FALSE ADVERTISING!

[LouS]

The Vote NO on Q 1 is due to the lawsuit (anyway that you say it) by the WTXA, including the convoluted way it is proposed. The only supporters of this side seem to be the small number of WTXA. I find the wording of the black and yellow signs to be maliciously stated and intended to confuse the general public.

To that point, two individuals spoke to me today about talking with a neighbor that had the black and yellow signs up and after their conversation the neighbors took them both down (at least we can account for two not stolen), as the issue was further explained.

The Vote Yes on 2, cut it any way is broad based, but will have an impact on the specific issue of light installation. I concure with Standish, et al, as they make credible arguments, but I do not see the catastophic end results. There are credible indivduals on both sides of this and the two aruguments have merits.

There are rumors flying around about the cost for the lighting to be in excess of $600,000. Another false claim.
Again, it will not paid for by the taxpayers...private funding will accomplish this.

[gibby]

it's very easy to dispel the 'rumors'. just say what the dollar amount for lights will be. so far, the oconnor gang has remained silent on this. and, if someone who posts on this message board has a real number, let's see it here with some documentation.

[LouS]

This is a problem, since it has been stated before.

To reiterate. Lights provided by the same company that supplied UCONN's stadium (Rensheiler butchered in ahurry, sorry) and installation by contractor that has done numerous installations around $125,000.00.

[Jubashero]

“A decision has not been made yet”<br>
I am a member of the Wethersfield Taxpayers Association (WTXA). I joined WTXA after the Town summarily dismissed the petition for a referendum on the artificial turf and lights. I was not against the turf or lights but believe that the citizens had the right to vote on this issue. My understanding is that the WTXA officers and Town reached a settlement for a referendum on Question #1; I would have preferred that WTXA didn’t settle so easily. I would have loved to see the 1,100 persons that signed the petition given a rebate for taxes equivalent to the cost to finance the field.

My position is currently against the lights. In my opinion, the proponents for the lights have not exhibited efforts to work with the neighbors to minimize any adverse impacts and their experts appear incompetent and unprofessional. I think eventually the lights will be installed after careful and thoughtful evaluation through the established regulatory bodies. The ultimate usage of the field at night will be controlled by the expected exorbitant user’s fee (just look at our fees for using the transfer station). Therefore, I am voting “YES” on Question #1, and “NO” on Question #2.

Whether or not Question #1 wins or loses, the WTXA got what they originally wanted, a referendum for lights on Cottone Field. Is the WTXA really worried about installing lights elsewhere and thus need to change the Town’s Ordinance? As Bob says, “I doubt it”. So if the referendum passes, the majority does not want lights and so be it. If the referendum fails, the majority wants lights and so be it. WTXA had accomplished their goal and the citizens win by having their say.

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, the Town Council has the authority to exempt municipal properties from zoning regulations. Passage or failure of Question #2 does not change that authority. However, should the Question #2 fail, I doubt any Council will exempt any municipal property from any zoning regulation for any future project. I commend the proponents of Question #2 of writing a proposed ordinance consistent with the intent of the regulations despite what I believe is an incorrect interpretation that has been circulating.

The commonly accepted interpretation is that the exemption collectively applies to all municipal properties. This interpretation is based on a report of an analyst at the Congressional Legislative Review. The analyst stated that the statute “appears” to apply to all municipal property for two reasons, first, remarks made by a state senator during deliberations of the bill proposing the voluntary exemption, and second, wording of the statute. The wording includes the phrase “municipal property”. The analyst interpreted this as a collective term for all municipal properties; he states that if the statute were to be applied to a single property, the statute would have included the phrase “a municipal property”.

I reviewed the proceedings of the House, Senate and Conference Committee on the bill that resulted in municipal exemption. This exemption was included in the 1963 Public Act 133 that amended the Zoning Regulation Statute. The proceedings in the House during debate of this act clearly show that the statute was applicable to a single property. The proponents of this bill wanted to correct a shortcoming in the zoning regulations. From the discussions, the concern was a citizen’s right to question “special exemptions” that planning and zoning commission may grant its own municipality at one of their properties. The intent was to require the legislative body to vote on the exemption thus giving a citizen the right to voice his opinion at a public hearing on a proposed exemption. The example cited by proponents of this act was placing a library on a property in a residential zone. The opposition to this bill pointed out that the exemption may be used to place an unwanted municipal garage or solid waste landfill on a property. One proponent of the bill indicated that he could not think of one example where a municipal legislative body would place “a pig in the parlor” on a property against the wishes of its citizens. From these proceedings, clearly the intent was that the Town’s legislative body had to vote for the exemption for an action on a specific municipal property.

An acceptable application of this exemption could have been the design of the parking lot at Mikey’s Place at Standish Park. The parking lot is woefully undersized. If this was a commercial property, I doubt it would have passed without additional parking. (I’m not sure that Mikey’s Place went through the regulatory review process, it appears that placement of the protective columns didn’t. I heard the justification was “public safety” or “it’s for the children”, a common mantra for actions by the council.) I don’t need to give an example of the “pig in the parlor”, there are many.

One last personal note on the funding issue: my neighbor was mayor of Wethersfield when I was a young kid and he said something that has stuck with me through the years. He complained about attorneys ruining town government. I originally thought he meant that the attorneys will force issues into the limelight rather than back-room politics of Wethersfield. What was so bad about that? However, he was probably referring to the attorney’s use of the “letter of the law” to their advantage rather than considering what was morally and ethically right for the community. For example, though the language in the Charter requires a referendum for bonding or special appropriations above a specific threshold, isn’t the purchase-lease deal for the artificial turf morally and ethically the same as bonding? Cannot our Town Manager determine annual cost to the average taxpayer for the field similar to the costs determined for the recent bond issues? “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, …” Legally, there are specific differences between funding mechanisms and the council was legally justified. Morally, I think they are bankrupt.

[LouS]

Jubashero,
I guess there are others that can be of different ilks.
Another well written post.
Welcome.