Open forum 9/1
No word yet on when the Council will meet to vote on the capital budgets. But for those of you who are following, Laura DeCaprio emailed the Council to apologize and let us know that she's OK.
I heard the WRA reported that Chris and Kathy Murphy are now proud parents! Congratulations!
The Herald wrote a glowing review of the 3rd District representative and her efforts with Mixville (by Josh Morgan). FWIW, it was several months ago that I mentioned to her that she should not expect intelligent, thoughtful suggestions to be taken seriously. While I take the concerns seriously... others haven't. That's why it's been neglected for years. Regardless, dealing with the geese was a step in the right direction.
The turf discussion continues. (Cheshire Herald, by John Rook)
There will be a Solid Waste Committee meeting on Thursday. The topic will be the trash disposal facility.
The Energy Commission's Carol Wilson is teaching an "energy audit" class in Wallingford - A group of residents are training to become energy auditors so that they can offer suggestions to others in the community on how to save on the costs of fuel. (NHR, by Luther Turmelle) I've spoken with Carol and she's agreed to give a brief presentation on "conserving heating oil" when we get the "energy efficiency forum" and the "energy & sustainability forum" together... only one date confirmed so far for the two fora... Thursday 11th of Sept.
I heard Elizabeth Esty's signs started going up today. So I guess we're "officially" into campaign season... If you're curious though about the time required for such a campaign and when it unofficially started... rest assured, Elizabeth and Al are both knocking on doors and speaking with voters. So if you assume there's about 22,000 voters per district (3,400,000 people / 151 districts) and four people per house... just say it's 5,000 houses to visit. And if you can visit ten houses per hour (sometimes I chat for hours at one house, but oftentimes no one is home... so it varies)... that's 500 hours of walking house to house and speaking with voters... so you can easily see that their campaigns both started long before today. Regardless of their own respective governing philosophies, I appreciate the effort that each of them put into it. You certainly need to passionate to "apply" for the 103rd!
What else is happening?
Tim White
12 comments:
People like Estey have nothing in common with most people. By her continuing votes to spend more of our money on non-essential items, she shows she has regard for the tax burden we have at a time of ever increasing costs.
She and her husband gave a total amount of $4,600 to the Obama campaign. The economic downturn, recession, doesn't seem to have bothered her or her thinking.
Has Esty completed her VoteSmart questionnaire yet? Adinolfi has. I disagree with him on some important issues, but he answers the tough questions.
No word yet on when the council is voting on the capital budget?? Let me guess...it will be 5 - 4 in favor of the TM's proposed budget. 5 dems in favor and 4 reps against.
It's hard to believe that Estey is running for state rep. She hasn't even served two terms on the council. Even before the last election people were saying she planned to run against Al. Why did she waste our time if she knew she wanted to run for state office?
What we need in a state rep is not a lot of talk, we need experience, real knowledge, proven dedication and results.
Al has years of experience and lots of friends on both sides of the aisle. You can be sure Al not only can get it done, he does it.
Al get's it done.
hey 11 02..it is spelled Esty..and no, she is not like most of us..she is brilliant! And, for goodness sake..give her credit for working hard..without pay..for her community..just what do you disagree with her about?
We should send her Hartford, she will do less damage to Cheshire as our Rep than as our Council person.
she is brilliant.
Your at least the second person that thinks she is brilliant. Is that why she votes lockstep with the other 4 dems, seems to support everything that the realestate developers and other local special interest groups want, is that why she didn't show any concern for the many negative aspects of the proposed mall and why she went out of her way to falsely accuse and to viciously attack Caroline Soltice and never apologize.
The whole shenanigate that she and Hall orchestrated was very troubling. What was behind their effort to discredit good public servants?
The turf discussion continues -
The ad hoc committee claims that MRSA is not an issue with turf and that natural temperature changes will kill the deadly bacteria. The committee is hard at work trying to discredit any negative information or studies that show otherwise.
They are doing their own study of the CPSC study and EPA study as if they are qualified to do so. Rather than agree with Blumenthal on the flawed studies and put a hault to the toxic turf, they are pushing forward with their own opinions of the studies.
They claim there are less turf burns on the newer turf and don't seem concerned that athletes have died from MRSA infected turf burns.
With an ad hoc committee filled with coaches, AD, and turf supporters, you can be certain they will present their own misleading information just to get the turf project approved.
