Election Day 11/8/2005

[standish]

Relax, Jubashero: The reference to ignorance had to do with Syzygy's limited understanding of time-frame and the importance of phases in the LTCP. We don't need to be elitist, just informed. Perhaps the subsequent demonstration of your detailed knowledge regarding I&I suggests that you are not so ignorant of the facts as you claim. I wonder who you and Syzygy are?

"Total separation" was the strategy pursued since the '70's, with the obvious lack of result we see today. Thus, the negotiations since February were to ensure that total separation actually occurred within Phase I, or, the first six years of the LTCP. Otherwise, the original 30-year-storm standard we had advanced was preferable to the "total separation" that would, for all practical purposes, never happen (or, would only happen over additional decades). For us to embrace the "total separation" approach, it had to be within an acceptable and legally defined time-frame, with consequent obligations to complete.

In regard to whether a permit would have been issued, one already existed for just such discharges. Would anyone permit such a discharge to The Cove in this day and age? Of course not. It should never have been designed with The Cove as a receiving body in the first place, let alone be permitted. However, it was grandfathered. The only standard to be applied was the Clean Water Act's one-year storm, whatever body of water (Heritage or not). DEP was certainly prepared to issue a new permit with only the one-year-storm standard.

"Those pesky consultants" may have done some studies regarding dye flow and water quality (certainly not over a half-million dollars' worth, which is what they cost us for advising the town not to pursue a legal option), but, they also advised us to negotiate for a five or ten-year standard and take whatever MDC was prepared to give us over a one-year standard.

Now, let's be honest!

[standish]

By the way, the deep rock tunnel and Park River storage are still part of the LTCP and had nothing to do with The Cove portion of the drainage basin.

[Jubashero]

Thanks for the information.

I hope the pesky consultants don't advocate putting more lights along Silas Deane Hgwy.

Permits have limits on quantity and quality. Is the consent order because of violations? If so, I don't think any additional quantity of discharge would be grandfathered, and given the deterioration of the system, the quantity is likely to increase in the future.

[standish]

I hope the pesky consultants don't advocate putting more lights along Silas Deane Hgwy.
I'm not sure about lights, but, certainly the "islands" and other "improvements" all the merchants so vehemently opposed in the last plan are in this one. [/color]
Permits have limits on quantity and quality. Is the consent order because of violations? If so, I don't think any additional quantity of discharge would be grandfathered, and given the deterioration of the system, the quantity is likely to increase in the future.
The Consent Order(s) were not issued because of excessive discharge. The limitations of the current permit do not specify volume or frequency, only permitted CSO locations. The Orders were previously issued concerning dry weather discharges, floatables and other violations. A new permit would limit frequency... not volume. Thus, the previously mentioned one-year storm standard, which is inadequate for The Cove. [/color]

[SyZyGy]

standish said:

...The reference to ignorance had to do with Syzygy's limited understanding of time-frame and the importance of phases in the LTCP....

Very Interesting!

I feel enriched!.....

[SyZyGy]

The Second Debate of Candidates for Town Council
Election of 11/8/2005
on WCTV-14
Friday, Oct. 14, 2005
- - - - -
A Report Card

CONTENT
Candidates:
_A-__ David Drake (R)
_B __ Chris Fortunato (D)
_C __ Bernie Franco (R)
_B __ Jeff Kotkin (D)
Crew:
_A-_ Rick Garrey
_B-_ MB Mallucio
_na_ Ed Z

Delivery
Candidates:
_B-__ David Drake (R)
_B __ Chris Fortunato (D)
_C __ Bernie Franco (R)
_B+__ Jeff Kotkin (D)
Crew:
_B+_ Rick Garrey
_C-__ MB Mallucio
_B__ Ed Z

OVERALL (2:1 C:D)
Candidates:
_A-__ David Drake (R)
_B __ Chris Fortunato (D)
_C __ Bernie Franco (R)
_B __ Jeff Kotkin (D)
Crew:
_A-__ Rick Garrey
_C+__ MB Mallucio
_B __ Ed Z

[standish]

Based on Syzygy's report card, we should all vote for Rick (which, by the way, isn't a bad idea.). However, with this new rating system, I miss the pithy, qualitative commentary... especially since we dropped cable.

