Monday, October 03, 2005
Blue Back Going to Trial
A couple of days before the town decided to move forward with the closing, Judge Booth ruled that the town did not supply sufficient evidence to prove they did not act "capriciously and arbitrarily" in moving forward with this project. This means we will be going to trial! This is very important as the town will have to answer why they did not secure independent analysis of traffic, economic and financial aspects of the project as well as state what they did when, etc. Obviously this was a huge blow for them, however as usual, arrogance, irresponsibility, and reckless disregard for the financial well being of our town has prevailed with our leadership and they declared they would close and begin to move forward despite the risk to the tax payers that we might win our lawsuit. Our legal position is as positive as it has ever been yet as you read this the town is rushing to cut down all the trees on the green and begin paving it over and erecting a parking garage. As I stated to Tom Pouleo of the Courant, the town continues to show disrespect for not only the Burr St residents, the tax payers, but more importantly the entire Connecticut judicial system. While I am not happy about living next to a construction zone while we are winning in court, I am absolutely thrilled that we are one step closer to exposing a $150 million NO BID deal riddled with inside connections. Stay tuned, the battle is far from over!
From Jasyn Sadler
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
You guys are still fighting this? You lost! It is very difficult to win summary judgment on a "capricious and arbitrary" claim, but that does not mean a plaintiff can win at trial. To refer to this as a "huge blow" and to think it is an indication of merit in your claim is a joke. The battle is over. Do you actually think a court would ever rule that the town acted capricious and arbitrary when it conducted 2 refendums on the issue and about a thousand hours of public hearings? How could that be capricious and arbitrary???? All you are doing is wasting your time and the towns money in defending such a bogus claim.
Nothing irks me more than "anonymous" comments. If you can't identify yourself. Shut up.
In addition, you are totally wrong.
In addition to the case Jasyn spoke about, the CT Supreme Court is considering some of the lawsuits, so to say that this is over is ridiculous. Also, what kind of show do you think the town is putting on by moving dirt around on the green? Do you think the developers are spending their money on that? My guess is no, the town broke ground and is shoveling dirt so it looks like progress is being made.
Don't be fooled by this town government. They are continuously acting capriciously and arbitrarily and have been since this projects inception.
If you decide to post again, list your name...stop being a coward.
In response to "anonymous" I echo Mark's comments (especially regarding your courage) and would add that you could at least fabricate a name so it wouldn't be quite so obvious you are also most likely on the developer's payroll. Regarding "thousand hours of public hearings" comment, I'm afraid you have confused two numbers. The town officials actually conducted around 50 hours of public hearings. When you spoke of 1000 hours you were probably thinking of the amount of time that must have been spent behind closed doors to hammer out a NO BID deal (that is illegal in most states) that could be shoved down the public's throats with the help of some biased reporters (if they can even call themselves reporters) and the editorial staff at the Courant. However, I do believe you sell the town officials short. I'm sure they probably spent many more than 1000 hours behind closed doors especially considering they were able to finagle their way around the request for independent analysis of traffic, financial, and economic impact to the town. How could a court ever rule that to be irresponsible? Alas, I grow weary of explaining the obvious to those that have been paid to spin this project for the developer. I know in my heart what these officials and council members did is not only wrong and illegal, but a horrible move for our town. At this point I am much more happy to fight this in court where the news paper and the developer's money will find it exponentially more difficult to manipulate opinions. As long as we have funding (which is most definitely not a problem for the foreseeable future) I will continue this fight. If the town was interested in saving money they wouldn't have approved this project in the first place as those who have looked at the financials know this will be a tax drain from day 1. I believe that by winning I will save the town more money than it will ever spend on legal fees to defend irresponsible and risky decisions by its misguided employees and council. Unfortunately, unlike our mayor I actually have a full time job that is not politically connected and a family I care about very much about so I will not waste any more time posting to this site to respond. Say what you want - call me a sore loser, misguided, bitter, ignorant, or whatever other names you can think of because I've been called them all (some of them even by the editorial staff of the Hartford Courant). All I can say is that at the end of the day I can look myself in the mirror and feel good about the decisions I have made. Can you say the same?
