Vote YES on Question #2

[newbee]

On question #2, I’m not sure what the big deal is here. First off, I voted for Council members to represent me for the next 2 years. Did all the members I voted for win, no but this is the system we live in. As a republican we took a beating at the last elections and I think the reasoning behind that is we backed the wrong issues.

This time is no different. “A yes vote will exempt Town owned property from regulations of the PZC. The town agrees to voluntarily abide by zoning regulations unless the council determines, after a public hearing that is in the best interest of the Town not to do so”.

Isn’t that why elected officials to do what is in the best interest of our town? I hope so or we have a serious problem. I don’t want to be going to referendums every time a specific group doesn’t like the way the council is making decisions.

I would say

VOTE YES on #2

I’m not sure what a referendum cost to run but if we cave in now to the special interest groups we could be having referendums on everything and that would be very fiscally irresponsible.

[standish]

Where are these people coming from? Is the word out that the debate is being lost to the pro-zoning faction on this forum and a rear-guard effort has been launched? We're hearing from lights people who haven't been here before, or, haven't been heard from for ages, who suddenly become "undecided", then rediscover their voice, then join the ranks of those who haven't made up their minds again in order to bring others along for the ride as they re-rediscover their positions from over a year ago.

These newbees and oldies seem to be working from a script?

[newbee]

Hello Standish, I didn’t realize you had a monopoly on “opinion”. Why is it that all I did was voice my opinion with some facts that were sent to my house by our Town. Let’s agree that we disagree on this subject and call it a day. I’ve read many of your post and you’re very articulate and quite knowledgeable about many things and most of the time I agree with you. Most, but not on this issue. Sorry..

[hodiddly]

Standish, I must admit you sound a bit defensive here..... I may not have posted for a while, but that does not mean that I have not had my ear to the tracks. I have heard both sides for a long time, and as I have stated previously, I have 3 kids, so I am involved in youth athletics to some extent. My kids, however, will probably never play a varsity sport on Cottone. I speak only for myself, but I must warn you, I think many people feel the same way I do. Just a gut feeling.

[JackAss]

Very interesting topic. Driving around Old Wethersfield
tonight I observed alot of "red" signs saying vote no on #2.

My guess is if the Cove had an issue where the town could exempt reg's they would be all for it, then it would be a different issue, and I'm sure (Mr.) Standish will take me to the wood shed again.

Last I looked Newington is thriving and growing despite having the "exemption".

No to 1

YES to 2

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

At 06:15 (UT-4:00) 5/19/2005, I filed trespass and theft complaintS with the WPD for the THEFT of two, "PLAY BY THE RULES // VOTE NO - #2" sign from my front lawn.

I have recommend that every homeowner who has a political sign tampered with or stolen report it immediately to the WPD and recommend to both the WPD and Bonnie Therrien that increased nite-time patrols be conducted between now and 5/25/2005 to safeguard private property, prevent violations of election laws and prevent further degeneration and confrontations between opposed factions in the 5/24 referenda.

Call the WPD at
721-2900
to report such illegal activities.

[newbee]

Calling all Cars, Calling all cars we have a theft at the FootDr house of signs. Do you really think it is necessary to get the police involved with some kids pranks that are hurts nobody? Look, there are plenty of signs through out this town so if you’re missing your get a new one. The police have better things to do than chase your signs down.

[oldetowne]

Yeah, stealing lawn signs may be trivial in the grand scheme of the crime picture in Wethersfield, but it does give you a pretty clear picture of which side is desperate enough to engage in criminal activity to try to win an election.

The point is not that the detectives and dogs should be out hunting for the signs. The point is that the signs cost money and convey a message. The people who destroy and remove the signs are trying to intimidate the residents who have the signs up, make the opponents spend extra money and time to replace the signs, and to prevent the rest of the public from being able to get an accurate picture of how much support there is for each side of the debate.

[newbee]

First of all you’re making the assumption you know what group of people are doing it. I’ll make an assumption your wrong. I had a sign in front of my house that is now in front of my neighbor’s house who is against the lights. Look, its just kids playing around so get off your high horse and join the real world.