[Jubashero]

A "C" to Bernadine was gracious. For most of the show she was like a "deer in headlights".

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

For easier viewing, click this image to enlarge it:

[x]to Close this enlarged-image window if you clicked to enlarge image.

[oldetowne]

Did anyone see the board of ed candidates debate last night on 14? I caught the last 30 seconds of it. Curious to know what anybody thought.

[RGarrey]

I saw the debate last night. I think the WSPC did a good job arranging the debate and preparing the questions.
For the most part all the candidates agreed on what are the major issues, text books, computers and upgrading the High School. Where it always gets interesting is when you discuss budgets. Some Republican VS Democrat comments were thrown around on this subject. One interesting comment was made by Matt DeAngelo. If you increase the budget every year at 8% you will double the budget in less than a decade! That would be an approximately $80,000,000 budget. Whoever wins had better consider this carefully.

Anyway you can all see the debate for yourselves, it will replay on Saturday nights at 9PM, Mondays at 4PM and Fridays at 7 AM. Watch it or tape it and comment here, I would like to here what others think.

[SyZyGy]

I know, I know.

At least a few of you are wondering if and when I will post a critique of the Candidates' Debate which was aired live yesterday evening 10/21/2005, from WCTV on Cox Cable TV Channel 14.

I have a lot to do this weekend and I will only get around to posting something tomorrow evening, 10/23/2005.

In the mean time, perhaps others will weigh in; how about you Tarzan and you OldeTowne?

So for all you Cox-less visitors here, please be patient. ;D

Aside: a credit to all: each was appropriately wearing suits or at least jacket and tie.

[oldetowne]

I will not comment on the substance of the candidates' comments last night - I can't be objective.

As for the attire, I differ with your view - syzygy - I have been lied to many times by people wearing suits, so I don't assume that it provides any cover of dignity or authority. I would rather be told the truth by someone in a t-shirt and jeans than be lied to by someone with a suit and tie.

I also was amused that the folks in the latest installment relied so much on notes. It was almost a distraction, with way too much reading going on. I also felt like I was watching a high school debate club at times - people attempting to score as many points as possible in as short a time as possible regardless of what the question asked.

[SyZyGy]

Sorry you are having an "off" day, oldetowne.

Objectivity has nothing to do with this forum, especially where it relates to politics and political machinations.

Rhetorically speaking, would anyone viewing WCTV remember one word of any of the candidates or the hosts if they were all sitting there butt-naked? Just as I thought!

I would argue that dressing "up" is appropriate for the forum, the intercourse and the viewers. If one candidate is sitting there all prettied up (you know who I refer to) and the others are there in the best weekend at the barbecue casuals, the viewing public will be left with respective visual impressions (positive and negative) which may complicate their mastication of the meaty subjects being fed them.

If there was ever a better example of "the medium is the message" it was the Nixon / Kennedy display back in 1960.

The public, for better or worse, has expectations which need to be considered and to some level be met (i.e. understood and utilized) by anyone who is trying to convince them of a particular point of view or encouraging them to perform in a certain way).

Nonetheless, I will agree with you that attire is no gage of the veracity a person.

My point is that when all are similarly attired, attire is not a distraction and then rumination is encouraged.

(I have resisted the temptation to comment on your last paragraph, I add parenthetically.)

[oldetowne]

Ok, Sy, I will concede that you have a good point.

And if you want comments - here are a few. There was a little too much "reading" during last Friday's show. It was late, but I was still quite confused by the list of numbers provided in support of a possible tax break for seniors.

I was also amused that one candidate for Council, a current Board member, noticed in 2003 how badly the town had deteriorated from his prior visit in 1987. I wonder which party was in control for almost all of that time?

I was pleased to see that the incumbent majority Council member didn't take credit for as many things that they hadn't done as Ms. Fortunato did last week.

It was also interesting to see how the Democratic candidates danced around Rick's question regarding the prospect of a doubled town budget in less than 10 years with the current pace of 8% annual tax increases.

And, as I said earlier, the ending seemed like a race to see how many things could be listed as "accomplishments" in the shortest amount of time.

Didn't hear anything about the radio system or the town hall renovations, but did hear a lot about the nature center which was funded largely by private and state money. I guess if enough people are willing to believe everything they hear, we're doomed.