Articles on PZC vote
I didn't have time this morning, but here are the links to the two papers that had their articles online...
WRA, by Lauresha Xhihani
MRJ, by Leslie Hutchison
I could not find the NHR online, but did see the writeup by Luther Turmelle.
In a related issue, during tonight's Council meeting I asked about the lack of an attorney at the PZC meetings. Rather than give my version... just check out the meeting on TV. I asked the question after the Town Manager gave his report. There were a few points made, but the bottom line seemed to be that the PZC would need to request the presence of an attorney.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
13 comments:
Here's the NH story.
Why do you need an attorney present for any of the P&Z meetings on the Northend. It was fixed from the beginning and they didn't want an attorney to tell the public what the text changes really meant.
They also didn't want TV coverage and they did a great job to keep the minutes of these meetings off the website. The entire process was orchestrated to keep the residents in the dark. The developers/realtors run this town and they don't care if they run it into the ground as long as they are able to exploit it.
It's all over?
Anon 9:15 AM
You couldn't be further from the truth on what you just wrote. The public hearing process was televised (8-9 hours of it)and the final vote and all discussion at that july 9 special meeting was televised. All meetings had minutes and a failure to post some of those on the website does not preclude public scrutiny with a trip to town hall. The town attorney provided a letter to the commission stating that he had revied the draft languge presented to the PZC at their july 9 meeting and it was legally defensible in his opinion.
The process was very transparent. Your reference to a fix speaks to your frustration with the outcome but to be fair and honest you should express it as that...your upset with the vote. Don't cast a shadow on people's integrity and hard work. That is grossly unfair.
Tim:
"a request for a grant for the fire department's ladder truck."
Can you share some of the details of this grant? Is it to fix an existing ladder truck and what is the amount, a few thousand?
I think the best thing would be if you catch the discussion on TV.
As for the dollar value... it would be in the hundreds of thousands... something that would not normally be on the consent calendar.
"You couldn't be further from the truth on what you just wrote."
It is the truth. You kept the people of Cheshire in the dark. Sure you televised all the meetings that allowed residents to speak and those were stacked with realtors and developer employees who said how much they needed more shops and good restaurants. During these meeting, many questions were asked and few questions were ever answered. Most of the time the commission members just sat there and seldon questioned the W/S presentors.
Did the public ever get an interpretation of what any of the wording would allow and how vulnerable it was to court challenges? No!
Did they ever seek unbiased expert opinions. No.
True, many question were not answered or understood by many P&Z members or the public. That is a shame. One had to dig hard and spend many hours trying to understand the Text change and it's impact. Many residents don't have the time or the willingness to learn all the details of such a complex issue. One can only hope that the towns expert lawyer used all his knowledge and experience in preparing his observations and opinions. The next step should be more detailed and factual. The rubber will soon meet the road.
"The rubber will soon meet the road."
The rubber stamp?
Since when does a town's attorney hold all knowledge, see all things for what they are. Are you all nuts. Two lawyers are involved in ugly divorse cases, any law suit imaginiginable. Its the same with paid experts. So you want the town to pay a lawyer to answer every question. That is a total sellout to reason and common sense. Get involved in town governance. See the nominating chairs of one of the parties. Help put a rest to atleast your own skepticism instead of running off at the tip of your fingers hoping for help from all of the wrong places.
"Since when does a town's attorney hold all knowledge, see all things for what they are"
Then we should either get another lawyer or stop wasting our money on one. Why does the Town Council have the lawyer present? Let's stop that practice too. Let's just listen to the developers.
We already pay for experts, they are the department heads. Why didn't the P&Z commission get input from any them? Give us a break. Most members didn't need any input, they already had their minds made up. Only two members had the guts to go against the developers.
It's not just skepticism it's common sense and anyone can see through all the acting.
I gamble small amounts. I buy $10 of lotto tickets a week. If I lose, I can't hurt anyone. It's a big difference from Woody Dawson's type of gambling with the future of Cheshire. He said he has gambled all his life and
"if we don't take the chance, we will never know what it will lead to".
Well, I don't want to find out what it will lead to. I like Cheshire. It's a nice place to live. I would rather that the P&Z members search for facts and use logic rather than gamble. Years ago people did use logic and zoned the town so that it would grow in a smart way.
Woody cares about cheshire....You know lets not get any development anywhere in town. Maybe we can squeeze some more money out of the taxpayers.......Give Woody a break...He cares about this town...
Post a Comment