RGarrey
Gold Member
WCTV "Wethersfield Live" Channel 14
Posts: 84
|
Post by RGarrey on Nov 7, 2007 7:21:11 GMT -5
Here are the unofficial results
Town Council 1 Cascio 3597 Montinieri 3578 Adil 3578 G. Roberts 3491 Hemmann 3417 Forrest 3349 Kotkin 3342 Walsh 3059 Console 2894 R. Roberts 2783 Drake 2739 Soja 2424 Board of Education Montinieri 3851 Stanziale 3079 Rodriguez 2989 Milvae 2572 Board of Education Massaro 3604 DeAngelo 3178 Malec 2949 Munroe 2649 Referendum Yes 2085 No 4534
|
|
|
Post by cruzrt on Nov 7, 2007 17:39:56 GMT -5
70 to 30 against the bond referendum!!! Do we think the politicians will get the message?
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Nov 8, 2007 9:14:44 GMT -5
Look at the quotes in the Weth Post article and you will see that the answer to your question is "no". They seem more obsessed with making personal attacks on the opponents than they do with formulating good public policy.
11/07/2007 Referendum nixed By:JOHN FITTS , Staff Writer
The main issue on voters' minds Tuesday seemed to be the referendum authorizing the Town Council to issue up to $10 million in bonds for redevelopment projects along the town's three main commercial routes - the Silas Deane Highway, Berlin Turnpike and Wilbur Cross Highway.
By all accounts at press time, the referendum was defeated by a greater than 2-to-1 margin. Proponents said the funds would help the town jump start economic development while opponents raised many concerns, including a lack of specific proposals. Lee Kuckro, chairman of the redevelopment agency was very disappointed with the results and said he was appalled at the tactics of some of the opposition, who brought up concerns like eminent domain. "I wish we had more time to make our case," he said. Kuckro said the bonding permission would have given the town the tools to look at projects, redevelop commercial corridors and work on giving developers faith in the town. "This would have been a way to show we're serious and give us some tools," he said. Kuckro said he was "appalled" at the "scare tactics" of the opposition. The most vocal opposition came from WIN PAC, a political action committee formed to defeat the referendum. The group alleged before Election Day that the town's redevelopment agency's plans were secret, that the town does not belong in the risky, private real estate business and its long-term debt is already too high. They also said the plans left open the possibility that the town could use eminent domain to seize private property, a charge the redevelopment agency and most officials said was way off base. Leigh Standish, who is not an officer of WIN PAC but strongly opposed the referendum was pleased at the results. "The citizens of Wethersfield had a resounding victory," he said. "We made it clear that it's the electorate that runs this town and not those in political power." Standish said that he disagrees that the opposition went too far. WIth eminent domain, for example, he alleges that it has been discussed at the redevelopment agency meetings and remained a possibility, especially among businesses. WIN-PAC member Shelia Wells, who held a "vote no" sign at polling places during the day, said her biggest issue with the referendum is that there were no specifics. "Before we're going to spend the money, we should be given the details of the plan," she said. One voter, Marge Bushnell, said Tuesday she was flatly opposed to spending the money. "It's too much money," she said, and politicians have already asked too much of voters. Bushnell doesn't buy it, but proponents of the referendum said the burden on taxpayers is the very reason to support it. Mayor Andrew Adil said the whole idea was to jump-start economic development and make things easier on residents, who shoulder 87 percent of the tax burden. Adil said the money would not go to one project, but give the council a three-year authorization to spend up to $10 million in bonds for redevelopment in as many as 13 different parcels. "It's certainly a very well-calculated risk," he said. Adil said he is also disappointed in the opposition. He said some of their allegations - such as the possibility of the town seizing private property - are simply false. As far as specifics, referendum advocates say there are plenty of past economic studies, from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, to draw from. "We've actually been studying it to death" Adil said. While the redevelopment agency and supporters of the bonding say identifying the projects would take away the town's bargaining power, many said they would still like to see more specific proposals to see how and where the funds would be used. Richard P. Roberts, the Republican Committee chairman who made a council bid, said that although incumbent Republicans voted to let the voters decide on the referendum, they did not support asking for a "blank check." He said he feels the Democrats full support of the referendum a has damaged the chances of further economic development projects. The "blank check" concern certainly did show up among many at the polls. John J. Console, a Republican vying for his first council seat, also had concerns. He conceded the opposition went too far in some of their arguments, saying, for example, that no one is going to lose their home over this. Console, however, also wants to give people a more specific plan. "We should have a more sound plan in place," he said. Kuckro said the specifics would have come after the funding was approved and the agency and town officials could come up with a plan and further study the pros and cons and cost/benefit analysis of potential projects. Kuckro said it would also be extremely difficult to get developers to commit to a project and spend their time and money to invest in something when voters may well turn it down. Some voters were torn on the referendum. "I think it's good for the Silas Deane, but it's a lot of money," Beth Letoile said. "It's hard to decide." WIN-PAC chairwoman Carol Szymanski thinks the opposition has raised some valid issues. "Either way the Town Council will get a message," she said.
|
|
RGarrey
Gold Member
WCTV "Wethersfield Live" Channel 14
Posts: 84
|
Post by RGarrey on Nov 8, 2007 11:45:51 GMT -5
As you probably know I opposed this referendum for a variety of reasons. The main reasons being that Government needs to stay out of areas that they were not designed to be in and concentrate on the things that Government is supposed to be doing, such as defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. Also we should have learned from examples such as Enron that no government should be using tax dollars for risky investments. And I think we can all agree that Real Estate and redevelopment can be very risky.
Another issue that needs to be mentioned is that this referendum was unlimited in scope and time. So where the people who are currently in charge may say, and truly mean, that they have no intention of using eminent domain or that they may not spend the entire amount or whatever claims they make, are only good as long as they are in power. The council and RDA will change. The next group may have different ideas. The way this referendum was written eminent domain was a possibility. It also states that the money could be used for municipal projects. So in theory a new firehouse, ball field, park, etc. could be built with the funds. This would be a way to push capital spending projects through without having to go to the electorate as is written in the Charter. Just because the current administration says that they won't do it, doesn't mean you pass legislation that allows for it. Especially here in CT we should know that politicians don't always do what is right or what they promised. This is not an accusation against anyone but the reality of politics. The wording of any referendum or legislation is always up for interpretation so it must be very carefully looked at.
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Dec 7, 2007 6:57:44 GMT -5
|
|