1st. SELECTMAN TRAINING FILM, CAMEO AND VOTER SPEAK, ICE AND ESKIMOS

64 YEAR OLD MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN NEW YORK ... A SWEET DEAL THAT KEEPS ON GIVING ... TAXES TO NEW YORK!!!

58 EDSEL TWIN ... A SWEET DEAL

But first an introduction into what, why and where is in order ... how the Prince of Hollywood pushes spending through the Town Meeting form of government ... something about the Organ Grinder and Monkey ... and never speak with the Monkey when the Organ Grinder is available. I'll let you sort out who the Organ Grinder and Monkey are between 1st. Selectman and voters.


The video clip referenced above I'm told is a training program in voter speak for politicians. Sort of brings into focus how a failed voter referendum (emergency communications system) like the phoenix arose from the ashes to live again.  The Prince of Hollywood always positions issues to the voters as a Hobson's Choice ... with a bit of explanation.  The video clips provides the foundation of how to develop an explanation to voters ... This man should have won an academy award for his stellar performance. Now remember, this is strictly off the cuff, nothing is written down. Nothing he says is true. This was just a test of the camera angles, lighting and sound. He had NO script! It's all total meaningless drivel made up as he goes along.


I am told this video is still utilized as a training aide for incoming Congressmen, lawyers, and current White House Administrators.

OUR "PRINCE OF HOLLYWOOD" HAS TAKEN HIS TRAINING AND THIS FILM TO NEW HEIGHTS MOST RECENTLY WITH PURCHASING A 64 YEAR OLD COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (SEE PICTURE ABOVE) IN NEW YORK FOR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS IN CONNECTICUT (A GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING ~ TO NEW YORK IN TAXES AND MAINTENANCE LIABILITIES FOR NEW FAIRFIED) ... WATCH THE VIDEO CLIP BELOW AND FORM YOUR OWN OPINION ... 

 

VANITY POLITICS, NOT IN MY BACKYARD, AND WHOSE MONEY IS IT ANYWAY?

Bill to allow towns to cut school spending advances

WHAT WOULD THE IMPACT TO NEW FAIRFIELD BE IF WE JUST REDUCED TEACHING POSITIONS IN THE LOWEST GRADES ... BECAUSE OF ENROLLMENT DECLINE?

By Jacqueline Rabe on March 25, 2011

A bill to allow cities and towns to cut school budgets when enrollment declines--opposed by educators but backed by municipal leaders and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy--won key approval from the legislature's Education Committee Friday.

Local governments are currently barred by state law from cutting the amount they spend on education, even in towns where enrollment has dropped, such as Meriden, New Britain and Bridgeport, where numbers have fallen between 6 and 9 percent.

"We'll certainly address this," Sen. Andrea L. Stillman, co-chairwoman of the Education Committee, said before committee members unanimously voted in favor of a bill that would allow towns to cut $3,000 for every one-student drop in enrollment.

Sen. Andrea Stillman

But education officials say allowing towns to cut based on enrollment declines would be disastrous, since many of the costs are fixed for schools.

"If you lose only one student you will have no savings. We have to hit that critical mass before savings are achieved," said Patrice McCarthy, general counsel for the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. "You still have to pay for teachers... for just about everything."

She said a formula must first be developed to accurately  determine what a district saves as enrollment declines, and then school boards may be able to back a reduction in spending.

State funding does take student enrollment figures into account when allocating education aid to cities and towns, but towns are held to a different standard.

"That doesn't work," said Rep. Timothy J. Ackert, R-Coventry, of the prohibition on towns' cutting spending. He also urged the committee to go one step further and allow towns to cut the "actual amount" towns realize in reduced costs, which he expects is more than $3,000 per student.

Current spending for public education statewide is about $10.4 billion this year and almost 70 percent of all municipal spending goes to pay for education, according to the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.

"We are requiring towns to pay for students that aren't in their schools. That is taxpayers paying for that," said Stillman during an interview. She said last year a handful of towns brought up this problem, and lawmakers responded by carving out a one-time exception that allowed towns to reduce the amount they spend on education.

But lawmakers are considering making it the rule and not the exception, so towns don't have to plead their case in Hartford when they want to make cuts.

Malloy -- who proposed the change the committee unanimously approved - said last month he supports allowing towns to reduce their spending, but only when towns experience "a sizable reduction" in enrollment.

This proposal has no qualifying threshold in the amount of students that a district must shed before cutting $3,000 per student.

And even then, McCarthy said $3,000 is way too much to allow towns to cut.

Jim Finley, executive director of CCM, acknowledges if state lawmakers untie town officials hands and allow them to reduce education spending, tensions between school and town officials will undoubtedly arise.

