|
|
Post by oldetowne on May 11, 2005 9:24:23 GMT -5
I, for one, think a debate on question 2 would be a good thing to have. Not so sure about question 1, but it would probably also have to be included.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomterific on May 11, 2005 10:29:50 GMT -5
A few comments from me on the Let There Be Lights video. O'Connor says that several hundreds of people supported the lights at the October 6, 2003 Council meeting. A review of the official minutes shows that the number speaking in favor was 28. I don't even think that 'several hundred' people would fit in the chambers. O'Connor says that Question-1 would cause currently existing lights to be removed; but nothing in the official referendum question says anything like that. O'Connor says Question-1 would cause Artificial Turf to be removed from existing sites, including from private homes. There's nothing in the official question that even mentions artificial turf. I'll post some more comments later, but I need to get back to work now.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomterific on May 11, 2005 15:24:14 GMT -5
Here are some more thoughts after viewing the Let There... video. They say there will be none or nbegligible maintenance needed for the lights and the elctrical equipment. Well, that's in the Wetherfield tradition of deferring maintenance on town property. This is not credible, we will end up just buying new equipment down the road. They say the referndum will cost $25,000; what's the source of this? They say the lights will be on only 200 hours per year, including none in the summer. They count a total of 13 football, soccer, field hockey games as well as practice time. Is this credible? Let's hear from some knowledgeable, impartial athletic person as to whether this is a reasonable number.
|
|
nvone
Bronze Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by nvone on May 12, 2005 8:30:13 GMT -5
Szyq,
Let it be known that I am all for the lights. I am an adult with two very small boys. I will not get any use out of the lights, my playing days are over. For you to say that the lights are solely for the adults is rediculous. Will they benefit the parents of kids that might not be able to make a 3 pm start? Of course, and that is the beauty of it all. Making statements like that make you sound very foolish. Keep posting to what you "think" are the facts and keep your silly opinions to yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on May 12, 2005 11:12:51 GMT -5
IT'S ABOUT POWER... NOT LIGHTS! It's not about lights. It's about the political class grabbing and consolidating power. It's about the abuse of that power. It's about five insiders (a simple Council majority) making politically motivated decisions about what happens with any town property and/or facility (all 109 parcels in nearly every neighborhood)... now and in the future. It's about town spot zoning.Don't let it happen. NO to #2! |
|
|
|
Post by tomterific on May 12, 2005 12:41:18 GMT -5
John Miller's letter to the editor in today's Courant is fascinating. Title is "Town Needs Lights at Cottone Field'. He's commenting on the Courant editorial that, among other things, said to vote NO on Q2. Miller states "Your suggestion that other means be used to achieve the common goal of lights at Cottone Field would be fine if there wasn't opposition". So, Mr. Miller is upset that there actually some persons who are against what he's in favor of. And, that's why he wants an ordinance which allows a majority of 9 Councillors to trump whoever opposes him. This is very troubling. Did he just make a poor choice of words in the letter?
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on May 12, 2005 13:56:30 GMT -5
And, that's why he wants an ordinance which allows a majority of 9 Councillors to trump whoever opposes him. Would that it were even so. It would be better than the actual, simple majority of just five it will take if referendum question #2 passes... NO TO NUMBER 2! |
|
gibby
Bronze Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by gibby on May 12, 2005 19:29:04 GMT -5
i've got a lot of doubts about what those three people are saying on the lights videotape on channel 14. people that post on this board are also questioning the material they present. how do us ordinary folks get the truth
|
|
|
|
Post by JackAss on May 16, 2005 21:46:13 GMT -5
After attending the council meeting tonight, we learned that if the referendum fails and outlaws lights, that it will also ban lights on flagpoles.
Just one more reason to pass this.
No to Question 1
Yes to Question 2
Let there be light (except in Sy's quiet place)
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on May 17, 2005 5:56:56 GMT -5
JackAss- Is that your real name? In this instance, perhaps it is...
Right after I suggest we elevate the tone of these discussions, you muck about in the gutter with name-calling and distortions. O.K., you wonder why people get so upset with some of the lighting proponents, when you act like a bunch of high school kids on steroids. Wait a minute... could we be onto something?
Now, its no longer even patriotic to expect the town to follow its own zoning. These preposterous arguments are degenerating even further. Spare me the absurdity.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on May 17, 2005 6:01:13 GMT -5
Hi Jack. I heard a gentleman say the same thing. It's just another one of the unfounded horror stories that the pro-lights people are tossing out there to confuse things (although the first question should be defeated anyway). It is also another example of attacks by an individual against the WTXA arising out of attacks by the WTXA against the individual stemming from attacks by that individual against the WTXA.....
|
|
|
|
Post by JackAss on May 17, 2005 7:20:52 GMT -5
standish, you got me with that one. Interesting you only want one side of the debate, yet you give a thumbs up when your boy Syzygy writes his gutter talk.
When asked by Kitch about flagpole lights, Bonnie said they would be illegal if the referendum fails. Perhaps you already vacated the chamber when that was asked.
Light it Up!
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on May 17, 2005 9:23:19 GMT -5
JackAss (your choice of pseudonyms, not mine)... Look again. You'll see that the post to which I refer in my response to you suggested that syzygy 'lighten up', (The pun was intended). Thus, I'm opposed to vitriol from either side.
If the light pole height restriction is what you wish either to change, or, from which you wish to achieve a variance, whether for sports lighting or flagpoles, do so by "Playing By The Rules!". It may take longer, but, unless you're sixteen and need instant gratification, have patience and follow the process. Don't potentially destroy 800 acres of town-owned land on 111 sites in virtually every neighborhood for all time to achieve your ends.
If you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. Whatever the outcome, at least you'll still be a good sport and will have "played by the rules!" If you prevail, chances are that those lights that are approved will better reflect (the pun is intended) the neighbors' concerns. If you lose, maybe lights will be permitted in another area where neighbors are not adversely affected.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on May 17, 2005 9:35:35 GMT -5
Interesting you only want one side of the debate, yet you give a thumbs up when your boy Syzygy writes his gutter talk. By the way, JackAss (I have trouble using that name... who are you?), Syzygy is no more "my boy" than you are Lou's. I would hope that Lou, who is a decent person, would disavow your nonsense. |
|
hodiddly
Gold Member
its getting cold down here!
Posts: 79
|
Post by hodiddly on May 17, 2005 15:44:51 GMT -5
I have read, until my eyes are bloody, every thing I can regarding yes & no votes on # 2, and I am honesyly confused about something - what do the anti light people think will happen if #2 passes, that the TC is suddenly going to start putting up lights on every piece of town property? This is about Cottone field and possibly Espisito as well, nothing more. I personally support lighting the field, but was very concerned originally about #2, but after reading the tirades of some of you, I can honestly say I will more than likely vote No on #1 and Yes on #2. The TC ran on these issues and are doing what they can to see there campaign promises come to fruition, and for that I give them credit. I have seen the term "highly political Town Council" used? Aren't they supposed to be? This Democratic Council has shown that they have the courage of thier convictions and I for one appreciate that. I only wish that we as a community could focus our attention on matters of more importance than lights.
|
|
