 3-to-2 margin. The second question, put on to speed approval of field lights, would have eliminated review of some town projects by the Planning and Zoning Commission, giving the council that authority. But it failed by an even bigger margin.

In the runup to the election, each side claimed its campaign signs were pulled down by the other and said its opponents made misleading statements or told outright lies. Ruhe and fellow WTXA leader Rocco Orsini were appalled when the pro-lights forces called them "a group of self-serving individuals" who would overturn majority will. O'Connor, the former councilman and a pro-lights leader, gets apoplectic when he talks about how WTXA used the town's recent large tax increases in its campaign.

"I'm privately funding the lights," said O'Connor, who is seeking $125,000 in donations. "The taxpayer association is trying to say this is connected to taxes going up, but the town is not paying for the lights at all. Most of the things that come out of Mr. Ruhe's mouth are lies."

O'Connor, 41, has lived in Wethersfield for 11 years and has an 11-year-old son. He's a salesman for a health insurance software company and a coach for youth football and other sports. (His brother is Kevin O'Connor, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut.) He said the popularity of Cottone Field since the new turf was installed shows the need for lights, to allow night games, and said he has gone to great lengths to show neighbors that disturbance from the lights would be minimal.

"They fought it because they wanted an extended backyard that the town mows," O'Connor said. As for the WTXA, it "fights everything in this town," he said. "This is the fourth referendum they have forced that has failed. I think they see an issue and say, 'Let's see where the council is going on this, and let's oppose them.' The referendum cost $25,000 and accomplished nothing." (Ruhe said it cost closer to $15,000.)

O'Connor says the next step is to change zoning rules to allow tall lights. Ruhe says he wants to see if the process goes fairly, and is still skeptical of pro-light arguments. For now, he says, the WTXA is satisfied the situation is back to where it was before lights were ever proposed. "It's been very interesting, very demanding," he said. "We are all kind of pooped."

(c)Hartford Advocate 6/2/2005

Pix added

[hodiddly]

Morganika, My response has nothing to do with you agreeing or disagreeing with me, it has to do with you sounding selfish. You sound selfish again in your last post. You disagree with any tax hike that doesn't directly affect you. You like what they did with your alma mater, Stillman, but don't seem to be concerned with schools that other children go to. The truth is, many taxes are not remotely related to school's, even though it "doesn't seem that way to you". Wethersfield is at a crossroads, and needs to carefully look at which direction it will go in the near future - forward and prosperous or backward and stagnant - I opt for forward and prosperous, which means there will be increases.

[LouS]

The posted article seems to be factual. However, to equate this with the War in Iraq displays a disconnect within the thought process of the writer. (I don't think I need to go into detail).

As to the multiples of families without children, and to equate these with a belief that there is not an agreement among this group relative to supporting sports, lights, or schools is not correct. I have parents, on both sides, and they have retired friends that fit into this category that support those with children...thank goodness they haven't forgotten.

You can't have it two ways. You cannot attract families that can afford to support services, when houses go up for sale, you cannot attract businesses (although limited areas) when demographics do not support the business case for moving to Wethersfield, you cannot keep taxes at a zero growth and expect a continuation of services for children and the elderly, you cannot attract younger families (that potentially) that may have members that will be part of the Wethersfield Volunteer Fire Dept. (keeping your taxes down - that is another story), and you cannot keep up with your competitors, Rocky Hill and Newington, without upgrading your infastructure and support services, which, whether you like it or not, includes lights and athletic facilities.

Rocky Hill has been getting a laugh at our expense, as they have made all the improvements that we are speaking of. I heard from a former council member there, that when Maxwell park was being put in (in Rocky Hill) that the major "squakers" were from Wethersfield.

You have what you have and you try to do the best you can with it.

A post also pointed to the spending of 50,000 per year on an ongoing basis, versus the 25,000 spent previously. The town employees are now doing other jobs that they didn't have time for, to the tune of $23,000 worth, if the figures are within reason.