But he says it's a battle that worth having.

"It's not cutting their budget. It's allowing towns to pay what it is realistically costing to educate a child," he said. "Why should the education side of their budget be immune from cuts?"

Bart Russell, executive director Connecticut Council of Small Towns, said he thinks towns will get through the tension.

"It will create some tensions... But there is an understanding that we are in it together. I think that conflict is going to be minimal," he said.

Finley and Russell also said only allowing towns to cut when enrollment declines doesn't go far enough -- they want towns to be able to cut whenever they find savings.

"We are blind to the opportunity to get some savings," Finley said.

But McCarthy said the impact of that would be harsh on schools.

"What you'll have is a smaller pool of resources for students," she said.

WHEN IN DOUBT, NORMAN WHO?, PRINCIPLES MATTER

AN ELECTION YEAR IS AN OPPORTUNITY ... PARTY ASIDE, ITS PRINCIPLES THAT MATTER.  DO YOUR PART AND UNDERSTAND WHY AN ELECTION YEAR FOR NEW FAIRFIELD IS A YEAR OF OPPORTUNITY.  THE ARTICLE THAT FOLLOWS IS A FIRST FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTED OFFICIALS ... A RECALL.

Norman Who?

By Cal Thomas

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Norman Braman is not your typical billionaire car dealer. Nor is he your typical establishment Republican, who too often puts party above principle. Norman Braman is the type of person who strikes fear into the hearts of every professional politician who thinks he can say one thing to get elected and then do the opposite once in office.

In case you haven't been paying attention, Braman led a successful drive to recall Republican mayor Carlos Alvarez of Miami-Dade, Fla., and Commissioner Natacha Seijas. Their offenses? In a telephone conversation, Braman tells me there were many, including, he says, "sloppy bookkeeping, fraud, and the mayor's decision to use tax dollars to build a sports stadium for the local baseball team" when fiscal challenges for the city and high unemployment were harming the local economy.

Braman filed a lawsuit in hopes of stopping construction of the stadium. He lost. The final straw, he tells me, was when Alvarez and Seijas backed an increase in salaries for public employee union members and a property tax increase to help pay for it. Braman says he was enraged because seniors were not getting a cost of living increase and the jobless numbers were growing.

Braman launched a website (www.recallmayorAlvarez.org) and the campaign was on. That a prominent Miami businessman who had voted for Alvarez (Seijas represented another county) would be able to attract Hispanics and African-Americans, angry whites as well as Democrats, Republicans and independents of various hues is the ultimate in coalition politics. According to a recent story in the Miami Herald entitled "Will Voter Revolt Bring Real Change at Miami-Dade County Hall?" "Eighty-eight percent voted to oust Alvarez and Seijas in the biggest recall of a local politician in U.S. history."

Braman says people should take one message from his efforts: "this is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is a referendum for change."

The tough part comes next. While the symbolism of ousting two incumbent politicians with a recall vote may encourage people who think the system can't work for them, institutional change will require scaling a much higher wall.

As the Herald reported, the county charter must be changed if political business is not to remain as usual. "Commissioners," it found, "have often refused to bring proposals to change the charter before the public for a vote."

The momentum may be shifting. The commissioners are set to meet this week to plan a special election to replace Alvarez and Seijas. There is also a good chance, given the recall results, that they might consider reforming the charter and allow the public to vote on proposed changes.

Some pundits and Democratic politicians have predicted that the tea party movement to reform government is a flash in the pan and won't last through the 2012 election. Norman Braman begs to differ. He tells me a tea party group in Ft. Lauderdale "gave me a medal."

The flip side of an energized electorate demanding that government not spend more than it takes in and that it take in only what it absolutely needs, respecting the people who earn it, is that increasing numbers of us must be torn away from the public trough. "You can do it," rather than "government will do it for you," is the type of thinking that built America and sustained us through wars and economic downturns.

Four years ago, the Christian Science Monitor reported that, according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J., "Slightly over half of all Americans -- 52.6 percent -- now receive significant income from government programs." That figure is probably higher today. No wonder many have become addicted to the politicians who keep sending them checks instead of encouraging the able-bodied to care for themselves. The United States is seriously and dangerously speeding toward socialism, in function, if not in name.

Howard Jarvis led an anti-tax revolt over high property taxes in California. In 2011, Norman Braman of Miami could be his successor.

