FALSE ADVERTISING!

[JackAss]

I guess the WTPX has lowered themselves again.

There is a new black & gold sign that says, If you want lights vote yes.

Gee, let's confuse the voter/taxpayer some more.

Maybe if they want to get their message out , they could dress George in a speedo and sandwich board and of course the black sign that says, NO to 1 and YES to 2. ;D

[hodiddly]

I also noticed and questioned the validity and origin of the black and gold signs which refer to only question #1 and a yes vote.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

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

I recommend that every homeowner who has a political sign tampered with or stolen report it immediately to the
WPD (721-2900), the Town Manager (721-2801) and the SEEC (1-866-733-2463). A State of Connecticut legal complaint form can be downloaded from the SEEC site at:

SEEC

Help to safeguard private property, prevent violations of election laws and prevent further degeneration and confrontations between opposed factions in the 5/24 referenda.

[tooold]

YOU BET ON THE TWO POSTS.

ONE IS AN OUT AND OUT DECEPTION, BUT THAT IS WHAT THEY DO (AND I HAVEN'T NOTICED ATTRIBUTION STATED ON THE BLACK AND YELLOW SIGNS, MMM, SEEC ANYONE?)

DO NOT LET ANYONE GET AWAY WITH THEFT AS STATED.

[newbee]

Wow, you’re right about those signs. I had to pull over and look at one today and if the anti-lights peoples objective was to distort and manipulate the average citizen they have accomplished that. I guess if you can’t beat them on the issues, beat them with deception and fallacies.

Vote NO to 1 & Yes to 2

[LouS]

Does anyone know what group is putting out the black and yellow signs? There is nothing posted on the ones I was able to view.

[standish]

LouS said:

Does anyone know what group is putting out the black and yellow signs? There is nothing posted on the ones I was able to view.

It's the WTXA

[morganika]

They are the property of the Wethersfield Taxpayers Association.

[Bulldog]

Amazing, that this group of "taxpayers" that fight for the townspeople would resort to out right lies on a sign.

If another group did this, you wouldn't hear the end of it.

This bunch of liars must really hate the town to stoop to a level of this.

At least Lou, Dan and John are up front and honest unlike this group of LIARS!

[morganika]

What exactly on the black and gold sign is a lie? Please explain.

[hodiddly]

morganika, The black and gold signs are very deceptive, they lead an uninformed person to believe that if you want lights you should vote yes on question #1, when the exact opposite is true - Question #1 refers to actually removing existing lighting, if I am not mistaken. That would mean taking down the lights that already are in place at millwoods on the softball field and tennis courts, among others, which would end up costing taxpayers $$.

[morganika]

I thought all existing lighting was grandfathered in?

That's pretty funny, people are worried about costing us money? The horse has left the barn.

[hodiddly]

My mistake (I never claimed to be an expert) - Question #1 is worded as follows - "Shall setion 101 of the municipal code of Wethersfield be amended to include the following ordinance?
section 101-1.1 The town of Wethersfield shall not install, construct or cause to be installed or constructed, any permanent or temporary floodlight, spotlight or other reflector-type lighting for illumination of sporting events or other activities on any municipally owned property."

Nothing about existing lighting is included, if I am reading that correctly, but that does not change the fact that the black & gold signs are VERY DECEPTIVE, as they lead you to believe that a yes vote on #1 means that you are for the lights.

[hodiddly]

For the record, here the wording on Question #2 as well:
"Shall the town of Wethersfield adopt the following ordinance?

Pursuant to Connecticut general statute 8-2, municipal property shall be exempt from regulations prescribed by the planning zoning commission. Not withstanding this exemption, the town shall voluntarily adhere to of the planning and zoning commission unless the town council determines, after a public hearing, that it is in the best interest of the town for a specific purpose not to adhere to a regulation that conflicts with that purpose."

If I am reading this one correctly, the TC must adhere to the P&Z on all matters, unless after a "Public Hearing" it is decided that that they would not. I believe it was Standish who told me otherwise, that the TC would be able to just do whatever they wanted with no public knowledge. So a YES on #2 still does not guarantee lights, because there would still have to be a "Public Hearing".

[oldetowne]

Hey Ho....

Assuming that you're honestly trying to work through this rather than advocate a point of view that you already hold firmly, I think you are reading far too much into the proposed ordinance. All that it says that the Council will hold a public hearing and then decide what is in the town's best interests. It doesn't say that the Council has to listen to the public, nor does it say that it has to listen to what P&Z might have said about the matter.

The fact that there is a public hearing doesn't diminish one bit the Council's ability to do as it wishes regardless of what P&Z or the public at the hearing may have said. The big difference is that the neighbors and the citizens at large have essentially no recourse other than to sit and wait for the next election and hope that in the meantime their property values haven't gone down too far.