ND vote on Monday
The WRA has a recap on tomorrow's PZC vote (by Lauresha Xhihani).
Of interest to me is this particular quote "Commissioners have not been allowed to speak on the subject outside of meetings." Does anyone know the story behind this prohibition?
If you're interested in attending, I believe the PZC meeting is scheduled for 7:30pm at Town Hall on Monday night. I'm going to try to make it and videotape it for upload to youtube or dailymotion... stay tuned for that. I'm not sure if I'll even be able to figure out the videocamera by tomorrow night... btw, the lack of televising these meetings, as well as posting minutes to the website has really disappointed me lately.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
30 comments:
Hickory Dickory Dock
Tick tick tick tick goes the clock
The CAVEMEN wail
To no avail
And they will have to bail
Cuz WS is gonna sail
Send it in the mail
there will be no fail
The ancients will need a pail
For their tears over dale
in their hopes goes a nail
their signs they were swept away by a gale
the project is hale
put the phonies in jail
Jack the ripper signing off
yes to the mall
no to the sprawl
PZC will have its way
defeat elitist Matt A
The developers are salivating. Doug Calcagni and Paul Bowman will make a bundle and W/S will do well too.
How many others will do as well we don't know as we don't know who owns the remaining 300 acres. More Bowmans and Calcagnis?
They will have a long list of people and organiztions to thank, the Democrats on the Town Council especially Matt Hall and Elizabeth Estey, Matt Bowman for removal of opposition flyers, The Town Manager, Justin Adinolfi, The Town Planner, Marty Coburn, The Economic Development Commssion, The Chamber of Commerce, The Cheshire Herald, The Waterbury Republican Reporters, The Meriden Record Journal, the Ordinance Committee, all the previous town officials who said nothing and all the business people who didn't want to get involved.
They will have to give special thanks to the news media for not looking at the many negatives of this development and focusing on the developers promotional hype and material, and in the case of the Cheshire Herald's reporting and editorials included outright name calling and attacks against anyone or view that did not support the mall and to all the people that kept the public in the dark by denying TV coverage and for not posting the minutes of the P&Z meetings on the P&Z website.
And last of all they will have to thank the town and state taxpayers who will have to pick up the tab. There's no free lunch.
typical of the anit group
it seems that they are one of 5 people who don't want this to go through but we should all listen to their bs
its over man deal with it
it won't hurt the town
If the P&Z wants to approve this they should do so minus the residential. The ant-mall group is not as large but the anti-residential group is massive.
correct - the anti residential is massive. The P&Z knows this. The question is will they eliminate this tonite as the majority of the residents wish.
I'm curious about the opposition to residential in the proposed north end development. Many people cite the increase in town services, especially the potential influx of children into the public schools. I'm not sure how many children could reside in 2 bedroom condos/town house, but I've read opponents of residential claim that the complex could produce 40 to 50 new students. What I find interesting is that currently 10 homes, each large enough to accommodate 3 to 4 children, are being built along Country Club (Kensington Estates). The potential impact to the schools of this development seems as significant as residential in the north end, and yet I've heard no opposition to this development (except for the guy who owned the old house on the corner of the development and didn't want to sell). So, were you not aware of this development? Or do your architectural sensibilities trend toward massive colonials rather than town houses? Or are you afraid of the people who could potentially afford less expensive condos?
Emma's Dad - Your incorrect when you talk about condos or town houses. The developer is not talking about either of these. The developer at the last meeting stated two and three story apartment complexes. As far as residential in other areas, of course they will impact the schools but this land is zoned residential and should be developed. The anti-residential group is opposed to changing land that is now zoned commercial to residential. There is no need for this as we have plenty of undeveloped residential land and this affects the whole 400 acres. Do you want to see this land turned into rows of apartments,I don't.
I apologize if I misstated the type of housing proposed for the north end. Nevertheless, even if apartments, my question is why the strident opposition? You cite the commercial to residential zoning change, but I don't think people would be so riled up against a zoning change, if they weren't vehemently opposed to what they thought was going to be built. You asked, "do I want to see the land turned into rows of apartments?" I can't see much of the land now, and based on the developer's design, I don't think I'd be able to see the apartments unless I drove up to them. But would I like to see an alternative style of housing that potentially attracted people from different backgrounds and helped to diversify Cheshire? Then, yes.
