Specter
User
Platinum Board Member
| Posts: 1116 |  |
|
Re:Zoning meeting at Eno 10/16 - 2006/10/17 11:33
uconniac,
I didn't see the meeting, but from what I have heard SHARE members were POd because they didn't get to speak longer than the 3-minutes per person alloted. But it is kind of funny when you think about it. First off - there were only 100 (plus a few) people there. What happened to the 2,000+ members? Did they present the petition that they have been trying to get signatures for? I did not see that in any accounts. And why is SHARE still pleading for more signatures on the "new-and-improved" petition. They claim they need 2,000 signatures - so what's the big deal? They have that many members - it should have been a slam dunk. But for almost 10 weeks they have not been able to come up with the number of signatures they need....LOL.
The Zoning Commission listened to them and then pecked away at what was being said. According to the Courant, Dunny Barney said:
But zoning commission Chairman Austin "Dunny" Barney said that the proposed changes to the zoning regulations did not pertain to any specific development plan.
Also according to the Courant, a SHARE member cast some aspersions on the Zoning Commission by calling:
on commission members to disclose any relationships they have with Konover or the River Oaks proposal.
Sounds fairly paranoid delusional to me. Big conspiracy. Better watch out - and all that. LOL. Barney again:
Barney assured those at the meeting that there was nothing suspicious about the proposed changes. He said the commission was reacting to a need in town, that there were several people interested in developing mixed-use projects. After the meeting, Barney said that mixed-use development is a thrust in the town's plan of conservation and development and that the changes allowed the town to develop standards and "be far more creative in blending housing, retail and office space."
It seems that some people are willing to deal with this as adults. But not SHARE. I again point to their cut-and-paste misrepresentation of what the River Oaks will look like:
Being real honest there. I will also note that no SHARE members came back to dispute the obvious misrepresentation of the crime rates in Simsbury that I talked about in my last SHARE post. Wonder why that is? Probably because those darn facts keep getting in the way and they "don't need no stinking facts" (or anyone else to point them out....LOL).
Post edited by: Specter, at: 2006/10/17 11:37
___________________
Talk atya L8r,
Specter
The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth. - Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964); SHARE (2005 - ) |
Specter (1116)
