Voters Speak - result

[Wethersfield.com]

Prelim numbers:

Question 1 - No's win by a margin of 3-2


Question 2 - No's win by a margin of 2-1

[standish]

Wethersfield voters have, once again, proven that they think issues through and understand all of the implications: they realized that a ban on all lights everywhere, and an exemption on all town land for anything, were each too far-reaching. A vote against both questions was most voters' response. I personally believe that each outcome was the right one, whether one was for or against the lights at Cottone Field. I especially respect those who voted "No" on #1, but, opposed lights at Cottone Field and those who voted "No" on #2, but, were in favor of lights at Cottone Field. Those people truly grasped what was at stake.

Thanks for voting to keep Wethersfield the right place to own property, live and raise a family. Special thanks to all who took and displayed "Play By The Rules!" signs. If you picked your signs up, please return the metal frames in case we need them again.

The media missed the real message. It wasn't about the lights at Cottone Field... it was about extreme answers to what should have been limited questions.

Congratulations, Wethersfield!

[LouS]

Congratulations to all that got out to vote. It seems that almost 30% of the population voted on an off election year.

I agree with standish and want to add a bit more.

There was a firm response to the Q2, about giving the town council the power to supercede existing regulations and regulatory commissions, which was defeated. As I spoke with standish about previously, I respect the view of those not wanting to give this power away and if I was not looking for an avenue to take a specific issue forward, I could easily have been on that side of the issue. He and others made a point to say that they do not necessarily oppose lights on Cottone or elsewhere, but did not want to empower the council.

Wethersfield voters have spoken and I have conceded to the direction we need to take. We will examine existing processes. (As an aside, if there was not a referendum for Q1, we would not have made an effort to get Q2 on a referendum ballot.)

There was also a firm response to Q1, striking down the WTXA efforts to block any lighting of fields in town, as was driven by their suit and the driving cause of this referendum. By defeating Q1, the point was made that there is support for lights, either at Cottone or elsewhere in town. Again, with this victory, we will move forward under the existing processes and make every effort to get this project through.

As a reminder: The lights and installation for Cottone Field will be directly funded by donations and will not be paid for by the taxpayers, which will have ZERO impact on taxes. The lights and installation have been quoted to be around $125,000.

Thanks to all those who can have a differing viewpoint, discuss it with passion and emotion, shake hands at the end and continue respectfully.

[Ironrod]

Lou,

Please allow me to try and set the record straight...

You said: "There was also a firm response to Q1, striking down the WTXA efforts to block any lighting of fields in town, as was driven by their suit and the driving cause of this referendum. By defeating Q1, the point was made that there is support for lights, either at Cottone or elsewhere in town. Again, with this victory..."

By no means would I say a defeat of Q1 was a victory for propnents of those seeking to light Cottone Field...Why? I think its clear that all 2,150 individuals who voted for a broad based prohibition of lights would be in favor of prohibiting lights at Cottone...what's more SOME of those voting against the broad based light prohibition (No on Q1) would also be against lighting Cottone Field if they had the chance to vote on that specific initiative. So we know 40.4% of the electorate are against lighting Cottone and some additional percentage of the remaining voters are against lighting Cottone Field so where does that leave us? Might just be an even split. So for those who have made the claim that "the vast majority of townspeople are for lighting Cottone Field" I think the outcome of last weeks vote on Q1 has firmly renounced your ability to judge the will of the people...

Councilor Montineiri are you listening?

[Ironrod]

Lou,

Let me try to set the record straight on your claim that there will be zero impact to the taxpayers on lighting Cottone Field.

If, indeed, there will be a ZERO TAX IMPACT you might want to revise your fundraising figures...you see, after spending the initial @125k to install the lights we will need an ongoing reserve to operate, maintain and, somewhere down the line, replace these lights...so count on raising a few more dollars so us poor taxpayers can find true comfort in your claim of zero impact.

Perhaps, you might want to model your 'reserve' fund after the one our Town Manager has established for the artificial turf. You see like all material things (including you & me) the turf and the lights have a useful expected life. The Town Manager has recognized the limited useful expected life of the turf and will begin setting aside $75,000 per year so that funds will be available for the replacement of the field in 8-12 years...that is if, in the interim, this reserve fund doesn't become a secondary continguency account for the town. History would suggest such a reserve fund could not possbly survive the unexpected expenses the town would have to incur over the next 10 years.

What difference would it make anyway...reserve fund, no reserve fund...when Cottone Field needs a new carpet the money will be available...if the residents of Wethersfield could afford $1.5MM in 2004, a year when taxes skyrocketed 20%...surely they can afford $3.0MM in 2014...anyway, who's going to remember getting burned the first time...anybody who really cares will have moved out of town by then.