Rantings of a madman!! I think you guys just want to keep your name in the papers. As for who I am. I am the 70% of the town that thinks this is a good idea and think you guys should just respect the democratic process and go away. 70%!!! You think a court is ever going to go against 70% of the town??? I know, let's have a bet as to whether the project goes through. Loser has to buy the winner dinner at Flemings!!! LOL!!! See you at the grand opening in '07!!!
hey Anonymous (you coward) - see you at "discovery"...
that is the part of the trial when Barry and his band of merry thieves will be exposed.
The truth will come out - 70% of the town or not.. the town was lied to, and most don't even know what the plan was to begin with. A plan which will be changed several times until 2007,just like the GDC is doing in Elmwood.
I spoke to a few West Hartford residents last week who couldn't understand why the fences were up in the places they are..."you mean they are paving over the back of Town hall green?" so much for the enlightened Blue Back voter.
As for me, It isn't about giving up - or the Blue back vote... it is about exposing the corruption in Town Hall, and it is coming soon to a courtroom near you!
Judy,
"70% of the town or not.. "
Pure arrogance. Thanks for respecting the democratic process.
Publius
Ok, Publius, you clearly aren't getting the message. I would venture a guess that you are blinded by stupidity similar to most of those who voted to support this. The perspective of the Burr Street residents is a bit different. I'm not sure where you live, but I would venture a guess that if you lived 20 feet from the town green that you wouldn't appreciate dump trucks driving up and down your street at 6:30 AM and public works employees cutting down mature trees at the same hour. This isn't about people saying, "Oh ok, the majority wins." This is about people who are directly affected by this project, pure and simple. This is about having tired kids all day due to the fact that they can't take a nap because of the noise. That is why we have a court system. To protect those that the majority doesn't give a shit about.
Get off your high horse General Publius and think about the people. These people are like everyone else in the town. They live here, they thrive here and they pay taxes. They have a right to be heard in court when the town management shoves a bad deal down the towns people's throats.
The arrogance lies on the side of the town management and town government. Why, may I ask, is all the work being done on the green side of the project? Why aren't any of the old condos or the car dealership being torn down...shoudln't that be the first step? I'll tell you why, the town is spending it's own money on this project right now. I think it's a show for the election that's one month away. A continuous shirade for the idiots of this town that voted for the project. So they feel like progress is being made and they can comfortably place the incumbants back in their seats.
Stop thinking about how much fun this project will be for you to shop in and start thinking about what this country is founded on...The rights of the people.
Mark
Publius?!? And you called me the ranting madman.
Hey Publius, anonymous , whatever..
I sure do respect the democratic process.. part of which includes a judicial system. You clearly do not understand democracy (or a republic) if all you think it means is voting.
I am not the arrogant one here...
and for the record, just because people voted based on lies and propaganda fed to them, does not make what they voted in automatically good. I would wager if you stopped people on the streets of West Hartford and asked them about this project most of them would not be able to tell you any of the specifics of the project, like where it will be built and who is building it, and how it is being funded, and what is being built there.
In addition, this project will not look anything like what was sold to them in the first place. The proof is what is happening with GDC in Elmwood.
Bottom-line is that you personally don't give a crap about what is happening in West Hartford right now, you only want your piece of this deal - be that an equity position, or the mall shopping that comes with this monstrosity. Maybe you should take a look around and see how stores are already now closing in the Center because they can't afford the more than doubled rent being demanded. Stores which commanded $2500 per month are now asking $4000+ for rent. That isn't progress - that is greed. Mom and Pop's (and the charm of West Hartford) will soon be gone in deference to chain stores who can afford this madness. The inflation of West Hartford prices has begun in earnest, and people standing to gain from this don't give a whit about what this will do to the overall fabric of this town. You obviously don't care that half the Center is now owned by a foreign interest, not an American interest. You obviously don't care that the way this project was brought into town was unethical prompting unethical behavior from our town "leadership". You also obviously have not thought past what is to be gained by this project over what will be lost, and while I agree something should be built on the Grody site, I don't believe that this should have been allowed to mushroom into the outdoor mall and engineered shopping contrivance (like Evergreen Walk) that it will be.
