Whip count: 5 votes for the linear trail to come south?

Have you seen Tuesday's Council meeting? In particular, I find the vote on the linear trail grant to be puzzling. Best I recall, there were four people supporting the idea of the linear trail being extended from the Southington line into Cheshire. And there were four people supporting the idea of the linear trail being extended north from Cornwall Ave.

And one Council member didn't say much.

But now he's spoken to the MRJs Jesse Buchanan:

Town Council Budget Committee Chairman Michael Ecke said additional funding for the trail was included in the five-year capital budget, up for a vote next week. He was unsure if trail funding would pass, though.

"I don't know if we'll be able to," he said. "There are other needs right now."

Plans for the trail had been mostly suspended in past years, since the trail was held up at Cornwall Avenue on the Dalton Enterprise property. Now the town will have to decide what is the best direction for the trail, Ecke said.

"I always thought starting in the north made sense," he said.

So I guess the idea is to not send the linear trail to referendum this year. But maybe he's thinking about sending it out next year? Sure, that'll happen... at the same time several Council members have been suggesting they'll be sending the pool to referendum? Yeah, that's believable. The linear trail and the pool will be sent to referendum at the same time. Sure.

Or maybe the idea is to send the Cornwall to West Main section to referendum in two years? Yeah, during a local election. I'm sure they'll do that... by that time the ever-speedy DOT will have addressed all the concerns that were voiced about the safety and cost of the West Main to Jarvis leg.

Or maybe the idea is to send the Cornwall to West Main section to referendum in three years? Oh wait... the grant expires in three years.

This is a bunch of nonsense. There's a lack of honest planning here, though the likely future seems pretty easy to see when you have politicians who are afraid of "big, bold decisions."



I just wish we could have an actual dialogue during a Council meeting. Voicing these concerns after the vote strikes me as double talk intended to allow one to say both:

1) I support my boss staff and my caucus!
2) I'm still concerned about the safety of crossing West Main.

Just depends with whom you're speaking.

Anyone else see the meeting and have a different take on this? It really is puzzling to me. I'm willing to eat these words, if someone explains to me how we had five Council members wanting one thing... yet the opposite thing happened.

Tim White