Open forum 5/31
Chris Murphy will be the keynote speaker at the Chamber of Commerce lunch at Elim Park on Friday. Tickets are $20. For more info, call 272-2345.
Luther Turmelle recently reported in the NHR that the Town Manager, Michael Milone, agrees with me that the town should investigate the possibility of getting a discount on the pool consultant report. Unfortunately, I doubt my idea to return the report and keep the $20,000 will go anywhere.
And today's NHR reported that CVS is hoping to build a store on the Damon's/McPhee lot near Richard's Corner.
With the legislative session ending on June 6, the Courant has written a scathing editorial on the seeming inaction of the supermajority.... again, I'd like to extend an invitation to all of our legislators to our next Council meeting (June 12). There they could tell us about the recently completed legislative session, as well as their plans to ensure:
1) that Cheshire is reimbursed the $26,000 in CPD overtime expenses for I-84; and
2) that fiascoes similar to I-84 do not occur again.
Anything else happening?
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
18 comments:
With the cost of the pool review being $ 20K, what does that get? Does it just confirm that we were originally advised that the pool would be self sufficient, but now costs $ 400K? For clarity, it is my understanding that the High School (Prior to construction of the pool in the field) had an addition along with all the infastructure installed for a pool to be located next to the school - what did that cost? Why did we waste that money?
Question - did the public building committee in town have any part of these items (Approvals)?
If the Northend Text change is made, then you can expect the same comments about the W/S proposal as with the pool. Based on no information, the town planner says the W/S proposal is supposed to net $800,000 to the town. Huh? Here we go again. Brace yourself.
Just make it up as you go, but to tie it to the pool is a new low.
What is low is the editorial in the May 31, 2007 Cheshire Herald. What is wrong with free speech? Did we just observe a holiday to recall all that sacrificed their lives for this freedom? I guess the Herald doesn't understand.
Are we still putting up illegal signs? How is that going? Does he really take them down? Why?
end the tyranny of the Connecticut Neocon.
Joe Lieberman “give me a war”
and
Matt Altieri “give me a store”
must go.
Vote Progressive!
Vote Visconti!
Are you kidding me?
Regarding the Herald's editorial this week on the anonymous nay sayers I was wondering how they came to their conclusion. #1 the only place anonymous is an accepted signature is here on Tim White's Blog. They must be spending a lot of time here. I wonder if they are creating those cute rhymes?
The public opposition to all the projects they mention was certainly done in the light of day at public hearings where names and addresses are required and part of the public record and this is certainly the policy of Herald's editorial publication process.
Much of that "negative" opposition got us a better project, i.e. Stop & Shop with it better landscape, visualal exterior appearance and new connections to West Main to name but a few.
This paper needs to ask hard questions once and a while. Everyday is not a walk in Bartlem Park or a softball game. I don't pick up their paper for its counseling content. It may well support every development in town, every tax increase, every school new hire which is fine by me, but to refer to the folks that question any of this as some sort of nasty malcontents is simply wrong.
The paper has become a voice for "progress" that brings in ad revenue...note all of the recent Home Depot inserts. It has ceased to be a business that walks a finer line, serving the public interest with news and information and selling ad space. This may be the reason they are losing staff on a rather continual basis these days.
The Cheshire Herald needs a complete make over. Talk about being stuck in time they are a prime example.
The Herald could do both, gain advertising $$ and readership if it stated the facts and did more investigative reporting.
Their editorial stunk up the whole town. What country do they think they are in? I was stunned and embarrassed when reading it. I had to read it twice to make sure I didn't miss something. I'm still scratching my head and pinching myself. Was it a dream? Guess not. What were they thinking?
The signs are legal. Poles have been used for the last 100 years for everything from, calls to public meetings, bake sales, tag sales, information sharing etc.
It is a media for free speech and in a democratic society we need all the means at our disposal. We don't need Matt Bowman to personally decide which signs are allowed.
I heard that Derf Kliest was officially warned not to put up "VOTE NO" signs and that he responded, as he should have, that if he is wrong then the town had better enforce its rules everywhere.
Imagine the town going after the Relay for Life promoters, tag sales, camapign signs, you name it.
Apparently if it doesn't suit Matt Bowman then he throws his considerable weight around. I'm pretty certain town officials really don't like this crap but when someone pushes buttons then we all pay.
Visconti pulled this stuff on cable access when Republicans were doing a candidates forum (2005)and she questioned the heavy scheduling. The outcome was that no one, D's or R's could use cable 14...hence the run up to the current TC appointing a special committee to "improve" public access. That report was submitted last month.
Once again we can thank a democrat for more BS for the citizens of Cheshire to deal with.
PS: If and when the WS proposal flies Matt Bowman better recuse himself from voting on the their wetlands applications.
It's going to be interesting. This group rejected the Wadkins project. By the way where are all the people that were against that proposal. All the run off and stuff doesn't apply to the NE proposal. The Ten Mile river is on the property. Talk about flip-flopping.
Maybe the people who didn't want Watkins, want a shopping center?Did anyone ever think of that?
Derf should have been arrested for his actions. Someone should report him to the state so his employers know he is breaking the law in Cheshire. And then suggesting that all of the Relay signs must be taken down, I am sure that everyone in town knows that by know, smart move.
3:36 I'm sure they want the shopping but the run off is going to be much greater. I guess that doen't matter anymore.
Post a Comment