FALSE ADVERTISING!

[standish]

hodiddly said:

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".

Not true (again). Please re-read my post: I said that Council would be exempt from following zoning. Whenever they choose, on any property, for any reason, they can opt to ignore zoning. After they hold a Public Hearing, the decision of a simple majority (5 Council members) rules. As I said originally, nothing binds them to follow either zoning or public sentiment expressed in a Hearing. All of this language about a Public Hearing and voluntary zoning compliance obsfucates the reality that power lies solely with Council if this question passes.

[hodiddly]

I apologize, Standish, it was in fact, oldetowne, i was referring to, regarding comments made in an earlier post. I dont know what "not true, again" refers to however, as I have not stated anything that is not true. I am simply trying get straight answers on the issue at hand. As I stated previously, I am a simple man, a family man, who would like to see lights on the football field. I despise politics when it gets to the level of name calling, lying, & mud-slinging. My point was, that a Yes on #2 (in my interpretation) is that the TC would still have to "voluntarily adhere to regulations of the P&Z" unless after a "public hearing" it is determined by the TC that it is in the best interest of the town for a specific purpose not to. This may get lights on Cottone, but would still leave all other municipally owned property subject to P&Z reg's without going through a public forum. The TC could not just build a Railroad Salvage store on the Broad Street Green, without telling anyone.

[oldetowne]

You're correct. There would be a public hearing. And regardless of what the zoning regulations say, and regardless of how many people show up at the public hearing, the Town Council can vote that it is in the town's best interest to have a Railroad Salvage on the Broad Street Green or any one of the other 100 pieces of town owned property and there's not much you can do about.

[standish]

hodiddly said:

...I am a simple man, a family man, who would like to see lights on the football field. ...The TC could not just build a Railroad Salvage store on the Broad Street Green, without telling anyone.

I am beginning to wonder how "simple" you actually are. For someone "on the fence", "leaning", etc., who purportedly hasn't made up his mind, you repeatedly reconstruct the same arguments in favor of the same positions. You also construct straw men to knock down. Nobody said Railroad Salvage would end up on Broad Street Green. However, a lighted, 220V electrified, forty foot concrete bandstand is certainly within the realm of possibility. Or, a cell tower at a firehouse near you (or on any other town property)... and without zoning, you could attend the Public Hearing and watch Council ignore the rights to which you would been entitled were zoning to be followed!

The 'not true again' comment refers to the attribution you made in my name and the previous post wherein you asked to be corrected if you were wrong, to which I replied: "Wrong."

[hodiddly]

The point I am trying (in my own simple way) to make, is that (and I apologize in advance for the straw man) nobody in thier right mind would think that a R.R. Salvage store on the Green would be good for the town. I may be naive, but I think putting the trust in our elected officials to be in thier right mind is not to much to ask. As for me making the same arguments repeatedly, I can say only this (as I have said before) - I would like to see lights on the football field - I have spoken to numerous, well respected residents whose opinions I value and appreciate, and have no ties either to the TC or WTXA or any other political group. I have heard convincing arguments on both sides - I have also heard childish & childlike statements made by people on both sides of this issue - like it or not, choose to believe it or not, I am a simple, family man who is having a hard time making a decision. I will not be pushed into submission either way, I am trying to make an intelligent and informed decision.

[standish]

Dear Hodiddly-
I have heard who and what you aren't: Council member; WTXA member; etcetera. I have heard repeatedly that you're just a simple, family man, who's only trying to (still) make up his mind. In fact, you almost sound like a composite character constructed to be "everyman", in order to make certain rhetorical arguments on this forum. Now, I wonder who you actually are?

Do you think that Council always makes wise decisions? Even if we implicitly trust them, are cell towers, or town garages, or trash transfer stations, good ideas in all locations (on a lot near you, for instance)?

