LET'S TURN THE LIGHTS ON

[hodiddly]

Short answer - yes - however, as someone else has posted using Newington as an example, and correct me if I am wrong on this, a yes on #2 does not mean that the TC can make desicions without going to P&Z first, but has to seek the advice of P&Z and then make a decision, taking P&Z's recomendations under advisement. This type of proposal (such as a cell tower) would be made public. I have heard the cell tower discussions with Millwoods as possible site. I can say only this - I advocate public safety, and would support improvements that I believe are in the best interest of the town. I have to keep coming back to this - we elect public officals hoping they will use good judgement when making decisions regarding our town, and I fail to see where someone could somehow, in good faith abuse this privelege for personal gain. If we vote yes on #2, will the TC then be able to sell off our land to the highest bidder? If they did that, do they believe they would be able to continue to exist in town?

[standish]

hodiddly said:

...correct me if I am wrong on this, a yes on #2 does not mean that the TC can make desicions [sic] without going to P&Z first, but has to seek the advice of P&Z and then make a decision, taking P&Z's recomendations [sic] under advisement... we elect public officals hoping they will use good judgement [sic] when making decisions regarding our town, and I fail to see where someone could somehow, in good faith abuse this privelege [sic] for personal gain...

You are wrong. Council is not, in any way, on any exemption they desire, bound to seek counsel from P&Z. They are only required to have a public hearing, the outcome of which they can choose to ignore by simple majority vote. Do you think the radio system and its cell tower at Kelleher Court reflect "good judgment"? Would you like other examples of bad judgment by Council? Does Council only make bad judgments for personal gain (though the year of the "tower", Verizon contributed its largest amount for any town to a Wethersfield party PAC)? Can P&Z impose personal judgment over codified regulations? Think this through!

[hodiddly]

Thank you Standish - I am curious as to ThinkingMama's comment on the "5 towns that have gone in this direction". Do we know what 5 towns they are and how it has worked out for them? Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. As for Kelleher Court, I will have to plead ignorance as I was not as involved in the discussion at the time that took place, but as I see it, the tower had to go somewhere. I still do not know what is wrong with that location, does the tower not work? Should it have been placed elsewhere? Was it the current council who made that decision? I do not know the answers to these questions either. Could the TC have gone about this differently to try and keep thier campaign promises? Was it necessary for the WTXA to sue the town? I know that Oldetown has stated that the statute for the referendum say's that we cannot specify 1 parcel of land for exemption, but I still dont know why that is. I am a simple person, who thinks lights on the football field are a good idea, and would enjoy seeing them in place. For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the TC nor am I a member of the WTXA. I am a registered independant, I do not vote party lines, I vote my heart and my gut.

[tomterific]

Here's a partial refresher course on Kelleher Ct. Tower. -Homeowner abutters were not notified. Tower was not place on the part of the lot furthest from private homes. Tower was placed about 20 ft. from property line of homeowners. A current councillor (then a salaried town official) overtly lied during a public Council Meeting about alternate, less obtrusize sites. I can list more of what went on if I review the Council Minutes, the items cited above are just the most flagrant ones from memory.

[tomterific]

The May 18 726AM posting by "LouS" is amazing. The Town Manager, Mayor, etc. did not suggest to you that you approach Zoning? That's not their jobs. The LouS organization certainly should have known that changing the character of a parcel of land means going to Zoning. LouS also claims that no direction was offered them as to how to travel the route. Again, this is preposterous, especially considering that his group includes a former Councillor and Deputy Mayor. Sorry, LouS, your purported naivete doesn't wash with me.

[SICKOFITALL]

I THINK WHAT WE IN WETHERSFILED NEED TO BE CONCERNED WITH IS SHORTSIGHTEDNESS. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE WANT TO CLOSE A SCHOOL LIKE WEBB SPEND MILLIONS TO CONVERT IT TO BD OF ED, THEN SPEND =MILLIONS TO CONVERT IT BACK. DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE AROUND WEBB WANT ALL THAT CONTRUCTION AROUND? DO YOU THINK THE FAMILIES USING THE FIELDS THERE WANT TO WORRY ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AREA? DO YOU THINK THE 70 OR GIRLS IN THE SOFTBALL LEAGUE THAT USED THE FIELD AT WEBB WANTED TO GO PLAY AT FULLER SCHOOL, A FIELD THAT HADN'T BEEN USED IN YEARS? NO, BUT A SMALL GROUP CAN'T DICTATE TO THE REST OF THE TOWN WHAT IS PERCEIVED AS A BENEFIT TO THE TOWN AS A WHOLE.
WE NEED THE LIGHTS, WE NEED TO LET THE COUNCIL HAVE THE SAY(QUES 2). THE TAX BASE IN THIS TOWN IS THE RESIDENTS. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ATTRACT FAMILIES THAT CAN AFFORD TO LIVE HERE, AND NOT LET THEM GO TO SURROUNDING TOWNS. IN THE 1970'S MILLWOODS PARK WAS THE BEST AROUND. IN THE LAST 15 YEARS ROCKY HILL AND NEWINGTON HAVE JUMPED WAY AHEAD OF US IN TERMS OF RECREATIONAL FACILIES. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ATTRACT THOSE FAMILIES WHO ARE CHOOSING TO RAISE THEIR BROOD IN THIS AREA.
IN 1986 WE HAD DONATIONS FOR LIGHTS, LABOR, AND A BRIDGE BETWWEEN THE FIELD AT MILLWOODS #1, #2. A GROUP OF ABOUT 20 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE UP IN ARMS ABOUT LIGHTS THAT MIGHT BE PUT UP. THAT WAS ALL IT TOOK, NOW ALMOST 20 YEARS LATER THE SAME LIGHTS IN THE MASTER PLAN WILL COST OVER 400K.
I'M NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHY CHESTER SCHOOL WAS CLOSED, OR MITCHELL, BUT IT SEEMS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE FUTURE OF THE TOWN, AND PLAN ACCORDINGLY. I AM SICK OF SEEING MONEY WASTED TO RE-DO PAST MISTAKES. WITHOUT BEING DISRECPTFUL, WE HAVE AN "OLD" TOWN, AND WHEN PROPERTIES TURN OVER WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ATTRACT A NEW BASE ABLE TO AFFORD THE STANDARD OF LIVING, AND NOT BALKING AT EVERY NEW CONCEPT