I have heard more and more people from out of town tell me they can't stand the already escalating traffic problem in West Hartford. They will no longer come to shop here if they can find the same stores closer to home. Crate and Barrel, Flemigs and Bowtie Cinemas are not that special that you can't find what they are selling somewhere else. Just wait till Rentchler Field comes online - Cabelas will blow REI out of the water. Blue Back Square is already obsolete. And for all those schmucks who will buy a $500,000 condo in the Center which will offer them panoramic views of parking garages and rooftops, I say they can have it, because they clearly do not know what to do with their money.
If you think this is going to solve our tax and budget issues you are sadly mistaken. Just wait till revaluation happens and MDC rates skyrocket, while we pay for Beth Bye's Universal Preschool and whatever else our illustrious school budget extorts from our pockets.. Kiss 6% tax increases goodbye.. it'll be more like 20%. This is not progress, it is lunacy.. and if you believe it is progress you are not only arrogant but you are a fool to boot.
"Stop thinking about how much fun this project will be for you to shop in and start thinking about what this country is founded on...The rights of the people."
This country is founded upon the democratic process (Publius knows that better than anyone). This country was NOT found on the principle that a minority can use the judicial process to thwart the will of the majority, which is exactly what you are trying to do.
PS-Calling your opponets "stupid" is not a vey persuasive argument and one that Publius never used.
PSS-Jasyn, the madman post was not my post, although I guess I concur with its sentiments.
Publius
In case you don't know.. the will of the people does not equal the will of the well monied who can spend millions on slick advertising and gimmickry to manipulate the rest of everyone else.
That's how twisted you are "Publius".. this country was not founded on the principle that the minority can be silenced or squashed by the majority (as if there is a legitimate majority in the case of Blue Back.. they were just brainwashed with a multimillion dollar ad campaign) .. umm.. otherwise we would not have a bicameral system of government. I also would not too your majority rules horn too loud - the Blue Back vote was not a substantial win the first go around and by the second time people were just too tired to hear anything more about it.
I reiterate - ask the ordinary person on the street in West Hartford about the details of Blue Back project and they will be clueless. The masses put their trust in town officials and civic leaders who were clearly bought or otherwise bamboozled into thinking this would be a good thing. This trial will show how that trust was breeched and how the majority was lied to and manipulated for private gain. The judicial process is not being used to thwart majority rule; that is just a convenient mantra for you and your ilk
See you at Discovery, pal - there will be lots of "splainin to do" even as Town Administration has probably shredded everything, or cleaned out their computers already.. somehow I feel a convenient loss of documents when the Board of Education is vacated to the Town Hall.
and let's see,?? has Mr. Heapes received his half million of public money given from the state to the money laundering Science Museum yet? (funny how an out of towner developer got himself on the board of directors of the Science Museum.. I guess he is just a regular Science officianado.. cough cough) The grant that our illustrious legislators so graciously gave to him to be used to "relocate" to Elmwood.. yeah that sounds very legitimate.
The whole freaking lot of them should be investigated in this trial.
Judy wrote . . .
That's how twisted you are "Publius".. this country was not founded on the principle that the minority can be silenced or squashed by the majority (as if there is a legitimate majority in the case of Blue Back.. they were just brainwashed with a multimillion dollar ad campaign) .. umm.. otherwise we would not have a bicameral system of government.
Judy,
A bicameral system of government refers to when legislative power is in to seperate bodies. In the case of the federal government, that would be the House and the Senate. As the bodies of both parties are elected via majority rule, I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you infer that a bicameral system is not based in majority rules. Maybe you are refering to the 3 branches of gov't. and the right of people to sue, but please get your terms right. Perhaps you should read some of my writings in the Federalist Papers to educated yourself as to the basics of our government.
You lost twice. People who live in voting districts in or near the center voted in favor of it so Jasyn's NIMBY argument is completely bogus. You keep losing in court. What else is there to say except its over.
Publius.
Publius or whoever the heck you are you coward,
What I mean is that majority doesn't always rule in the purest sense since we have representation based on population and another based on having two senators from each state (and in the CT state legislature it is somewhat similar). Believe me I know my government better than you I bet, and perhaps you'd be well advised to read up on ethics, something I am sure you know little about.
