RGarrey
Gold Member
WCTV "Wethersfield Live" Channel 14
Posts: 84
|
Post by RGarrey on Oct 16, 2007 12:14:03 GMT -5
Town Council Debate
There will be a debate between the candidates running for Town Council. The Debate will be held tomorrow night, Wednesday Oct. 17th, 7pm at the Lecture Hall in Wethersfield High School. The public is invited and you will have the opportunity to submit questions that may be used in the debate. The doors will open at 6:30pm. The debate is being sponsored by the Wethersfield Business and Civic Association.
The Lecture Hall is located behind the Cafeteria on the lower level of the school near the Gymnasium.
|
|
|
Post by cruzrt on Oct 18, 2007 14:05:46 GMT -5
Did any of this board's posters attend that debate last night? Did any of the candidates say anything important?
|
|
|
Post by standish on Oct 19, 2007 13:32:46 GMT -5
DEBATE: Dems were unanimous on support of the spurious $10,000,000 Redevelopment Bond. They also refer to the Historic District as Wethersfield's "crown jewel", with language such as "revenue", "business", "viability" and "take advantage" (from notes of their phrases; not mine). Seems as though they intend to cash in the family jewels at the expense of residents. Anyone from that part of town who votes for this asinine, short-sighted, greedy vision deserves what they get. If Dems think it's such a "crown jewel", why would they tarnish this gem with inappropriate development like Comstock and the proposed zone change, which they also unanimously support as part of the Coccomo plan. It's much about "Not-So-Smart Growth". Their plans for Silas Deane are equally frightening. We need to beat the bond and the Dems if we want Wethersfield to look anything like the community it currently is. I remain a registered Democrat, but, the party is increasingly monolithic. There may not be room for me in this shrinking tent of the future. The further left they lurch, (public-private partnerships; insulated boards; committees removed from electoral control) the less I can follow.
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Oct 23, 2007 7:32:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Oct 25, 2007 9:40:00 GMT -5
Here is the Courant editorial endorsement from 10/24/07:
WETHERSFIELD - Anemic growth of Wethersfield's grand list is nothing new. Residential taxes pay for a lopsided 87 percent of the town's expenses. Previous administrations cut back on maintenance and repairs to keep budgets and taxes as low as possible.
Democrats, now led by Mayor Andrew S. Adil, have in recent years broken that mold with an aggressive plan to acquire vacant parcels of commercial property and package them for development in a way that would lessen the tax burden on residents.
They have also launched a myriad of school, town hall, library and other renovation projects and an open-space preservation initiative that promise to improve the quality of life in town.
The Democrats deserve to retain majority control of the council.
That said, they should strive to be more inclusive of their Republican counterparts. GOP members have good ideas of their own, such as consolidating overlapping functions in town government and the school district.
On Nov. 6, residents can vote for six council candidates. Nine will be elected, with a maximum of six from one party. The Courant recommends the following six:
Andrew S. Adil, 50, a Democrat, is an investment adviser who has been mayor since January and who is seeking his fourth term. He has done an excellent job of keeping the council focused on continuing the momentum for change.
Republican Donna H. Hemmann, 53, a registered nurse, is running for her fourth term after serving for eight years on the school board. Her understanding of government adds sorely needed heft to the GOP slate. She has excellent proposals for reducing duplication in town offices.
Democrat Jeffrey R. Kotkin, 51, is a vice president at Northeast Utilities running for his second term. Mr. Kotkin has emerged as the council's budget watchdog, identifying savings that don't compromise services.
Martin H. Walsh, a Democrat, is a 48-year-old history teacher running for his second term after one term on the board of education. Mr. Walsh has a clearer vision than most of what Wethersfield must do to expand its commercial tax base.
Attorney Gerri Roberts, 57, a Democrat, is seeking to return to the council after an eight-year break, during which she served on the board of education, currently as chairwoman. Her accomplishments and experience make her an easy choice.
Republican David Drake, 52, is an engineer and manufacturer who is running for his second term. He would like to have council members elected in staggered terms to allow for continuity in solving ongoing problems.