Who care this is a 'non-story', it won't any difference in town.
On the original question, state laws and FOI prohibit discussions outside of recorded meetings after a Public hearing is opened and deliberations have began. Input can not be considered if it was not presented during a public hearing.
Take off your blinders and take out your ear plugs.
They are selling the school system
They are selling the school system
They are selling the school system
That's why they want to do rentals, no mortgage, no closing costs, no application costs, just a one month security deposit and your in the Cheshire School system.
How many rooms and children can you get into a 2,000 square foot apartment that has two bedrooms, Ha, Ha, Ha, a lot, all you have to do is put beds in the other rooms, the study, the exercise rm etc. Read some of the realtor ads that say office or something could be another bedroom. Do you understand that it is possible to move beds into other rooms? So, for the 400 acres we can have a Mix Ave/Hamden Mart neighborhood with high rises, 65 ft high and with hundreds of children to overcrowd our classrooms until more classrooms are built.
Bowman and Calcagni knew what they were buying, cheap industrial and now they want a zone change to convert it to expensive residential. That's not hard to understand.
Cheshire needs the IC zone for its current usages which will help to reduce taxes, no educational expense. Already, many people in Cheshire can't afford to live here with the high taxes and you want more? Well, why didn't a business that could meet the current zoning locate there? Maybe the owners, one a realtor, didn't want so sell it and thought just maybe they could get a zone change and cash in big.
Why don't you tell Calcagni and Bowman to build on the 16,000 acres of undeveloped residential land. How about high rises next to you or would you then say ,"not in my backyard"?
And, after a few years, if even that, they may just decide to convert the apartments into condos and force the tenants to buy at their prices or move.
Let's hear from Emma.
You are exactly right. They are selling the Cheshire school system and your discription of what could happen is right on the money. What keeps Cheshire a great place to live is we are high end - single family homes not stacks of apartment houses.
1:52 PM,
I assumed they were selling the school system, as I don't know why else people would move to Cheshire. As to your interior decorating question, I realize that one could fit quite a few people into a 2000 sq. ft. apartment (perhaps, a fraternity prank has discovered the most), but I wasn't aware that people who rent apartments ultimately fill them with as many children as possible. Do you find that apartments in Cheshire are severely overcrowded and teeming with children? Perhaps, you are thinking of some large immigrant families who cannot afford decent sized housing. If so, I do recall from living in Los Angeles many instances where immigrant families, especially from South East Asia, were crammed into tiny apartments and living under deplorable conditions. Are these the people you think will rent the apartments in the north end and overcrowd our schools?
My next assumption is that Bowman and Calcagni will try to get as much money for their land as possible, even if it involves a zoning change. I took only one economics class in college, but I remember that maximizing profits is the Holy Grail for business. Whether this is always best for society and communities is dubious.
As to rental properties in my backyard, I do have available a 64 sq. ft princess-style cottage outfitted with a Little Tykes stove and sink. However, I would welcome well-designed apartments that were affordable to people who desire to advantage their children with a Cheshire education but who cannot pay the price of the ubiquitous 4 bedroom colonial.
Emma Dad. We have had apartment buildings in Cheshire for low income individuals (Woodridge & Oak Ave to name a few). Over the course of time all of these have been converted to condos. Why? I would like to see smaller houses built in Cheshire but the bottom line is profit and profit only. That is the only reason we are considering these apartments now. As far as the issue of people moving into town for the education system, that's true but you have to consider the overcrowded schools and taxes. If we have an influx of students where are we going to put them? The Board of Ed is already dealing with the issue of redistricting because some of our schools are at capacity. Also who is going to want the higher taxes associated with these new students? I always hear people saying how property values in Cheshire are always rising - they won't if the taxes are unsustainable for taxpayers.
3:19 PM.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the maximizing of profits is not always beneficial to society, but in this case, there may be a remedy. San Francisco severely restricts the number of apartments that can be converted to condos, so as to ensure an adequate stock of affordable housing (whether any housing in San Francisco qualifies as affordable is another matter). Perhaps, the TC or P&Z or referendum could establish similar restrictions in Cheshire.
