Council, BOE thinking long-term... not just today
Yesterday I wrote about natural gas pipelines in town, including:
I thank Jimmy Sima and the Planning Committee for looking at not only the initial costs, but at the lifecycle costs, including the much larger relationship. It's also nice to see the Council and BOE doing this for many big, new projects, such as the pool, the turf and natural gas pipelines.
And today I see this Luther Turmelle article on the BOE turf discussion delays, including:
“It’s one thing that the board is taking an approach where they want more concrete answers about building a financial reserve for replacing the field,” said Peter Massey, a nine-year school board member who is stepping down this month. “But on the other side of the coin, I can’t remember doing it this way for any other major capital project in town. Is it a smart thing? Yes, but it shouldn’t be the thing that’s holding this up.”
I'm glad to see bipartisan support for the review of long-term costs for various projects in town. Though I'm confused by the statement from Bob Behrer:
“When the town built the senior center, nobody asked how they were going to pay for replacing it or modernizing it some day,” Behrer said. “They just went ahead and built it like every other town project except for this one.”
As I explained above, that's simply not true. There's a new sheriff in town. The 20th Council is less than one year old, yet it's been reviewing the long-term costs on several large ticket projects.
I thank Council Chairman Tim Slocum for making this change happen. I also hope that people begin to acknowledge the reality of the 20th Council, rather than repeatedly referencing the inaction and lack of long-term planning by former Councils.
Tim White
5 comments:
I regret not returning Luther's call sooner as he contacted me for information for his article. I will address both Bob and Peter's comments at the 10/21 meeting.
In the end, both Bob and Peter (who as NOT been to any planning meetings since April and has not been involved with turf planning detail discussions) are being political. As if the hissy-fit, foot stomping behavior is going to convince the town that this is a good project to undertake.
They can blame themselves for the current status quo of Turf. Had either one of them followed process and allowed the BOE planning committees, as far back as 2 years ago, to perform it's duties then there would be a plan and it would've been in front of the TC when Bob and crew initially asked the TC to release the grant last year.
This is what happens when process is not followed, when we have a turf committee with no oversight and a project with no owner.
It's not about Republicans, it's not about Democrats and it's not about TC vs. BOE. It's about common sense, transparency and standing behind one's project with facts and figures...not hissy fits and foot stomping.
Their statements and behavior on the matter only distracts their efforts away from facts and raising suspicion. This is really sad because I do believe this project has a high probability of standing on it's own. You wouldn't know that listening to Bob et al.
If anything, I suspect they're turning more people off with their comments.
By the way, turf is not, and has not been, the only project studied by the planning committee. So following both Peter and Bob (sounds like a comedy act) logic then all capital projects shouldn't be questioned, planned for or *gasp* be transparent. They should just happen without any questions asked.
Should be a fun meeting on 10/21.
Tony
then there would be a plan and it would've been in front of the TC when Bob and crew initially asked the TC to release the grant last year.
In my seven years on the Council, every time I recall that we've gotten grant money we've voted to "accept" and "appropriate" with one exception: turf.
In July 2008, we voted to accept -- but not appropriate -- the turf money. Why? And why did the lame duck Council suddenly have an epiphany and call for the Council to act?
One or two people started the turf struggle by making an end run around the process and the eventual approval/disapproval of the citizens of Cheshire.
If the project has bogged down it is because it never got out of the swamp where it was conceived.
Why can't we put the turf on the November ballot and find out what the people of this town are realy willing to spend their money on.
Remember, when it comes to replacing it, it will have to be on the ballot.
"Remember, when it comes to replacing it, it will have to be on the ballot."
Or not depending how much many money is raised via donations over 10 years. Frankly, I don't know why turf can't be on the November ballot. Simple Yes/No question would be nice.
Post a Comment