Three other candidates are worth considering:
Paul F. Montinieri, 49, a business owner and Democrat, is seeking his first full term after filling in for former Mayor Russell A. Morin, who was elected to the state House of Representatives. Mr. Montinieri is a persuasive advocate for the pending referendum to raise $10 million in redevelopment funds.
Matthew Julian Forrest, 30, an attorney, is a Democrat running for his third term. Mr. Forrest champions open-space preservation and facade improvements along the Silas Deane Highway.
Richard P. Roberts, 46, an attorney, is a Republican seeking his first term. He would be a good monitor of the plans to redevelop the Silas Deane. He can be counted on to ask the right questions.
Also running are Republicans John J. Console, 53, an investment analyst who served on the council from 1979 to 1981; Joe Soja, 65, a managing consultant for the New England Fastener Distributors Association; and John F. Cascio, 54, executive director of the Connecticut Funeral Directors Association, who is running for his fourth term.
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Oct 26, 2007 13:58:44 GMT -5
and here's their editorial of today on the Redevelopment Bond referendum:
Referendum Merits A Yes Vote October 26, 2007
WETHERSFIELD - Wethersfield voters should approve a $10 million bond proposal to redevelop the town's three major commercial roads: the Silas Deane Highway, the Berlin Turnpike and the Wilbur Cross Highway.
The referendum question originated with the new five-member redevelopment agency, charged with identifying projects that could ease the tax burden on homeowners. Plans call for infrastructure improvements and packaging vacant properties to lure developers.
Unlike neighboring municipalities, Wethersfield has very little undeveloped land for business purposes. It can only broaden its tax base by reusing the commercial property it already has.
Town officials have in the past held down taxes by putting off repairs and maintenance. The redevelopment agency and its bond proposal represent the first serious attempt in a long time to break that pattern.
Republican candidates have complained that the bond package is premature because the redevelopment agency has yet to produce a plan for the roadways. But the bond package offers a great incentive to move forward.
|
|
|
Post by cruzrt on Oct 30, 2007 16:22:58 GMT -5
There is a meeting today at 7PM at Police Station of the Redevelopment Commission where they will answer questions from the public about the $10million bond question.
|
|
RGarrey
Gold Member
WCTV "Wethersfield Live" Channel 14
Posts: 84
|
Post by RGarrey on Oct 31, 2007 9:27:09 GMT -5
I was unable to attend the meeting last night. Did anyone go? Was there any new information that would help sway anyone's decision pro or con?
|
|
|
Post by cruzrt on Oct 31, 2007 12:50:43 GMT -5
I did not see the meeting either. But, I was told the room was overflowing, there were many questions, there were some contentious comments, and that a man in back of the room was videotaping the whole meeting. I hope he gets it to the Public Access Channel. If that happens, can someone post here the times it will be shown. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by standish on Oct 31, 2007 13:52:14 GMT -5
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S DOG & PONY SHOW OF 10/30: Other than a few of those opposed, who were loyal to the taxpaying citizenry (though not necessarily to the Redevelopment Agency), a large number of the audience at the Redevelopment Agency's "informational meeting" consisted of members of the Democratic Town Committee and elected or appointed officials. Many posed softball questions, which prompted the anticipated response. Few undecided voters seemed to be in attendance. The event was orchestrated in such a fashion that the agency panel provided a one-sided response to any questions. The moderator, who also hosts the Democrat's show on Channel 14, ensured that, other than through the questions themselves, the public had no voice. She also submitted her own question. The panel maintained the bully pulpit, ad nauseum, until at least one of them had, to their thinking, defused any question in opposition to the referendum. When one on the panel initially fumbled the question, others, sometimes several, answered that same question with the desired spin. The "chair" was outright hostile, accused the public of "political motives", "misrepresentations" and engaged in personal attacks against the citizenry from the podium. The moderator permitted these attacks and silenced one of the very persons who was singled out, by the chairman, from the podium. If this is what we can expect from future public hearings, we’d best say a resounding “NO” to the referendum now, while we have the chance. This Redevelopment Agency leadership has demonstrated its true colors and quality of character: arrogance, hostility toward the public and coercive, controlling behaviors that don't bode