LET'S TURN THE LIGHTS ON

[SyZyGy]

www.courant.com
www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-lights6may10,0,2548278.story?coll=hc-headlines-editorials

Questions Obscure Lights
May 10 2005

WETHERSFIELD -- Night lights for sporting events at Wethersfield High School's Cottone Field are [sic] a good idea.

Other communities have adjusted well to field lights, and new technology has rendered them relatively unobtrusive to homes adjacent to the fields.

Unfortunately, two referendum questions, which are supposed to help voters decide on May 24 whether they want the lights, are too broad. Residents should vote no on both proposals.

Town officials should start all over and offer an up-or-down vote on the narrow subject of whether the lights should be installed at Cottone Field. Neither ballot question even mentions Cottone Field.

The first of the current referendum questions would ban lights at any athletic facility on town property. A voter could construe that to include lights at indoor pools and gymnasiums.

The second question would allow the town council the extraordinary power to bypass all zoning regulations for any specific project on municipal property, if it is deemed to be in the town's best interest. That includes rules that now restrict field lights in residential areas.

Wethersfield might not be in such a pickle if town officials [majority Democrats] hadn't tried to slip the lights into a 2003 package of essential field improvements to be charged to taxpayers.

In response, the Wethersfield Taxpayers Association and residents living near the field petitioned for two ordinances that would ban lights and artificial turf on all athletic fields.

When the town attorney ruled the petitions invalid, the association sued. Town officials did what they should have done all along. They went ahead with the field improvements and let advocates for lights raise the money for them from private sources. They also agreed to the referendum to settle the potentially costly lawsuit.

Both ballot questions should be defeated. The lights can wait until the town words the ballot question properly.
Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant

Emphasis & highlighting are mine. Sy

[tomterific]

I'm going to agree with the Courant editorial for the most part. The 2 questions are either way too broad or are poorly worded. Better to go back and present clear relevant questions to the voters than to have either one approved in their current fashions.

[tomterific]

The 'Let's Turn on the Lights' video on Channel 14 is amazing. I would have to fact-check a number of the statements made by the trio before I comment. BUT, the O'Connor performance s/b appalling to the pro-lights group. He spent most of his speaking time in blaming or attacking the WTXA for just about every ill in town. Don't these people sit back and look at what they've produced? Never once did any of the 3 refer to Question 2's stated goal re: P&Z exemption. The only explanation I can come up with for OConnor's performance would be he thinks painting the WTXA as the bogey-man will attract casual voters. I'd rather that the pro-lighters had done a presentation that did not insult the intelligence of their audience.

[BobD]

Tom,

What did you expect from them? I personally expected nothing more. From what I have observed, Mr. O'Connor's behavior has been appalling AND childish since this whole project was foisted upon your community.

I have observed his behavior on tape. He constantly is berating, abusing or pointing a finger at someone/anyone who does not agree with is position. The pro-light faction are some of the biggest bullies I have ever observed.

It almost seems that because of Mr. O'Connor's relatives or position in the community gives him some right of entitlement. This also applies to Mr. Miller.

I do believe that Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Miller are looking to gain something from this. What I don't know, but I would suggest looking into this in depth.

It is truely a shame that adults have to behave in this manner. They DO NOT set a very good example for the children that they speak so highly of.

I won't even get into the problems with the self-appointed Propaganda Minister of Wethersfield, LouS.

After myself and several members of our community observed the tapes and read documentation from your TC meetings it has become very clear that the proponants of the lights, etc. have no regard for your community at large and have not really thought about the negative impact on the town as a whole. They feel that if the laws and regualtions of the town don't fit their goal then they have some right to change the rules and regs.

It also amazes us how the residents that will suffer immeasurable hardship as a result of this project have NEVER been spoken to.

God bless Wethersfield. These guys are bringing the whole town to it's knees. Sports are a good extra curricular activity, but it need not ruin neighborhoods and lives or become the sole focus of life in your town.

After viewing and reading in great detail what has been going on in Wethersfield my community has decided that we cannot and will not put our taxpayer/residents thru the same abuse as Wethersfield has meated out to theirs. We are going to wait on lights until we have the proper location - NOT a neighborhood.

Please proponants, do not waste your time beating on me as you do others. I am just shareing an observation that apparently many in your town are either ignoring or maybe they just don't care.

Wethersfield needs more than lights on football field to remain at least semi-desireable.