My understanding is that school enrollment has recently declined and that redistricting is in response to perceived imbalances in school enrollment. But your point about increases in school enrollment leading to higher taxes is valid. I would suggest the bigger problem is that property taxes are not proportional to income and therefore do not reflect a person's ability to pay. If this were fixed, then the financial cost of higher school enrollment would be more fairly apportioned amongst residents. But since we live in CT, we are probably stuck with the current property tax system. I can't say how residential in the north end will impact school enrollment, but then neither can anyone else. To claim that the development will produce hundreds of students is simply fear mongering.
My position is that I am willing to risk the potential increase in taxes, if it allows for someone, who otherwise could not afford it, to educate their child in Cheshire.
Maybe financially you can feel that way. Cheshire has many seniors that are barely able to make ends meet. To suggest that these residents should suck it up so others can enjoy the benefits of Cheshire is unfair!
Yes, the enrollment in Cheshire is starting to decline but we also are going to hire 4.5 new teachers (The Supintendent asked for 7.5). What are we going to hire if the enrollment starts to increase? Bottom line is we do not need more residential we need commercial which will be a tax benefit.
"we need commercial"
But better yet, we need industrial that will provide good paying jobs, and have the least demand for town services. Look at our current industrial park, good jobs, low impact on the environment. Let's go after these business or even corporate headquarters. It could be done, if the owners would let it happen and the development coommision really worked with the state to draw in some good companies. Isnstead we have the naysayers who are so negative about good growth.
Is that all that Cheshire has to offer is a good school system? There are many people who have remained after their children ( if they had any) left the school system. They have paid their share of taxes and contributed to the growth of Cheshire. Many fall into this group. I wish they would express their reasons why they remain. Thank you.
Emma's Dad...please run for office...the town and the world would be a better place!
ED 3:59 Impact studies would provide the info. Anyone can move into Cheshire now. I don't see any signs that prohibit buying a home,condo or renting. There are plenty of homes etc for sale and apts for rent signs. I don't believe we are keeping anybody out. Please reconsider your comments.
10:51 PM
There are no laws preventing someone from moving into Cheshire, but housing prices are prohibitive to many people. In 2006, the median selling price of a house in Cheshire was $340,000; the distribution was
<100K............7
100-200K ......10
200-300K ......76
300-400K ......77
>400K...........93
The price of housing in Cheshire is reflected in the median household income which was $92,000 for 2006*. What about rentals? A quick search of the Herald's classifieds found 8 rental properties with at least 2 bedrooms. In contrast, a search of Realtor.com listed 207 homes with at least 2 bedrooms for sale. Of these, only 8% were listed at less than $250K. So, while you claim that we don't discriminate against anyone, housing prices act as an virtual fence, keeping out those with low and even modest incomes.
*source
Median household income means nothing. Ten residents could be making $1 million which is skewing the median. A more useful number would be the mean household income. Does anyone know what that number is?
BTW a McMansion with 3 kids plays a lot more in taxes than a two bedroom apt with three kids so once again there is no comparison. I have followed this issue closely and have yet to hear ONE good reason to convert industrial to residential. Residential is ALWAYS a tax loss to the town.
fed up w/ cheshire...
Time to open that statistics book. The mean is more likely to be skewed by extremes at both ends. A point was made at last nights P&Z that several apartments could be erected on the amount of land that a large colonial is usually built (house + yard). These apartments in aggregate would add more to the grand list than the colonial.
Yes, condensed housing like condos may bring in more taxes. Apartments on the other hand will be taxed not by apartment but the entire building. Once you bring children in the school system this type of housing is a net loss. You have to realize two bedroom apartments unlike condos may bring in more children. Right now it costs the town of Cheshire $10,000 per student per year for our school system. You have to bring in a great deal of tax dollars to overcome this cost. Attend some town budget meetings you'll be surprised.
Fed up w/ Cheshire - Is it all about tax revenue. If the town felt that way your house would have never been built and what a loss for the town not having you, "the great unwashed" living here.
12:42PM No one is saying that there should be no new residential. All were saying is that we should not be changing land zoned commercial/industrial to residential. It does not make sense.
You are not bright. The land is not zoned Commercial/Industrial.
"You are not bright". What does I/C zone mean to you?
Post a Comment