LET'S TURN THE LIGHTS ON

[standish]

hodiddly said:

I have seen the term "highly political Town Council" used? Aren't they supposed to be?

Yes. That's exactly the point. Council will put political considerations before the zoning regulations that it will choose to ignore,whenever and wherever it pleases. Thanks for understanding that obvious fact.TPZ is proscribed to apply only those factors specifically defined in State and local zoning regulations, which are designed to protect everyone. By the way, a large number of the the pro-zoning people are not anti-lights, we're just for "Playing By The Rules" on all of the 111 separate town parcels in every neighborhood. When will you realize "It's Not About the Lights?" Don't be so single-issue, single-minded. Think beyond the immediate goal. Eight hundred acres of town land is a BIG playing field.

[hodiddly]

I guess, then, my question (at least my first question) would have to be why was question #2 written with such a broad stroke? Why can't we the people just vote on a special exemption for lighting the football field? I see one poster on this forum who keeps referring to a "sports complex". Am I missing something? are we expanding the size of the field? Are we getting some type of professional sports franchise? (sorry for the sarcasm). As I stated in my earlier post, I am concerned about the power a yes on #2 gives to the TC, But if I am not mistaken, P&Z are appointees of the TC (I may be wrong), and I also feel that we have to have faith in our elected officials not to abuse the power they are given but to continue to serve in the best interest of the town. If they don't they will surely be ousted next election. Either way, the anti light posters on this forum are clearly the far more childish side, while the pro light people at least seem to be willing to discuss with some decorum. So far I am still leaning in favor of a yes on #2.

[BuckWheat]

Newington is exempt from P&Z, but they still refer there projects to them and other boards and the town is in forward motion.

Just check out how many new fields w/ lights they have and we never hear a peep from them.

[standish]

hodiddly said:

...why was question #2 written with such a broad stroke? Why can't we the people just vote on a special exemption for lighting the football field?... As I stated in my earlier post, I am concerned about the power a yes on #2 gives to the TC... we have to have faith in our elected officials... If they don't they will surely be ousted next election... Either way, the anti light posters on this forum are clearly the far more childish side... So far I am still leaning in favor of a yes on #2.

Good question about the broad stroke... perhaps you should ask the author, who owns an engineering firm in town that's advocated, or been involved with, a number of projects that were stymied by referendum, zoning or other regulatory obstacles (Interchange zone; barge-based-bridge-building and piers in the meadows, etc.). Apparently, your concern about power is overcome by your trust of elected politicians, at least until the next election (a lot of development can happen in two years). I would definitely have to disagree with your attribution of maturity to the pro-lights advocates on this forum. By the way, your first post on April 17th of last year seems to suggest that you've been "leaning" for over a year. I'm surprised you haven't fallen over, yet.

[oldetowne]

Following up on a couple of points from hodiddly and standish (and trying not to be childish):

1. the wording of question 2 is written as broadly as it is because that is the way the zoning exemption statute is written - you can't create an exemption from zoning for one particular piece of property.

2. as Leigh (standish) has said, it's NOT just about the lights. Ask the people on Ridge Road near the cell tower how much their property values can be damaged by something other than lights on a football field.

3. there CAN be lights without the zoning exemption. It would just require a little bit of time and effort and the supporters seem to be averse to that.

4. for the record, even though I oppose question 2, I could support lights on the field if they were done properly, I am not a member of the WTXA, I do not want the town to go back to the 1840s and I don't hate kids.

[LouS]

It is great seeing opinions without the attacks.

Points:

I (we) have been working on lighting the field for over 8+ years.
Nowhere and an anytime (past), did the town manager, mayor, council, superintendent, town engineer, etc., ever feel and/or suggest that zoning be approached during meetings with them, at least a couple of years prior to this past election, about lights. And pole height never came into the discussion. The simple matter was there was no internal town interest in lighting the field and all suggestions pointed to the "new" vision of a Mill Woods Stadium...something I knew I wouldn't see in my lifetime...since progress moves so slowly.