[oldetowne]

The "kids playing around" seem to prefer taking off with the red signs.

[standish]

I leave Hodiddly's, NewBee's and JackAss's comments and credibility to speak for themselves. I need say no more.

By the way, there were three Vote No - #2 signs vandalized on Hartford Avenue and another stolen on Garden Street (to add to all the signs on Main Street and other locations throughout town wherein red signs were stolen or damaged). I hope the perpetrator wasn't some person driving around Old Wethersfield, who happened to observe all the red signs. Probably kids... but, it's a pattern that reflects on their parents' positions.

In regard to the number of signs around Cove Park, Standish Park, Broad Street Green, Solomon Welles House, Village Tavern, the Firehouse, Francis-Stillman, Hanmer and a number of other town properties in Old Wethersfield, apparently those homeowners understand what's at stake on any and every town-owned property in Wethersfield!

NO ON #2!

[hodiddly]

Standish, Let me make myself perfectly clear here - I resent being lumped in with newbee & jackass - neither of them speak for me - I do not know who is taking signs, but I am against that practice, whoever is doing it is lowering themselves and only hurting their own cause by stooping to that level. As I have stated, I am still on the fence regarding #2, and in the past couple of days you & ThinkingMama have given me much to consider. I originally felt that the anti light faction were the immature bunch, but I am seeing now that childish behavior goes both ways. I honestly feel at this point I may vote no on #2, and that we should re-address the issue through the existing system.

[standish]

I rescind my "lump".

[RGarrey]

I have stated before my opposition to question #2, I am also going to vote no to question #1. I think there are many people like me who are not against lights, if done properly and with careful consideration from the different boards and commissions that have always reviewed plans that the town has for our properties, but are against removing the safeguards of the P&Z process.

I received a call from a someone who was confused about the two referendum and was looking for some answers. They are absolutely in support of lights on the field but are equally as opposed to exempting the town from the P&Z process. They were afraid that voting no on Q#2 would mean they are against lights. I explained that that is not so. If Q#2 fails then the town can still put in an application to P&Z for lights and then appeal to the ZBA if necessary. The fact that there are lights on athletic fields and courts in Millwoods shows that there is a precedent for approval of stadium lighting.

I have also heard that even if Q#2 passes that does not guarantee lights can be installed. There will be other permits or processes that the application must pass. Maybe someone with more knowledge on this could comment.

[oldetowne]

Rick: Here is part of a post I made on May 9th or so, with a couple corrections, that I think answers the question that you asked...

"Many people think lighting the field is a laudable goal but they are being misled as to what voting "yes" on question 2 will accomplish.

Will it allow the Town Council to erect those lights the following day, week or month? No. The town still has a lighting ordinance that has to be observed. There is also a tug of war between the Council and the BOE as to who has jurisdiction over the field. (The town attorney has said that it's the BOE who has the final say.) Does the exemption from zoning mean that there can be no appeals by the WTXA or the neighbors? No. The decision of the building inspector ... to give the town a permit to install the lights can be appealed to the ZBA. There goes a couple of months. Does the inland wetlands commission have to be consulted? Maybe. Can they appeal any action taken by Council, BOE or any board or commission on the basis of FOI violations, no matter how technical? Yes. Can they appeal a decision not to go to P&Z under 8-24 for their review and comment - even if the project is exempt from zoning regulations? Yes. Can they petition under the charter to challenge the action of the Town Council to approve and install the lights and call for a referendum on that decision? Yes, and if timed properly that petition would hold things up for six months to a year.

I don't mean to be a jerk here (although many of you probably have already reached the opposite conclusion), but it is ludicrous to suggest that voting for question 2 means that these lights will be in place in time for the fall 2005 season. These are real issues that are being glossed over while the pro-lights guys tout the zoning exemption as the magic silver bullet to silence the WTXA and the neighbors. Instead, it's a shotgun blast into every neighborhood with town property in it and a sledgehammer for the Town Council to use to try to hurriedly create a legacy before the November elections.

Bottom line is that, even if you support lights without reservation, question 2 doesn't solve your problems. It just creates a whole bunch of different problems for everyone."