Council mtg 5/8
It's late and I'm gonna fall asleep soon. Nonetheless, we did have a Council meeting tonight. So... any thoughts?
I thought Dave Borowy's presentation on the RWA was informative. Interesting to me, he touched on a topic I had intended to post about... for a month or more now, but I hadn't gotten around to it... the topic is the collaboration of RWA and Town funds to ensure the best possible use of limited funds when digging up and rebuilding roads (Towpath, Iris, Brentwood and one other).
The Town Manager touched on the pool consultant report (someone asked about this elsewhere on the blog). I believe Matt Altieri said he'll be inviting the P&R Commission to discuss the report. Although, I'm not too excited about it.
Finally, we discussed legal issues relating to the ongoing "culvert project." (Recall, this project relates to the partial collapse of a "waterway tunnel" on the property where the proposed ND is to go.) I'm not going to try to explain the motion... I heard a lot of legal-ease. Bottom line to me... I think we're heading down a path in which government (federal & state) are probably going to be paying for 100% of this project. And to me, that's not right... for a number of different reasons... and I'd explain those reasons, but I'm too tired right now. In the end, the motion passed 7-2 (Schrumm, White opposed).
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
12 comments:
This stinks plain and simple.
why couldn;t culvert replacement be a condition precedent to development on the site. Much as I don;t want the site to sit idle, why do we want to subsidize the owner....is this coming from the same braniacs who wanted to saddle a small neighborhood with a decrepit dam?
For clarity, there are POSSIBLY two "culvert replacement" project... this being the "emergency" project... then there MAY be a "permanent" project. Thing is, if the aqueduct collapses into the river, it may simply be washed away as it is made of sand.
Hence the "possibility" that there are two culvert projects.
As well, the aqueduct acts as a 40ft dam. So if the relatively small tunnel underneath the aqueduct collapses and we get a heavy rainfall... Cheshire (691, Jarvis, Peck, etc.) could easily be flooded within a day... therein lies one of the questions... if the aqueduct collapses... does it get "washed away down river" or does it "create a dam?"
Based on what I saw, probably either could happen.
So let me get this straight...
1. Our favorite local developers buy a piece of land with known (for the last 100+ years) flooding problems.
2. They are trying to get the zone changed so they can flip the land and make a few million bucks.
So far so good. Free market at work.
3. It rains
4. The area floods (as it does every time we get heavy rains.
5. A section of old (150+ years?) culvert collapses. Surprise? of course not.....the property owners, Milone and McBroom, Weiner, etc. HAD to have some idea of the condition of the culvert....
So who are these multi-millionaires going to call?
6. "Hello, Town of Cheshire? We have a problem."
7. Town PW crews rush out to make "emergency" fix.....even though by now it is sunny....hasn't rained in days....river is down....and we are heading into the dry season.
Good idea to make a bypass fix....but.... who pays?
8. Somehow the town starts down the road of getting taxpayer money to pay for this from the Feds and the State. Huh?
Not sure where this stands, Tim....but if you voted against this scam...good for you!
Bottom line: taxpayers (where do you think Fed and State $ comes from?) will end up paying for a flooding problem on PRIVATE land that is going to be flipped for a huge profit (as soon as they can get P&Z approvals)..... so they can build lots of buildings and parking lots THAT WILL MAKE THE FLOODING WORSE.
The Council will be handing the developers a $500,000 (????I think that was the figure thrown around) GIFT.
Hey, Matt, maybe there are whores around after all........
I have a question is the land owner or the state responsible for rivers and where they flow? I think that the state is responsible not the land owner.
is the town is moving DIRT not water.
Well said 1:29:00
I hope you all enjoy shopping.
Are we going to have "GEESE BOATS" and "TROLLIES" in this "LIFESTYLE CENTER"? We will not have to travel to Boston and San Fransisco. We are being promised everything else. Why not put them in the proposal?
Anon 2:07 The owners bought the land knowing there was a time bomb on it. They had a choice. They were aware of the area flooding problems etc. yet the still bought it. Why?
If there were houses on the land would the State just bulldoze the houses to get to the river? I guess we are lucky they didn't have to destroy the new cond's in Southington to build this temorary by-pass or will they if this fix does not work? I have not heard the word "GUARANTEED" mentioned. Oh well, what do you expect for only $500,000.
Why build a by-pass why not just remove the culvert? It would have been cheeper and would have not added as much value to the property.
If you remove the culvert then you drain the wetlands base. A perfect idea to help get past the wetlands issue that could very well stop the project. Find it hard to believe the culvert gave way after the rain. If the Flood of '55 did not take it out wonder why it went this time. Should we hire a CSI to look for dynamite residue, one of the landowners was seen removing the "No to Zone Text Change" signs early Sunday morning from poles and trees, wonder why..not to mention it is illegal.
Post a Comment