Frustration ensued and prior to the last election, there had been positive developments in artificial turf, and since the field has always been in a state of disrepair, we felt it was time to look at that.

Included in this "movement of change" was revisiting the lighting issue. Although zoning and ZBA was discussed, there seemed to be no support for going through this avenue, and also and more importantly, no direction offered to us either in a suggestive or in a constructive manner, as how to travel this route. We thought it was a dead end.

Therefore, after the initial attempt at striking down "artificial turf" and now simply "sports lighting", we felt it was time to go this route, since the referendum was already scheduled.

Is there agreement that this is a broad brush endeavor to get resolution on a specific need? Yes. However, where we differ is that I am basing my beliefs that there will be no "abuse" of this proposed change by the town, and acknowledge that the process will need to be monitored, as many in the general public do now, and I am sure the council will be reminded at all meetings, as they are currently. I still site Newington, which has encorporated this change, as a good comparison.

Looking back, I guess I would make this statement. It is too bad that ZBA and or P&Z, knowing of this situation, did not offer their guidance. Now maybe that is a "stupid or uninformed" statement. I do not know the political or appropriate procedural limitations. However, as Wethersfield residents, I am sure one of the members could have offered direction, unless there was a knowledge that it didn't matter, they thought the process stood on its own, they couldn't get involved, etc.

I know we agree that Question #1, which is convoluted, be answered NO.

We have always felt that the voters' of Wethersfield will drive the issues and the results.

[hodiddly]

Standish, I admit I am pro-light, and have been from the start. I'm a sports fan and a family man, and think it would be great to go to a game on a Friday night with my wife and kids. What's wrong with that, it's Americana. My concerns grew as the political nature of the issue grew. I have lived in Wethersfield my entire life and want only what is best for my home town. I have children going through the school system. If I thought lighting the football field was detrimental in any way, I would oppose it. Thank you for reminding me of my earlier postings, as I went back and read through them I realized that my opinions have not changed. It is unfortunate that we must spend so much time on this, and not focus on what I believe most would agree are more important issues. I may be naive, but I still believe that we must have faith in our elected officials to do the right thing - If the referendum question had to be written the way it is, and we could not vote on a specific parcel of land, then so be it (I still don't see why we couldn't do that but I am not an attorney nor do I have intricate knowledge of referendum verbage). The TC ran on this issue, among others, and are trying to see it through. I have seen the WTXA on channel 14 at the TC meetings and it is sometimes painful to watch (espescially George) attack the TC. As far as the posters on this forum, you need look no further than syzygy for someone who is childish and has thier own agenda. I may still be leaning, but no one has convinced me to do otherwise as of yet.

[standish]

Huzzah! Hodiddly and LouS with two, honest, forthright and direct posts. We're back on solid ground. We honorably agree to disagree. Let's keep it that way and make the arguments about issues... not each other!

[Ironrod]

LouS,

Nice to have you back...

Three comments to your most recent post:

1. You said that you (and your group) have been working on getting lights on Cottone Field for 8+ years now. And all during that time you worked closely with leaders in the community (both private & public) to advance your goal. I was wondering at what time did you plan to reach out to those most impacted by lights (the neighbors abutting Cottone Field) and seek their guidance and advice?...when you turn the switch on for the first time? If your intentions are honorable and you truly play fair then you should have sought out input from the abutting neighbors a long time ago. The only instance of lightheads meeting with neighbors took place about a year ago when I went out of my way to introduce myself to your leader Dan O'Connor and his position was simply the lights will go in either with or without the support of neighbors. With that kind of position how can you expect for us to work together?

2. You claim that your "movement of change" did not include the normal route of going through Planning & Zoning and ZBA because it was thought that this would have resulted in a dead end. If that was truly the case than why subject to community to the hardship you knew couldn't be justified by going through the zoning board of appeals. So instead of your efforts being dead ended you chose to impose that hardship on us? That doesn't seem like fair play to me.