[Ironrod]

Bob,

Thank you for being a much needed voice of reason in this debate. It's really very sad to see that it takes an outsider to voice all that is wrong in Wethersfield in regard to the proponents of lights plan to create a sports complex within a residential area. Good people and families have been displaced and others who are too old or too sick will remain and lose much of what they've come to know as a nice quality of life for the sake of this sports complex. Don't these people matter? Is their quality of life worth less than someone who wants to play sports at night?

No matter what the outcome of the upcoming referendum, we will look back over the past 1 1/2 years with shame and regret over the damage this effort has brought to community. In October, 2003 when this ill conceived plan was introduced, the then Mayor Kitch Czernicki warned us that an over zealous pursuit of this initiative will result in a polarization of the community, the impact of which may never be undone. To the misfortune of all of Wethersfield, she was right on...we've compromised far too much for a very special few...shame on us.

[tooold]

bobd, are you implying that you believe there is to be some type of remuneration or financial payback when the referendum is over? this sounds like the same type of situation that was suggested that miller was to receive when his firm oversaw the cottone field project.

i think that the dollar amount for his involvment that was not charged to this project was mentioned as being about $250,000.

and wasn't there an ethics meeting brought about by unsubstantiated comments such as yours? that didn't find anything?

i guess from your statement, it is ok with you to make pointed, factless insinuations about people - something you seem to view and dislike in others.

lous may as you say be the "propoganda minister" but he and miller have given back to the community many times over.

these people, the proponents, are the same ones that supported the budget for revitalizing and improving the town over the past two years. i don't think you know them very well.

you say you are from another town....not newington, our neighbor that has this model of excluding the town from zoning restrictions. or maybe rocky hill, our neighbor that has a lit athletic field, at their high school, adjacent to more homes than at cottone field. not from windsor or bloomfield, or farmington, or rockville, or manchester, or ehartford, all having lights at their high schools.

the fact is that due to free speech, the ability to petition, represent your side, argue and discuss, and bring it to a popular vote, all of these bring us to where we are. using the system seems to be the american way.



whatever town you are from, i admire you for taking untold hours and time from your day to go over the tapes and minutes of our town.

[BobD]

TooOld,

Thanks for the response. You missed it with what town I am from. I am actually from Wethersfield, CT and have since relocated elsewhere in the US in the last year.


In regards to your statement about Miller, O'Connor, LouS, et al. I was not implying that there was going to be or would be some sort of financial renumeration or payback, but it sure looks that way doesn't it? Why would they do what they have done without some benefit to themselves or their business?

I have reviewed the ethics issue with an attorney and read with amazement the ethical and professional lapses of a number of people and issues. The process was obviously flawed and biased.

You state that Mr. Miller, LouS and maybe some others supported a budget for revitalizing and improving the town over the past 2 years and yes I do know these people. What exactly have they done? The town is in a shambles both physically and financially with the exception of a football field. There has been nothing else done but the football field. I am beginning to believe that the TC and BOE are simply a group of sports puppets with the exception of 1 who is continually abused by the public and TC alike because she can see thru the thinly veiled agenda that the TC brought with them 2 years ago.

You mentioned several towns that have lights on their fields, but you fail to mention as do most of the proponents, the problems that people are experiencing with the excessive noise, light intrusion, pollution, litter, loitering, vandalism, etc. As for Windsor, Rockville, Manchester and E. Htfd. does Wethersfield really want to be in that kind of company? Your well on your way.

Wethersfield needs priorities and a football field with lighting that will intrude into every home for blocks does not meet the criteria.

It is good to know that if the ref goes the way of the few, vocal and connected that it is still not a done deal. Heck, with injunctions it could be years no matter who "volunteers" to be on the TC next.

Good luck. Good to see that my hometown has no regard for its residents unless they support poor planning and disrespect for its residents.

Sorry again. The truth hurts sometimes.

[tomterific]

I will watch the Let There Be Lights tape a 2nd time and take notes before saying for certain that OConnor has made factual 'mis-statements'. It's being shown Tuesday night. Would anybody care to make a friendly wager that the tape gets withdrawn and redone?

[oldetowne]

I doubt that they think they are mis-stating anything. They see the enemy as the WTXA, standing in the way of the pliable Council which was elected solely to put lights and turf on that field.

[BobD]

Ironrod,

It is difficult being an outsider after many years living and loving Wethersfield. I relocate and I come back for the holiday and the first thing I noticed was that Wethersfield changed. I don't think the football field and lights are solely to blame, but they certainly seem to be a big part of it. It looks and feels different and not in a real positive way.

The renovations to town hall are a positive. Pretty extensive, but going in the right direction. This is good for the town. The loss of the Stop and Shop is huge and its replacement, junk. The plan for the SD is great, I hope it happens and does not get mired down in the politics, etc.

