|
|
Post by standish on Sept 10, 2007 21:53:37 GMT -5
Is there anyone with a brain left alive in Wethersfield, or, has the sentient population largely deserted? ThinkingMama? Oldetowne? Dr. Ken? Rick G.? Anyone have any thoughts? Lots of issues on the table, but, it seems the winds are out of the sails. Is the current leadership that demoralizing? Why the silence? Have we all given up? Have the bad guys won? Is this the longest time without a post here? It seems so...
|
|
|
|
Post by ironrod on Sept 11, 2007 11:09:09 GMT -5
Sounds like Wethersfield has lost its soul...not surprising since it lost its conscience a long time ago. The bad guys have won and everyone else has lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Sept 12, 2007 14:53:20 GMT -5
Sounds like Wethersfield has lost its soul...not surprising since it lost its conscience a long time ago. The bad guys have won and everyone else has lost. |
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Sept 28, 2007 10:10:23 GMT -5
I agree there are lots of issues out there. The redevelopment bond referendum, the status of Comstock, the horse and buggy rides, the construction project debacle and a host of others. The goal of the current administration seems to be to hold as few meetings as possible (untelevised and in obscure locations) so that there is no opportunity for public scrutiny or discussion.
I've heard that there are PACs being formed on both sides of the redevelopment bond referendum, so that I hope some information makes its way to the voters about that. I hope that then the residents will see that it's nothing more than a $10 million blank check and a "just trust us" from the Council and the Agency - which makes no economic sense (see my earlier post about the $60+MM increase that will be required just to cover debt service), will probably require the use of eminent domain and for which the town has no plan although it will cover a significant chunk of the town's land area.
There also is some discussion about having a "debate" for the Council candidates - more to follow if that comes to pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Sept 29, 2007 12:35:34 GMT -5
To Wethersfield Voters on This Forum,
Public investment in vague, undefined private development is, at best, ill-conceived and risky business. These “corporate welfare projects” rarely serve the general electorate and often turn sour. Any development that would not survive in the marketplace without taxpayer funding is bad business. It can lead to white elephants, abandoned by private money once the public grows weary of footing the bill.
The spurious return on investment for the proposed $10 million redevelopment bond would require a $60 million improvement in the tax base just to cover the debt service. In addition, a small, insulated redevelopment agency will exercise control, including eminent domain, over undefined and currently undisclosed investments. Only Council, and not the electorate, would serve as overseer for this excessive power over a large portion of the property in town.
Wethersfield is too small for a redevelopment agency. We have a Council and Town Planner. We don’t have blighted neighborhoods or large, urban areas in need of sweeping change. Too much power in too few hands can lead to misfeasance, or even malfeasance. We’ve already seen how inept the town can be with the development of Town Hall and other projects. We can’t even properly maintain the current infrastructure.
Lastly, we’re paying for current bonds on the Middle School, Police Station, Board of Education/Francis-Stillman and more. We face major MDC fees, Hanmer School, High School and other bond projects. Town taxes have increased by double digits in recent years. We must reject this additional tax burden on us, and on our children.
I urge my fellow townspeople to keep public money out of private pockets, keep public hands off private property, and Vote No on the $10 Million Redevelopment Bond.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Oct 4, 2007 8:41:36 GMT -5
Great letter Leigh.
While many of us agree with the philosophical underpinnings of your analysis, I am guessing that a lot of people are either on the fence or believe that some government participation may be a good thing.
For those folks, the referendum can be viewed as a question of simple arithmetic. If we spend $10MM, there will have to be $60MM in new development JUST TO BREAK EVEN, never mind ease the burden on residential taxpayers.
Just to provide some perspective, the town's leaders have pointed to certain recent projects as tangible successes in economic development. One of them is the pair of buildings south of the Fun Zone in which CT River Community Bank is located. They are assessed at $1.2M, suggesting a fair value of $1.7M. THIRTY-FIVE more of these buildings would raise the grand list by the $60M needed to cover the debt service.
Taking it to the extreme, Putnam Park is assessed at $13M+, suggesting a market value of $19M. Therefore, it would require THREE new Putnam Park office buildings just to break even on this bond.
With all due respect to the town officials and employees who have only the best of intentions, I don't see this happening in the current environment. We can't afford to have $10M of our tax dollars (which would be over twice that, with interest) left in the hands of the amateur, part-time real estate developers in Town Hall.
|
|
|
|
Post by JackAss on Oct 9, 2007 20:02:42 GMT -5
Let's face it, the spend and tax crew will spend it as soon as it comes in. How much has spending increased the past few years with no end in site.
Talk to the business community and Wethersfield is still known for being business unfriendly.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Oct 10, 2007 5:55:15 GMT -5
Unfortunately, they actually spend it FASTER than it comes in. That's what the $50MM+ of outstanding bonded debt represents.
The comment about the business community is interesting. The annual surveys done by the late Frank Frago were scruitinized with a microscope for signs of economic growth, but the town never really acknowledged that anti-business town employees and taxes were consistently the top two complaints.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Oct 10, 2007 9:36:36 GMT -5
On the other hand, if being "business friendly" means ramrodding a development onto the fast track and breaking all the rules (like Comstock) I prefer a town that equally applies the regulations in order to protect residents' investments. Good conservatism moves slowly and cautiously. Remember: the root word is "conserve".
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Oct 10, 2007 10:49:52 GMT -5
I agree with your view of an even-handed approach toward what constitutes "business friendly". Too often, that phrase has been used to justify an abdication of responsibility by town staff and commissions.
By the same token, the arbitrary, capricious and officious interpretations and applications of codes and statutes against small business owners by various town employees shouldn't continue either.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Oct 10, 2007 14:47:43 GMT -5
The less descretion available to the staff/commissions (the more standard the application) the better. I agree.
|
|