The fact that the Senate is based on just having 2 Senators represent them was to insure that the little states would not get outvoted and have a more level playing field in terms of representation. That is what I was alluding to, and that would be that our founding fathers had the wisdom to make sure the little guys did not always get trampled on.
yes - the Blue Back vote lost - but I don't ascribe that to anything other than the electorate being lied to pure and simple, and that will come out in court.
Be that as it may, it is not over.. not by a longshot.. this IS going to court and Discovery will out the back door deals and corruption. All your Blue Back buddies should be very worried.
Judy said,
"What I mean is that majority doesn't always rule in the purest sense since we have representation based on population and another based on having two senators from each state (and in the CT state legislature it is somewhat similar)."
Somewhat similar????????? CT Senate is NOTHING like the US Senate. CT Senate districts are based on population, like the general assembly, only the Senate districts are bigger. In order for the CT Senate to be anything like US CT each TOWN would have to have the same number of Senators.
Your ignorance is astoudning!! Please go back to civics class!!
Also, suppose for arguments sake someone was bribed in WH gov't. in connection with BBS. The remedy would not be to unwind the deal. The deal itself is done. I'd go into legal remedies but you seem to be stuck on fundamentals of government.
I think the prior post is correct. Even if the BBS contract process was not properly follwed, the remedy would not be to unwind the deal. If an individual acted unethically or illegally, that individual would face sanctions. Rowland gave Tomasso no bid contracts, does that mean you tear down the buildings that Tomasso built? Of course not.
Is there anyone out there that can put forth a legal theory in which a court would halt BBS constuction and unwind the deal (ie, give the property back to the town)??? I don't know of any. Is that what the plainfiffs are asking for???
Westfarms is funding the lawsuits so to affect the bottom line of a competitor. They know they cannot stop the constuction at this point. It is always cheaper to sue than to defend.
Regards,
S. Chan, West Hartford
No - you obviously don't understand what I meant.. regarding US Senate and State Senate, etc... perhaps I did not explain it clear enough for you. I know they are state house and senate are both based on populaton, but the way state assembly districts and state senatorial disticts are put together are based on apportioning the population based on the number of allowed representatives in each house. So the senate districts are of course bigger than the house districts, because there are only 30-50 senators allowed by the CT constitution. It therefore makes sure that everyone is represented evenly - larger towns are not given more or less representation than smaller ones,and vice versa.
That is what I meant. I concede that it was a very poor analogy.
My point was to say that there is equal representation, that the little guy (state, district etc.)is not trampled on.
I am not stuck on fundamentals of government - and do not need a civics lesson thank you..
I am concerned about that you do not seem to think the rights of Burr Street residents or the taxpayer at large mean anything in this issue.
When the project has been misrepresented and the public has been lied to then a judicial remedy is necessary, and Mayor Slifka knew full well that "once the egg is scrambled it cannot be put back together.." that is what the expedience of Blue Back was all about .. not about whether or not how they put the deal together was ethical, proper or even legal. They threw away town and citizen protections in order to
get the thing started.
There is no reason in this world that we should have subsidized this project with 48 million of taxpayer money and given 20 acres of land to this developer. They had the money to pay for it and should have done so outright.
The project terms have already changed such that we took out seperate bond money to renovate the police station (which was originally included in Blue Back, and was a touted benefit) and build an addition on the bishops corner library to accomodate a new senior center.. yet the 48 million bond was not reduced by the 3.5 million that these two projects represent. As you recall the senior center was supposed to be included in the defunct plans to add an addition to Town Hall.
Maybe you'd like to defend why the particulars of the Town Closing have not been made public?
they will at discovery..
as for a remedy - i don't know what the plaintiffs are asking for.. the Town has already made it impossible to undo what has been done.. but I hope some people are severely punished for misleading the public and not following established practices regarding development bids and deals.
Westfarms has funded the lawsuit because they don't think it right for them to be funding their competitors with a general obligation tax funded 48 million dollar bond, which they will be helping to pay back.. afterall they are the largest taxpayer in West Hartford. DeWaal should have put up his own money on the entire deal. Public Private partnerships are sneaky ways for the taxpayer to fund private development, especially when there are tremendous risks involved like those which present themselves with mixed use developments. In these cases, follow the money and the municipal corruption follows as well.
Post a Comment