THE PRINCE OF HOLLYWOOD, ANTIQUE ROAD SHOW, CAN I GET A SHOUT OUT

CLICK HERE FOR CT GENERAL STATUTE TITLE 7

CGS- Sec 7-503.  Chapter grants no authority for municipality to acquire, own, develop or improve real property outside its borders. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to give authority to a municupality to proceed under this chapter to aquire, own, develop or otherwise improve real property outside of its own borders.

There is a statute that requires a town meeting pertaining to the sale, lease or purchase of property. This statute is more in line with the purchase of out of an state property. 

THE PRINCE OF HOLLYWOOD: I DON'T NEED NOT STINKING MEETING OR VOTE FROM ANYONE. I ALREADY HAVE THE AUTHORITY, I'M IN CHARGE. I'M THE SELECTMAN AND BY A TOWN MEETING WITH 48 PEOPLE AND A REFERENDUM I WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND $1.2 MILLION ON THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM.

THERE ARE ALWAYS THE NAY SAYERS AND THERE ALWAYS WILL BE ... THEY DON'T LIKE ANYTHING THAT I DO. THEY WANT ME TO BEG AND GROVEL ... EVEN THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT STATED WE DON'T NEED THIS TOWER.  

Last week the front page headline of the Citizen News read “BoS Purchase Tower Hill Emergency Communications Tower.” This headline is incorrect. The First Selectman, John Hodge, purchased the tower – all by himself. It may seem like semantics to many people because he is a member of the Board of Selectmen, but there is a clear distinction. In New Fairfield, our form of government (as outlined in Connecticut State statutes) divides decision making authority into several key boards, other committees and the legislative body (i.e., the taxpayers acting through a town meeting). Inherent in this form of government is a check and balance system that is set up so that no single individual can act autonomously. Unfortunately, the communications tower purchase illustrates that this system is failing in New Fairfield for the following reasons: the Board of Selectmen never voted to purchase this tower; the Town’s Planning Commission was never presented with the proposed purchase so that it could be reviewed and approved; the Board of Finance was not advised of the purchase and therefore could not make any finance-related recommendations; and, although the taxpayers voted for an upgrade to the communications system, they never voted to purchase land in another state to see the system’s implementation through. Regardless of how this project turns out – one thing remains clear. Real success lies in the ability to “get things done” in the proper manner. This may take a little longer perhaps but guarantees a truly democratic form of government and a better outcome for us all. Bottom line – Mr. Hodge did not have the authority to purchase this tower. The purchase was illegal.

Monika Thiel
Selectman

Tel. 203-746-0288

The sale, lease or purchase of any property by a municipality must be approved by a town vote. Not just a vote by the selectmen.

ANTIQUE ROAD SHOW IN NEW FAIRFIELD ... EXIT STRATEGY NOVEMBER ELECTIONS!!!

Douglas Thielen

9 Pheasant Drive, New Fairfield, CT 06812

[203] 746-4039 ~ e-Mail: Doug1016@aol.com

Letters & Opinions

For the week beginning Monday March 21, 2011

NEW FAIRFIELD’S MONARCH STRIKES AGAIN!

The rush to purchase an antique communications tower by our 1st Selectman without any kind of approval or authorization has posed some serious questions and has raised a lot of eyebrows. Hodge’s purchase of an ancient tower that was constructed in 1947 without any input from our boards and commissions, including the Board of Selectmen, should auger up a lot of taxpayer concern about the way our town is being run.

This winter we have seen our 1st Selectman try to impose his wishes on the town related to the doozies below:

First: A lakeside restaurant at the Town Park that would take away some of the beach, require a pump-up septic system across Route 37 into the parking lot and [this is the best] does not allow for boat dockage for visitors. Are you kidding me? It is no wonder that not a single person submitted a bid for building and then leasing a restaurant in an area of town that gets very little business in the winter. That stupid idea cost us taxpayers whatever fees were paid to an architect for drawing up the biddable plans, the advertising of Hodge’s “Such-A-Deal” Waterside Inn and who knows how many hours of their time that numerous town employees spent on this foolishness.

Next: A new library that would solve a parking problem at the existing town library. Yep, that’s right. If you read the lame attempt at justifying that expensive construction project, the focus was a claim of inadequate parking for the library, but there was no data to support that claim. Space inside the facility was not the main issue, even though the current space utilization is horrible and could be dramatically improved by a high density storage/retrieval system.

A multi-million dollar library construction project was within 80 votes of passing because too much apathy exists in New Fairfield. That is scary but we taxpayers did dodge a bullet this time, only to be faced with another Hodge salvo per below.

Now: Purchase a 64 year old antique communications Tower in New York State completely on his own with absolutely no authorization whatsoever. There have been no Boards and Commissions input solicited by Hodge; nor has a Board of Finance approval been requested by our resident Monarch.