well for Wethersfield's future if they are successful. We've seen a shift in gears to the politics of personal attack. Not only was the "chair" outright antagonistic from the podium, but, one of us was interrupted by a key member of EDIC during an interview with a Wethersfield Post reporter. This EDIC official interjected, in the midst of the response to a question, that the interviewee's "idea stinks". That official's spouse also called the interviewee "stupid". Afterwards, the official accused the interviewee of committing the horrible social travesty of "riding a motorcycle", as though, by doing so, the individual was, somehow, socially beneath the self-important official. Finally, the agency committed new "misrepresentations" again last night: For instance, the referendum legal language specifically states: "the Town is empowered... to carry out or assist ANY municipal development project or ANY business development project... located within... The corridors consisting OF ALL PARCELS OF LAND, any portions of which are located within one thousand (1,000) feet of the centerline of Silas Deane Highway or the Berlin Turnpike and Wilbur Cross Highway within the Town of Wethersfield." I presume ALL includes ALL? Just because Mr. Kuckro says residential properties are not included, doesn't make it so... no matter how loudly, or how many times, he says so. It must be put it in writing as an ordinance, because, the reverse to his statements is what IS in writing as an ordinance now: "§ 12.1. Eminent Domain Powers Limited- Within the territorial limits of the Town of Wethersfield, no owner-occupied residential real property consisting of four or fewer dwelling units may be acquired by eminent domain for economic development purposes pursuant to General Statutes §8-128 to 8-133 inclusive, if the resulting project will be privately owned or controlled. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the use of eminent domain powers for public purposes including but not limited to the construction of sewers, highways, sidewalks, rights of way, flood and erosion control purposes OR FOR ANY OTHER TRANSACTION WHERE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ACQUIRED WILL BE HELD OR CONTROLLED BY THE TOWN OF WETHERSFIELD. This ordinance shall not conflict with any subsequently enacted State law on this subject matter." Here are two of four scenarios where the town holds or controls property, as defined in the Redevelopment Agency's own report to Council: • Public/Private Partnership ––PUBLICLY OWNED -Town Solicits Private Partner • EXCLUSIVELY PUBLIC INITIATIVE - Town Acquires Property and Develops They're defensive and running scared. Their new strategy of personal provocation and destruction means you can expect that they'll besmirch reputations. Be prepared to be savaged. This is where they try to make it costly to engage. It's a defensive maneuver because they're losing ground. Persevere to the end. We sense victory for the citizenry. VOTE NO to REFERENDUM QUESTION #1 NOVEMBER 6TH. VISIT www.BeatTheBond.com
|
|
|
Post by Jubashero on Nov 2, 2007 12:39:05 GMT -5
I would vote to approve the $10M bond referendum if the stipulation was that the $10M was to go to Comstock to keep the barn to house the horse and buggy so they would not have to work and Wethersfield would not be accused of cruelty to animals.
However, I am not in favor of the bond referendum as proposed. The proposed referendum does not have any accountability.
|
|
|
Post by cruzrt on Nov 2, 2007 14:54:40 GMT -5
Page 1 story in this week's Wetherfield Post is about the Referendum Meeting on Tuesday. Does not look like it was a fair meeting. Can someone with better web skills than I have post the text of that article?
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Nov 2, 2007 15:37:28 GMT -5
Here is the article. And, you are correct, it was not a fair meeting. It was not designed or intended to be a fair meeting.
************** From the 11/2/07 Wethersfield Post
Tensions spike during referendum meeting
By Ted Glanzer, Correspondent11/01/2007
An informational meeting held by the redevelopment agency concerning the Nov. 6 bond enabling referendum briefly turned contentious on Tuesday evening, with an exchange nearly leading to the expulsion of a resident from the Police Department's community room.
The referendum would authorize the Town Council to issue up to $10 million in bonds for redevelopment projects along the town's three major commercial corridors - the Silas Deane Highway, the Berlin Turnpike and the Wilbur Cross Highway.
The passage of the referendum, according to the explanatory text, does not mean that the town will automatically issue $10 million in bonds.
While most residents agree that the town's long-stagnant grand list - a disproportionate amount of which comes from residences - needs to be jumpstarted with new commercial developments to ease the residential tax burden, the meeting underscored some people's mistrust of their local officials.
