Bending over backwards
I attended part of the PZC meeting on the proposed ND. The comments I heard were disappointing. While PZC Alternate Andy Maye was talking quite broadly about the project, others seemed to be focused on the height of signs and amount of lighting.
Don't get me wrong... signage and lighting are important discussion points about PZC projects. However, those should be addressed only after bigger issues have been addressed... issues that were being raised by Mr. Maye.
In the short time I was there, Maye asked about sewer capacity issues. And he drove home the point that on any particular day, though not every day... the sewers already exceed capacity... (remember... last year, Riverside Drive became a river of raw sewage because the treatment plant exceeded capacity and backed up...) too bad that on this issue, Mr. Maye's voice seems to be ignored... just like the voices of others... it was Sept '05 when I suggested (in the Herald) that the PZC sit down with the WPCA and have a real discussion about the north end. Of course, that discussion hasn't happened... or perhaps it just hasn't gotten anywhere... I mean, where are we now... compared to where we were 2 1/2 years ago?
As Dick Mangino explained during last month's Council meeting... the town did an INI study 15-20 years ago... the study included a videotaping of the pipes... now where is the video? Does anyone know? Who's supposed to know? Who's in charge?
As I've said... I'm not opposed to this project... I'm opposed to it as proposed. This project is not self-sustaining in terms of energy consumption (the primary reason we're in the middle east) and it's unnecessary sprawl.
Later, Mr. Maye made another good point. While he was asking about some of the zoning reg's, he was told something to the effect that his concern did not face "construction problems." To which Mr. Maye replied something along the lines of "but there could be environmental problems."
And what were the other comments about... lighting and signage.
Lighting and signage?
Ok, ok... as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I wasn't there for the full meeting. But the bit that I did see was really disappointing. I mean, when I voted in favor of this project a year ago, I thought the idea had the potential to move beyond CTs poor land use policy of yesteryear. Unfortunately, based on the comments I heard tonight... it looks like we are going to continue to make the same poor decisions that have governed CT land-use policy for years.
I was left with the feeling that some PZC members have little interest in representing the public and are willing to simply approve whatever the developer requests. By that, I don't mean a vote in favor of this project = a lack of representing the public. Quite the contrary... some people in town love the proposed ND. No... I just mean that there should be some critical analysis here... ask some good questions as Mr. Maye was doing.
As for my personal view, I could live with it if the developer's profit margins are reduced by $30,000 per housing unit because the parking was stacked... and I'm not too concerned if the developer needs to float an additional $20,000 for photovoltaics for each residential unit... the PVs will pay for themselves over the next 20 years... and I'm not too concerned if the developer makes less money than they want to make.
As I said at the Nov 27 PZC meeting... the town has already bent over backwards for the developer. Now it's time for the developer to bend over backwards for the town.
Tim White
21 comments:
"remember... last year, Riverside Drive became a river of raw sewage because the treatment plant exceeded capacity and backed up"
are you sure that is what happend?
Tim,
This is another posted example of your inability to stay focused on a subject. Specifically, reviewing many of your posts over the years you state you came in late, did not or could not stay for the entire meetings. Of course there are instances where you may miss part of a meeting, but this seems to becoming a predominant behavior pattern. Either attend for the entire time or stay away. You blew your creditability during the last town council meeting when you stated you were the only CPA on the council. Pay attention to the details.
george - not only did he attend, he also wrote about it
also (from tim)
"As I said at the Nov 27 PZC meeting... the town has already bent over backwards for the developer. Now it's time for the developer to bend over backwards for the town."
the town bent over, but it wasn't backwards
8:30 no. I wasn't there. So perhaps the description is too strong?
George, you're right. I can't necessarily attend every meeting in full. I try to attend all the Council meetings in which I vote (full Council or committee of which I'm a member). And I try to attend (or watch on TV) as many meetings as possible, particularly PZC meetings on the proposed ND.
Since this meeting was on TV, I'll try to watch the rest of it on TV.
In the meantime, I thought it would be relevant and appropriate for me to post about it... offering full disclosure that I was not there for the full meeting. Which btw, is important because according to today's NHR (not online), Lou Todisco was asking about multi-level parking.
Besides, with the immediacy of blogging... corrections can be made immediately by you and others. And I count on that... I don't ever want to offer up any false or misleading info... and the nature of blogging works to stop that. I make no claim to be perfect... I just try my best and hope that you can see that.
As for me not being the only CPA on the Council, who else is a CPA?
pay attention to all the good things that are going on in our town
girls swim team is great
football did well on turkey day
good people all around
I saw the P&Z meeting last night and I was also very disappointed. When traffic problems were addressed Marty Cobern (in his infinite wisdom) stated that Rt 10 has always had a problem. We'll I guess that solves the problem. When one of the P&Z members stated that RT 10 could potentially become a parking lot no one seemed to care. I also found the entire discussion of signage and lights to be premature and totally pointless when there are a number of serious issues that need to be addressed such as traffic, water polution, flooding & sewer capacity. What are our elected officials thinking of? Where are the questions that really need to be asked? I agree Mr. Maye was the only one addressing serious issues. As one poster stated our town has bent over but not backwards.