For background, below is the Referendum that was approved by us voters 18 months ago [in early September of 2009] for improving the radio communications for New Fairfield’s first responders. This is the very same Resolution that Hodge rushed past the voters based on his alarmist speculation that there was an imminent tragedy about to occur in town that will be rooted in inadequate radio coverage for our first responders. Here we are 18 months after approval to proceed and our amateur project manager is still dithering and once again he is late in executing a construction project.

Resolution - September 1, 2009

“To consider and act upon a proposed resolution as approved by the Board of Finance and Board of Selectmen that an appropriation, and the expenditure thereof, not to exceed $1,200,000 for an Emergency Radio Communications System for the Town of New Fairfield”

Many questions regarding the suitability of this tower and its signal strength vs. interference, coverage, height, etc. have surfaced. When and if this communication project does not perform satisfactorily, Motorola may disagree and produce a good case to demonstrate that their system meets their operating guarantee. Even if they are right, we taxpayers will most likely have to pay for a very expensive lawsuit initiated by Hodge in an attempt to get the egg off his face. Unfortunately, lawsuits are an integral part of our 1st Selectman’s Modus Operandi related to the resolution of problems.

A system of financial checks and balances exists in our Republic and that type of fiscal system was put in place for a number of very good reasons, not the least of which related to concerns of financial impropriety. Is the fox guarding the chicken coop here? Is this a good deal or has Hodge paid way too much for the tower? Was an appraisal done on the tower and related parcel of land? If not, why not? Has a structural analysis been done on the tower and concrete pad? Have back-up generators been properly maintained? Is there a log book available to support proper preventative maintenance allegations? It is known that vehicular access to the tower will be near impossible during a bad winter, so how will that problem be overcome if the system goes down during a 12 to 18 inch snowfall? Helicopters and/or snowmobiles? At what cost?

It appears that Hodge’s distorted economics that supported this purchase are at work again. He is known to be very proficient at fuzzy math. It appears the tower is too high for cell phone users, so Hodge’s annual income projection of $140,000 for leasing space on the tower looks like another one of his pipe dreams.

Although the tower is up and running, a nasty “surprise” in the future would not shock me at all. The tower is 64 [sixty four] years old and one has to wonder how well it was constructed and installed way back then and what specifications and requirements were in place over three generations ago in a neighboring state that had who knows what regulations in place at the time. How about the extent of preventative maintenance that has been done on the tower and its ancillary equipment over the last two thirds of a century? That is a scary thought.

We have a municipal election in less than 9 months. During that period of time please think long and hard about Hodge’s dictatorial administrative style versus one of working together for the good of the taxpaying residents. Also think about the lack of open and transparent governance as has been demonstrated throughout Hodge’s tenure in office. Having a fair and objective administration devoid of deception and pet projects would certainly be a refreshing change.

Doug Thielen

PERFORMANCE DATA: A CRUCIAL TOOL IN BRIDGING ACHIEVEMENT GAP

THE ESSENCE OF CLOSING THE EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT GAP MUST BE FOCUSED ON THE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT'S PERFORMANCE. A FUNDAMENTAL GOAL IN THE EQUATION IS THE DIRECT AND MEASURABLE RESULT AND ACHIEVEMENT WITH THE TEACHER AND THEIR ABILITIES IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS. THE ACCOMPLISHED CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT A COMMITMENT AND CLOSE WORKING PARTNERSHIP AND CONTRACT WITH THE PARENTS TO THE GOAL.  A CHILD'S EDUCATION BEGINS WITHIN THE FAMILY IN THE HOME AND IS REWARDED IN PEER GROUP COMPETITION. FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION.
  
Education took center stage this week, starting with a three-part series on Connecticut's persistent education achievement gap. It's not just an urban issue, Sarah Butrymowicz of The Hechinger Report found, and she spent time with students, teachers and administrators at West Hartford's Braeburn School to see how one of the state's most highly-regarded school systems addresses the problem. Some keys to boosting achievement, she reports: detailed recording of students' academic performance, and intensive intervention to keep kids on track.


Connecticut has the nation's largest achievement gap when it's measured by students' socioeconomic status-its low-income students perform, on average, nearly three grade-levels below their peers. And the problem isn't confined to urban areas, in part because of changing demographics in many of the state's suburbs. In West Hartford, low-income children have traditionally performed about 20-percentage points below others on the Connecticut Mastery Tests.

Also this week, Deirdre Shesgreen reported from Washington on Sen. Joe Lieberman's proposal to make rigorous teacher evaluations, including student performance, a requirement for federal funding. And Bob Frahm disclosed that many teachers in the state are agreeing to low or no raises and other concessions in negotiations with cash-strapped school districts.