The meeting was held, according to redevelopment agency members, to dispel falsehoods being spread by a political action committee, WIN PAC, which was formed to defeat the referendum.
Accordingly, the meeting was moderated and the 75 residents in attendance could only submit questions in writing to the members of the redevelopment agency.
Agency member Paul Thompson opened with a brief PowerPoint presentation targeting several "myths" purported by WIN PAC, such as the claims that residential homes are being targeted for eminent domain, there are 13 "secret" projects that the town is working on, and that the town lacks a plan for redevelopment. "Wethersfield is in competition with 169 other towns in the state for development dollars," Thompson said. "Rocky Hill, Newington and Hartford - those communities are looking to attract the same developers. . . Over-reliance on residential tax dollars will decrease the value of homes" and will ultimately lead to people leaving Wethersfield."
Thompson stressed that there are not 13 "secret projects . . . there are no negotiations."
The redevelopment agency, Thompson said, has identified numerous commercial properties that can be enhanced and improved through redevelopment Later in the meeting, redevelopment agency chair Lee Kuckro asked out loud how secret the properties being targeted for redevelopment could be if a resident followed the agency members in his car when the members went on a tour of the parcels.
"I was invited!" Dr. Ken Sokolowski interjected.
The exchange led to an admonishment from moderator Heidi Lane that further interruption would lead to her asking Sokolowski to leave.
While the town previously declined to identify the properties because it might drive up their cost, Kuckro said Tuesday night that "there is nothing secret about the sites. Look at the Weight Watchers building; look at Fun Zone. There are no negotiations. We need approval of the voters referendum, then we can begin the redevelopment process."
In response to a lack of a cohesive plan, Thompson said, "[t]here's plenty of plans" - referring to several studies commissioned by the town in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.
"We need the financial flexibility to act quickly," Thompson added. During the question and answer period, residents wanted to know how much the grand list would grow as a result of the redevelopment, how quickly the town would recoup its investment and how much, if any, input they will have over approving the acquisition and redevelopment of certain parcels.
Agency member Michael Zaleski responded that the goal was to take small projects and do them well to further attract commercial developers.
"This is not a silver bullet project," Zaleski said. "There's not a change overnight that provides additional economic grand list growth to the town."
As for a question concerning eminent domain of residential property, Zaleski replied, "Sorry, not an option."
Town Councilor Paul Montinieri echoed that position after the meeting saying that the town was not seeking to displace anyone from their homes.
At the end of the question and answer period, the agency permitted five minutes for representatives of two groups, WIN PAC and a pro-referendum group, to address those in attendance.
"We don't want to fight in town," Barbara Ruhe said on behalf of WIN PAC. "We've lost faith in our government... We don't want Blue Back Square...We don't trust what you're proposing...This is not to say we're against redevelopment. We want to know where, how and why [the money] is going to be spent...We don't think you've been forthcoming. Eminent domain is something that can be changed by any council if attractive. The appropriation could be spent on things that they were not intended . . . We don't want to give you a blank check. Come back to us with a plan."
It was unclear after the meeting whether any opinions had been changed one way or the other.
"It was well-orchestrated and well-planned," Leigh Standish said. "It was like the band leader singing to the choir. I was disappointed at the anger and hostility of the chair [Kuckro]."
Montinieri, who has worked extensively on the referendum and is running for re-election on Tuesday, said after the meeting that should the measure fail to pass, the Town Council will go back to work to draft a redevelopment referendum that will meet the approval of the voters.
There was, however, one thing that everyone could agree on. "I think it's going to be a close election," Mayor Andrew Adil said after the meeting.
©Wethersfield Post 2007
|
|
|
Post by SenatorBlutarsky on Nov 4, 2007 16:45:15 GMT -5
It has become quite clear that the only way they can get their out of control agenda done, is to silence the citizens, whether by ending public comment or using the gavel and intimidation.
|
|
RGarrey
Gold Member
WCTV "Wethersfield Live" Channel 14
Posts: 84
|
Post by RGarrey on Nov 6, 2007 11:17:26 GMT -5
Tonight we will be airing the election results live on WCTV Channel 14. We will go on the air at approximately 8:15. We should have results coming in by then.
|
|