Value added. This had been documented when the field was first proposed (better than I am stating now), but this will give a picture. Other fields in town can now be taken off line and rested, prepped and maintained appropriately, making them last longer without more major upkeep. Limited events at the old Cottone Field averaged about $1,000 or so per event. Current projections bring the use down to $200/event.

And this is without lights.

I have been living in Wethersfield for 46 years. It is a place that I like to call home, hope my children will live here and I plan on retiring here. This may not be everyone's cup of tea and that is why everyone has choices.

[hodiddly]

Jubashero, I am confused...are you for the lights or against the lights? You claim to have been for the lights in your last post, "In this forum, I voted for the lights", but in your post of 5-24-05 you state that "My position is currently against the lights". In your most recent post you elude to the phrase "It's for the children" as being overused, but that if one doesn't understand that fact then they are selfish or obstrucionalist, that one is to believe this is the first generation to think of its children. Are you for children or against children (sarcasm intended, sorry). This is one of the reasons that I asked a simple yes or no question regarding the lights - to avoid doublespeak answers with all of the politics involved - I just wanted to know what everyday people thought of the idea of lighting the field. I think my problem here is that the everyday people are not the ones posting on this site. In my opinion, improving the schools (in any way - books, arts, teachers, athletic facilities, etc...) improves the town. Town with excellent schools & facilities have high property values. I am sure there are some regular people out there - lights a good idea, yes or no?

[Jubashero]

Hodiddly, in answer to your question, I think lights at Cottone Field would eventually be an asset as long as the process for their installation is followed, i.e., all the “squawkers” get their opinion expressed and weighed accordingly. I feel that the lights would be nice for parents to attend games at night, the kids to play under lights, and possibly Wethersfield being on Friday Night Sports Watch. At the time of the referendum, I was opposed because the established processes for checks and balances would not have been followed.

Time will tell whether or not the lights turn out to be a good thing. I’m not the one to judge what is best for the town or students, we have people on committees that study those issues and make impartial decisions on what is best for the citizens of this town. I don’t have any idea of what schools need today to keep the students in the forefront of current technology. I figure that it isn’t cheap but we have professionals that can prioritize and justify funding for what is needed. I would support their decisions and tax increases as needed. However, my perception of the projects under review is that the decisions are made politically, without proper scrutiny and with a nonce lance for the possible appearance of inappropriateness. In the end, we waste a lot of money so how do we know what is an appropriate tax increase?

[Jubashero]

LouS, let me ask a couple of questions from your rapid-fire remarks

Multiple households
When a councilor smugly claims a petition of 10% of the electorate is invalid without batting an eyelash based on comments from one parent who said he knew two people that were stupid enough to sign a petition without knowing what they were signing, to whom is the councilors listening?

Thank goodness they haven’t forgotten
You’re right, we have older residents that may have forgotten, it’s called dementia. But many grew up during the depression and value their pennies. Many worry about everything, even the most ordinary tasks like being sued for falling down. At what time do we devalue the opinions of older people with the onset of dementia?

Squawkers
Did a Rocky Hill councilor refer to his constituents as “squawkers”? Do our councilors refer to us in a likewise fashion? Say it ain’t so, Joe. (Maxwell Park is more like Millwoods than Cottone Field and located along the town line.)

$50,000 per year
I’m not sure about your remarks. First, I assume we agree that for the next seven or eight years we will be paying approximately $150,000 per year for the new field. Then, because the life expectancy for the turf is 10 years and assuming a new turf will cost $500,000 (round figures), we can expect to be paying on the order of $50,000 per year forever. Now is it your contention that the field freed a town employee to work elsewhere and the $50,000 is like a new hire by the town and the town council has the right to hire town employees as they see fit? Okay, I can see that; the council has done worst. On the other hand, do you agree that the charter requires a referendum for bonds because a bond is borrowing money from future council’s budgets. Can you understand that some people may view this $50,000 as money imposed on future budgets and thus should have brought to referendum by the council?

$1,000 per event
Groups were actually paying $1,000 per event for the rotten field and now are paying $200 per event? From a business perspective, we should have kept the old field. The BOE Draft document on rules for Cottone Field proposes a $500 user fee per 3-hour event, has that changed?