3. You attempt to justify the decision not to go through P&Z and ZBA by claimimg that at no time did members of these commissions reach out to you to offer 'guidance and support'. Isn't that the way the system should work?...that's called checks and balances...the same checks and balances that Questions # 2 seeks to abolish. If, indeed, you were able to garner this so-called 'support & guidance' would that not lend itself to the appearance of a conflict of interest. Or were you counting on conflicts of interests to achieve your goal? Seems clear to me that conflicts of interest played a large part in getting the artificial turf installed so, I guess it comes as now surprise that you would have expected the same quid pro quo to exist in getting the lights. It's refreshing to know there's still still some respect for doing what's right, beyond the prevailing political influences, among the P&Z and ZBA commissions.

Stick around Lou, we still have time before the referendum to educate the electorate.

[JohnW]

Trusting that Town Councils will not 'abuse' the language that a YES on Q2 would make legal is suicidal. Whether or not citizens trust the current Councillors, history shows us that a number of them will be gone within 6 months. In the last election of 2003, 5 of the 9 elected councillors were new. There's no reason to think that this kind of trend will continue(if not in 2005, then in 2007, etc.). I for one do not want broad brush ordinances put on the books that could legally be used by future unknown councillors for whatever reasons they would choose.

[ThinkingMama]

I am a mother often seen around town at sports fields watching my children's athletic endeavors. I will be voting NO on question 2. Proponents of lights on Cottone Field are shortsighted if they think passage of question 2 benefits Wethersfield or their family.

Parents, consider this background: Zoning regulations regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and structures, building lot sizes, percentage of lot coverage, size of yards, courts and open spaces, density of population, the location and use of buildings, height, size and location of billboards and adv ertising signs, and boundaries of zones or districts. (Wethersfield Code Section 167-1) Even with strong zoning regulations, we sometimes lament that economic development does not always turn out for the best. Who really likes the state of the Silas Deane Highway? And that was WITH zoning in place!

What does passage of question 2 really mean? Municipal property in our town is owned by the Town of Wethersfield, Wethersfield Board of Education, Wethersfield Housing Authority, and City of Hartford. According to the 2000 Plan of Conservation and Development, 26% of Wethersfield is in public or semi-public use and 23% is open space. Exempting such vast amount of municipal property from zoning regulations, which passage of question 2 will do, is playing with fire.

Think about it--Millwoods Park, Wintergreen Woods, all other parks and fields, all street rights-of-way, Goodwin Park, town-owned open space, and the public housing managed by the Housing Authority will be free from zoning restrictions if question 2 passes. All this municipal property is embedded in residential zones, often in historic and environmentally sensitive areas. Which one is near your home? The buildings, structures, lot sizes, advertising signs, and other items referred to above will be unregulated on those properties. It seems reasonable to think that property values near municipal property will decline. And we are all quite near such property!

The town is under enormous pressure to hold down taxes and grow the grand list. Parents know the financial pressures the Board of Education faces. Private developers, affordable housing advocates, and the State of Connecticut and federal government (via the Housing Authority) can potentially have a "field day" in Wethersfield. And not the type of field day the lights proponents have in mind!

Powerful parties may well have an interest in partnering with the town via long term lease arrangements or other creative techniques, to develop municipal property if it is free from zoning restrictions. Where else will such property be so available as in our dear old Wethersfield? How will our Town Council "take charge" of Wethersfield's future and be responsive to citizen "mandates", as lights advocates desire, when question 2 opens a Pandora's box of entities with powerful agendas and money to dangle before the cash-strapped Council?

Last year, school was cancelled on the last half day because we could not afford a few thousand dollars to transport the students to school (but the teachers got paid!). That speaks volumes about our cash needs and our long-range planning abilities!

Frankly, it may not even be a question of "partnering" with our town. State and federal interests in Housing Authority property may not even be subject to Council control. The City of Hartford is clearly not subject to Council control. But at present, they ARE subject to town zoning. Not so if question 2 passes. So much for local control of municipal land.