If one paid attention to the details at last nights P&Z meeting some very interesting things came out. The applicant can sell the rights to build the residential (which they didn't care if it was included in the change to our Plan and conservation) but we included it out of the goodness of our heart. "They can build what they want" apartments or condos depending on the market (even if it's not needed in Cheshire). Many other comments were made that "the applicant at his discretion" (they wrote the changes remember). This process should be reviewed because everything is in favor of the applicant and the town is at a disadvantage. I got the impression that some members were ready to vote on this last night without any real discussions or concerns for the public safety. I give the chairman some credit in trying to answer some of the public concerns on why this was not a referendum item. The explanation given was that the town isn't spending money on this proposal. Tim, my question is didn't we appropriate $500,000 for the repair of the culvert and bypass? If we are spending this money doesn't that count for this to go to referendum?
It seems to be public belief that Mike Ecke is also a CPA, that has been mentioned a few times in Council meetings. There was a discussion about this on the blog in the past few weeks, is he is he not a CPA?
What difference does it make if Mr Ecke or Mr White is a CPA? That is not a requirement to be elected to the Town council. I have worked with some CPA's and I wouln't let them do my tax return because that was not their expertise. I hope these two and the rest of the Town council member use their field of expertise(whatever it might be) and common sense to ask intelligent questions and make sound decisions.
Mike Ecke has told everyone he's a CPA, but his name does not appear on the state registry of CPA's. So there is a credibility problem.
Tim,
Don't expect developers to make wise land use decisions. When you voted in favor of approving a request for this change to the towns plan of conservation and development you were presented with a glossy overview of the project that is now before PZC. I agree their presentation never rose to the level of detail we see today but mixed use in the industrial IC zone was a clearly defined concept being suggested.
You voted for this which is fine but you can't qualify your vote now simply because you are disappointed by the proposal today.
I fit into the camp of just say no then and I say no now but my vote doesn't matter then or now. When it did this commission did not agree with Paul Ranando and me then and their vote will probably go forward affirming the project.
We're stuck because of the council vote and the PZC zone text vote. And as Atty Ziska pointed out last night the project gets closer to reality with every approval to a project we have very little we can do to alter it.
The public should be prepared for a mall. Half of you will love it and half of you will hate it.
And a note on the tax revenue. With the latest BOE budget we are looking at 4 malls (3 mils) to cover their requested increase.
The issue is if another member of the Council is a CPA in any legal definition that person should be addressed as such. In this case were Ecke has been mentioned as a CPA in the past it would only be fair to mention that. One should not alienate a portion of the Council by making a misstatement. It all about politics, working on consensus. Set the record straight.
11:11 Tim, my question is didn't we appropriate $500,000 for the repair of the culvert and bypass?
Approximately $280,000 was spent on the bypass. Referendum level is $350,000.
What difference does it make if Mr Ecke or Mr White is a CPA? That is not a requirement to be elected to the Town council.
Agreed... generally. But remember the context in which I commented that I was the only CPA on the Council... I was discussing the fund balance policy... a policy that is fundamentally an accounting policy. And because I felt the need to discuss very precise terminology... and since I felt I would probably lose some people (without ever having heard the phrase "designated unreserved fund balance," and discussing acronyms such as GASB and GFOA... I doubted many people would follow the conversation well)... so I decided to give everyone a head's up that my questions/comments were about to get technical. And I needed to speak with someone who I felt would be well-versed in the terminology... and considering that the Chairman acknowledged that I seemed to be changing the debate... I think it's fair to say that nobody else on the Council was particularly well-versed in the terminology.
Because of that... on that particular vote... I feel the CPA designation was relevant. It was a simple means to clarify who would likely be able to follow the terminology... questions that led to me making a motion to table the resolution.
If you google "Ecke" this is what you get:
Michael Ecke
Controller
Michael Ecke joined ArchivesOne, Inc. in 2004 as Controller. Michael is a CPA and earned his MBA from the University of Connecticut. He joined ArchivesOne, Inc. from American Express where he was an Audit Supervisor. He presently serves as Vice Chairman of the Cheshire Town Council and is Chairman of its Budget Committee. Michael's primary responsibilities include the daily accounting and contract activities at ArchivesOne, Inc.
Odd isn't it that no one can find his name listed as a CPA. Either it's a simple mixup or a big misrepresentation. I think an investigation is in order!
Unbelieveable - We've been had.
The P&Z decision has already been written and it was done prior to the Jan 16 meeting.
See
"As the stomach turns" and part 2 which appears before part 1
http://www.undergroundtownhall.com/issues
This appears to be the draft of the final decision giving approval to the development before the deliberation meetings are held and before the final vote. It looks like this whole process has just
been for show.
Is this the new democratic process?
If this ever gets built and this Commision approves a 1000 seat theatre with a parking garage under it, they should have their heads examined. Who is going to monitor what is in the cars? Will it be W/S's security (one person rent a cop)? After all the problems with underground garages this was not condidered a public safety issue? What are they thinking of? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Enjoy the show.
Tim,
Wunderbar Matt A. is spamming graffiti again!
Fools afraid
to show their faces
leave their crap
in public places.
Post a Comment