The next Ad Hoc Turf Committee meetings are September 8th and September 22nd at 6:00 pm at Humiston School. If you cannot attend you can email Bob Behrer at bob.behrer@gmail.com
With $10,000 donation from an anonymous donor, the turf committee should easily be able to buy the "expert" opinions they'll need to get this project through.
What's the difference between artificial turf and the turf ad hoc committee? Nothing. They're both FAKE.
That's a good one.
If you read the Herald article regarding the turf, you'll see misinformation coming from the members of the turf committee.
Below is Blumenthal's press release that they refer to in their comments. After reading it, no one in their right mind would move forward with the turf project until accurate studies are done.
Tim, you should post this press release as a separate topic so everyone can see exactly what it says.
Connecticut Attorney General's Office
Press Release
Attorney General Calls Synthetic Turf Study Dangerously Deceptive, Urges Its Removal And Revision
August 19, 2008
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today called on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to immediately remove and revise a report on its website that may dangerously and deceptively mislead citizens into believing that artificial turf has been proven safe.
Blumenthal said the CPSC relied on a grossly inadequate and badly flawed study in declaring synthetic turf safe to install and play on -- focusing narrowly and insufficiently on lead, while failing to examine several other possible chemicals and concerns.
In a letter to CPSC Acting Chairman Nancy Ann Nord, Blumenthal said the CPSC's claims -- based on such a "crudely cursory study" -- may dangerously deceive municipal and state leaders nationwide about the safety of synthetic turf.
For the sake of public health and safety, Blumenthal said the CPSC has a moral and possibly legal obligation to immediately remove and revise its synthetic turf report from its website.
"This report and release are as deceptive as some of the advertising and marketing of consumer products prosecuted by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general," Blumenthal said.
"There is a clear and present danger that municipal and state decision makers -- as well as parents and citizens -- will rely on this unconscionably deficient report. It is replete with unsound scientific methodology and conclusions, and unreliable findings. It may lead to unsupportable and unwise commitments by towns and cities or their boards of education to build or replace athletic fields.
"I have personally reached no conclusion on the safety or health issues concerning artificial turf, because no complete or comprehensive study has been done. This one, far from being complete or comprehensive, is profoundly misleading and misguided and may lead to bad policymaking. Timely corrective action -- indeed immediate revision -- is essential.
"The CPSC review of artificial turf safety focused entirely on the issue of lead contamination from artificial blades of grass. While this one issue is important, it is neither the sole nor the most significant issue. There is no indication that CPSC staff considered the transferability or emission -- especially at high temperatures -- of toxic chemicals from the crumb rubber used at the base of artificial turf. This crumb rubber is usually made from recycled tires, containing chemicals -- including benthothiazole, butyplated hydroxyanisole and phthalates -- that may be toxic or carcinogenic under some circumstances.
"Similarly, there is no indication that CPSC considered other important risks, some presented or aggravated by very high temperatures in the summer sun, and exposure to serious infection caused by the more extensive skin burns and abrasions created by falls on this material. Further, while CPSC staff admits that aging, wear and exposure to sunlight may change the amounts of chemicals released, CPSC has not even attempted to study or quantify the effects of those changes on health and safety.
"Even as to the lead issue, the CPSC study is seriously and reprehensibly flawed. The study evaluated only 14 samples of artificial turf, even though thousands of these fields are in use. Worse, six samples were from portions of turf that was never installed or used, and one sample came from a field that was no longer in use. Thus, only half of the samples -- or seven -- were from turf in current use. The severely deficient scope of this fact finding eviscerates the credibility of CPSC's sweeping conclusions about thousands of artificial turf surfaces in daily use.
"It is mystifying and mindboggling that an agency charged with protecting our children from unsafe products would declare artificial turf 'OK to Install, OK to Play On' without studying these critical health and safety threats.
"Continued public dissemination of this misleading and deceptive material might well constitute a violation of our consumer protection laws if done by a company selling this product. The CPSC's distributing it -- and vouching for its accuracy -- constitutes a violation of its public trust."
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) -- at Blumenthal's urging and with funding from a lawsuit settlement by his office -- is beginning a study of artificial turf. Blumenthal recommended that the CPSC coordinate additional study with the DEP to ensure a thorough and prompt examination of synthetic turf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content Last Modified on 8/28/2008 3:38:19 PM
Printable Version
Home | Technical Questions | Email the Attorney General
State of Connecticut Disclaimer and Privacy Policy Copyright © 2002 - 2008 State of Connecticut
Post a Comment