The field is in the middle of a neighborhood. One of those residents will have a light pole practically in his yard others will have lights shinning into their homes. It is going to look like an airport!

Just observations.

[Check-Mate]

BobD, you must have been gone for quite some time to say you witnessed all these poor enhancements to the town. What’s it been, 5, 10 or 15 years? We know you didn’t come back to watch any youth sporting events. This writing style you have is very similar to LIGHTSOUT in the past. Are you guy’s cousins or one in the same?

Really, have the common courtesy to at least put your real name up here if you really did move out of town. From your writings, I bet your one of the NIMBY’s.

[msg001]

Its been at least 9 months since I have posted on this site but read the entries often. I am just a family man with no hidden agenda and no political ties with anyone. I support only what I think is the right choice and will not follow anyone or group just to go along. Let me start by saying its amazing how far apart the groups are on both sides of the issue of lighting Cottone Field. The way I see it this town has been held back for too long by the so called Tax Payers Association. No matter what they spew out I know they don't represent me or my family. I watch the same group every time thay are on TV wether it is the Town Council meetings or for the BOE meetings. Rocco has an agenda but is repeditive, George has no credibility and is a blowhard, and as far as Robert Young is concerned I don't know if he is associated with the Tax Payers Group or not but although I think he is intelligent he too is a blowhard. Check-Mate made an interesting observation that perhaps BobD and LIGHTSOUT were one in the same. I too wondered in the past if LIGHTSOUT and HELLO were one in the same a while back. If this is true or not only the ADMIN of this site can know for sure. What I find interesting is when monitoring what is posted on this site whether it is about the Lights or other changes in Town. It is the same group that is knocking anything that is for change. It does seem motivated for a political agenda one way or another. Just an observation....

[tooold]

msg001, so syzygy doen't feel alone in my response in another thread

thank you!

[SyZyGy]

tooold,

A good question.

My simple answer is, I don't know. But...
I think you just might be referring to the big blank space where there used to be a link to the website of those working against the passage of Question #2.

When you place the cursor over that small box under the word "click" you see a "mouse-over" message somewhere on your screen (depending on the brower) which shows that the people running this forum have CENSORED my posts, claiming that it is "spam". Rather self-serving, I think.

Dandy-Lew like to play rough and loose with the rules and like to lord it over anyone who even DARES to disagree with them. Typical bullies! They like to whip the WTXA and the Courts so that they can AVOID the greater issue with Question #2 - the long-term DANGER of politicizing the zoning process by exempting the Town from its own zoning regulationS (no matter how flowerly Miller's wording of the question is). The BIG issue in Question #2 is NOT the lights. It's the risk of the zoning excemption for the T.O.W. Dandy-Lew & the Jox haven't even played by the rules; they never followed all of the customary steps (throught the zoning process).

Either the person who runs this forum (Bill) or his administrator (Lou Sanzaro - who is running what amounts to a PAC without being a PAC) apparently didn't like the fact that someone was putting up a big notice (to rival Lou's "Paid," or so it is claimed, commercial) which directed people (actively by the link and passively by the large text message "q 2 n o . o r g" - expanded here with intervening spaces who that it will "link") to detailed information and position papers supporting the DEFEAT of Question #2.

My link and graphic was to an informative site, which I visited and studied in detail, which is "selling" nothing - except facts and hard-hitting considerations of the more important issue - the dangers of politicizing the zoning process by exempting the T.O.W via the Town Council of the moment.

"For the kids" is a smokescreen. It is an intentional shot at the heart of every parent that they might not be DOING enough to give Johny and Jane ALL they would possibly wish for (whether or not the kids really NEED IT). The lights is "for the ADULTS!" Anyone who doesn't see that is blind.

Unfortunately, Bill has fallen into the clutches of Dandy-Lew by compromising the standards that SHOULD prevail in a forum SUCH AS THIS.

There was no commercial.
There was no spam.
There was only unwarranted CENSORSHIP of an opposing view.

There goes wethersfield.p r o b o a r d s 2 6.com - down the tube.

[LouS]

Syzygy,

First, if you want to make your statements have the facts...I thought better of you.

"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.

Also, any problems that you are having do not originate from here. I only post and do not delete others' info.

Since my name is out there, not wanting it to be hid, why don't you uncloak as Standish has, and let there be a face to these posts and issues. I know it is easier to stand behind the mask though.

My statements, you may not agree with, are based on facts, assessments, and interpretations. Are there other facts and interpretations involved? Sure. That is what makes for discussion and debate.