[hodiddly]

I am a tax paying, law abiding citizen of this town. Just because I am not a carbon copy of you does not mean that I am not entitled to my opinion. I am NOT some composite character, I am flesh & blood. If I am not making my decision hurriedly enough for you, too bad. As far as elected officials always making good decisions, no I dont believe they do - what I expect is that they will try, keeping in mind that they are elected, and should ALWAYS put the best interest of the town ahead of anything else when it comes to matters of public interest. As for cell towers, town garages, & trash transfer stations - they have to go somewhere - but that is a different issue. signed, "everyman"...oops....hodiddly

[standish]

hodiddly said:

...As for cell towers, town garages, & trash transfer stations - they have to go somewhere - but that is a different issue. ...

Exactly... and where they do go should be determined by the sound, thoughtful plan of development and regulations over which TPZ has jurisdiction. As you can see, it actually is the same issue. That's why Planning & Zoning must remain involved!

[hodiddly]

I am not sure what you are so afraid of - do you honestly think that if question #2 passes, you will suddenly get a trash transfer station in your back yard - I dont think that will happen - I am trusting the elected officials will make sound choices that are in the best interest of the town. I was out last evening with some friends, and had a discussion with someone who is pro-lights but still voting NO on #2 - he made a very convincing argument for his reasons, while the others that I was with were all convinced to vote YES on #2. I feel that I have made my decision (I know it was bothering you that I was still "leaning").We will have to wait until the 24th to see how this all plays out.

[standish]

Apparently, this board has gone "buggy". I posted a message regarding more stolen and vandalized signs (RED- PLAY BY THE RULES!), which occurred just last night. The post was made early this morning and appeared under the 10 most recent. Now, it's gone! The only posts that appear are those under the sub-directory "FALSE ADVERTISING!", none from the 10 most recent posts...

SYSOP... are you there?

[Wethersfield.com]

L. Standish, I'm here now. I just looked and saw your post in the recent 10 and under the category too. Not sure what happened or why it wasn't there early. NO, I had nothing to do with it. I'm just the SPAM BUSTER. ;D

Enjoy and keep on posting.

[ThinkingMama]

Is it realistic to think that if question 2 passes, the Town Council would ever actually approve undesirable development on municipal land? I believe that just about any development imaginable (or even unimaginable right now) could potentially be approved by Council, without any legal recourse by neighboring property owners.

Nineteen years ago, my husband and I considered buying the lovely home at the corner of Ridge Road and Kelleher Court. At that time, cell phone technology, with its attendant towers, did not even exist! It was impossible to predict the threat of a tower being built in such close proximity on town land in a prime residential zone. As far as we could learn, the home was simply next to a fire station located in a residential zone. We were lucky to purchase elsewhere.

My point is this: If question 2 passes, developments beyond our present imaginations and knowledge base could potentially be built on municipal property. So the issue is much bigger than just speculating about the unlikelihood of Ocean State Job Lot or Railroad Salvage on town land. Developers unknown, unnamed, and presently unimaginable could have an interest in town land in the future. Enormous uncertainty is introduced by removing zoning regulations on such vast tracts of Wethersfield. Should it just be a matter of luck whether your investment in your home is protected?

The fact that 19 years ago no one could have imagined a cell phone tower demonstrates the futility of speculating about specific future undesirable developments. It is the principle that is important. Good zoning vastly reduces uncertainty and protects private property rights from future threats, both known and unknown.

[Wethersfield.com]

L. Standish.. this is weird, now it's gone again. It was just there.

I wish I had the answer. Did you by any chance go back in to modify it and delete it by accident? No one on my staff has the power to delete posts except me and the poster of that thread.

To bring some levity here, maybe someone stole it.

[standish]

Here's the original message:

More red "PLAY BY THE RULES!" signs vandalized and/or stolen last night. Any blue signs? Not to my knowledge. "Kids" are one thing. Suppression of political speech, another. Shame! [/b][/size][/color]

[tooold]

signs posted on the apron, have been taken too.

i still don't understand that if the zoning rules are intact and the tower was put in at Kelleher, they didn't work.

no one has commented explaining how a sign (black and yellow) can read Lights? Vote Yes, and not be deceptive.

after looking at them this weekend, i think that i am overanalyzing this. i think that most will see it as lights vote yes and then be reminded that NO on 1 and Yes on 2 is the way to go.

hopefully this will backfire on the distributors, but this is the same tact as the first question anyway.