Like me, you may trust the people we elected to serve, but I envision them overrun and outsmarted once so much land is up for grabs all around town. Why do you think only about five towns out of 169 have taken this risky path to exempt themselves from zoning?

I cannot help but think of the expression "fiddling while Rome burns" when I consider question 2. While we are sitting watching our kids play on a lighted field, what will be happening to our town as a whole? As an attorney, I assure you that minds far more creative than mine will be looking for the loopholes created when municipal property is free from zoning regulation. Their focus will not be on how wonderful those night games are at our football field, but on how to gain influence over our Council and exploit unregulated land for their own interests. Thank goodness wetlands regulations will likely still apply.

Please be a thinking parent. You have already lost too many evening meals to sports scheduling. Your child is unlikely to be a varsity athlete! Even if he is the next Olympian, Vote NO to question 2 and help secure our town's future as the type of Wethersfield we already know and love. Protect your family investment in your home. It is simply too risky to do anything except PLAY BY THE RULES that have served us reasonably well over 50 years. Vote NO on question 2.

[ThinkingMama]

As a first time poster, I am sorry that my spacing and paragraphing are so "off" in my earlier post. I thought I was doing it all correctly! Thanks for fighting through that post and if there is a way to correct it, I hope I find it...

[standish]

It's your content, not format, that's important. It is both realistic and insightful. Your description of the politics of development are especially poignant. Those who "trust" the politicians need only to understand developers' interest in such opportunities, unfettered by zoning, to appreciate some of the risks posed by a "yes" vote to Question #2.

To edit: If you're logged in, click on your message, which will bring you to the first page of its forum. Go to the page of the relevant forum that contains your messge (usually the last, if yours is a recent message) and click the "modify" button at the bottom of your contribution. You may now edit your original submission.

Best Regards and Welcome!

[hodiddly]

ThinkingMama, That is the best arguement I have seen yet without resorting to name calling or narrowmindedness, yet I am still confused about a few things. First, your example of town property in Old Wethersfield - Isn't the historic district protected under a different set of rules, by the historical society? Isnt Wintergreen woods classified as wetlands? I honestly do not know the answer to these. Secondly, I guess I am somewhat naive, but what exactly could those in power do to abuse the exemption? You ask which property is near my house, well that would be Millwoods Park, a park I use almost daily for a variety of reasons. There was talk of additional lighting to go up at Millwoods, but the proposal was shot down. If I thought that there were a possibility of someone putting an Ocean State Job Lot up at Millwoods, I would fight it, but the possibility of improvements I am all for. Those with a glass that is half empty would probably feel that a yes on #2 could create havoc - those whose glass is half full probably see the potential for progress in a positive manner. Taxes will go up, no question, regardless of who is in power. I for one would rather live in a community whose leaders are forward minded, rather than a community that stay's status quo, and goes nowhere slowly. Thank you for your input, because I truly am still on the fence, and you have come closer to pushing me in one direction than anyone else has.

[oldetowne]

Hey Ho....
Mill Woods is a good example. Aside from the Nature Center work which is going on there and aside from the Master Plan which is still waiting for someone to cough up between 4 and 10 million, there have been some discussions over the years about things to go there that are actual concrete examples.

First, in 1999 there was a study done which showed that the site of the Moeller Home was the ONLY place in Wethersfield that the new police station could be located. Neighbors opposed that, P&Z gave it a weird look, and then suddenly the property up on the Silas Deane was found.

Second, and be sure to keep your eyes on this regardless of what happens, there has been a lot of discussion about the radio system, coverage, gaps in coverage, triangulation, etc. Mill Woods has often been identified as the best location for another 180-199 foot tall cell tower.

Wouldn't you feel better knowing that you would at least be notified of a public hearing about either of these things, than to read about it in the paper after it was a done deal by Council vote?