In higher education, two controversial proposals--one to offer in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants, the other to implement a sweeping reorganization of all state colleges and universities except UConn--moved forward in the legislature. Jacqueline Rabe also reported that UConn, despite facing the most challenging budget in years, is considering raising tuition and fees by just 2.5 percent--the smallest increase since 2012.

HALF BAKED PLANS LEAD TO HALF BAKED SOLUTIONS ... 95% OF WHAT?

New Fairfield voters approve $1.2 million communication system

By Susan Tuz, STAFF WRITER

Published 06:26 p.m., Saturday, September 12, 2009

NEW FAIRFIELD -- An upgrade of the town's emergency radio communications system was approved Saturday in a special referendum in New Fairfield.
Voters turned out to bring in 453 yes votes to 166 no votes.
"It went through overwhelmingly," said First Selectman John Hodge. "Our next step is to finalize a contract with the vendor. Part of this project includes building some towers. We're going to try and start as quickly as we can but total completion is probably six to 12 months away."
A new tower will be constructed on Havilin Hollow Road. A small antenna will be on the Ball Pond firehouse and the town's own cell tower now located behind the Police Station in the center of town will be used as part of the array. Also, a cell tower now on Bogus Hill will complete the system, Hodge said.
The proposal was put before voters last December and was rejected but with a lower price tag this time of $1.2 million, residents approved purchasing the system that guarantees coverage for 95 percent of the town.
The communication system consists of portable radios to be used by police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel. The cost of the system put before voters in December was $2.1 million.
A variety of factors related to the economy made the project more affordable, including a decline in the cost of materials and companies' desire to keep their employees working.
This time out, town officials decided that instead of issuing bonds to pay for the system, it will be funded out of the capital and nonrecurring fund in the budget. That was made possible by the more than $1 million surplus from the 2008-09 budget.
Fire Chief Ed McCue said the present radios provide only about 60 percent coverage of the town, with dead spots in numerous places. The present system does not even allow firefighters responding to calls in some of the schools to talk to commanders outside, he said.
"I'm ecstatic," McCue said after the vote was in. "This is going to be a tremendous moral booster. Now we can have proper communication for the town. We can communicate the way we should be when out on a call."

WHEN LEADERSHIP FAILS, KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, VOTING WHOM OFF THE ISLAND?

New Fairfield school board weighs cuts

John Pirro, Staff Writer

Updated 10:18 p.m., Tuesday, March 15, 2011

REALITY IS A BITCH! IT'S EASIER TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND LET OTHERS MAKE THE HARD DECISIONS! THE CHAIRMAN MAKES A GOOD POINT ... WAS HE VOTED OFF THE ISLAND?


NEW FAIRFIELD -- The Board of Education on Monday debated a host of cuts, including laying off more than a half-dozen teachers and paraprofessionals, to keep the operating side of its proposed 2011-12 school budget at the current spending level.
Addressing the board at a special meeting that was attended by more than 75 teachers, Superintendent Alicia Roy said finance officials want to see a zero percent increase in the schools' operating expenditures before they submit the plan to voters at referendum.


Reaching that goal would require the elimination of five full- and part-time teachers in the district, as well as two paraprofessionals at the middle school, she said.

"There has to be quite a few bodies cut," she said.

"Most of the increases are in costs we have no control over," she added, including an anticipated 10 percent rise in the cost of health insurance.

The proposed school budget totals $38.3 million, nearly $30 million of which is on the operating side.

Teachers union president Keith Conway urged to board to look elsewhere to cut costs, claiming teachers and paraprofessionals have borne the brunt of the reductions so far.

Almost to a person, the board members said they were opposed to laying off teachers.

Member Vic Flagello suggested several alternatives: a freeze in all non-union salaries, asking administrators to forego their negotiated salary increases, getting rid of department heads, and eliminating all preventive maintenance.

"I would rather rip the gutters off the buildings than let go any more teachers," he said.

Chairman Kim Hanson suggested the board approve a $350,000 reduction in the bottom line, with the specifics to be determined later, rather than make Board of Finance members appear to be the bad guys by mandating an even larger reduction.

The move could result in greater support from finance officials when the budget is submitted to voters.

"This is an attempt to sort of preempt things. It's only going to get worse as time goes on," Hanson said.

But the suggestion failed to garner support, and the school board eventually decided to let the finance board specify the size of the cut.

WHY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST CUT SPENDING ... ARE THERE FUNDING DEFICITS?

Fiscal Accountability Report 

 to the Appropriations and Finance Committees 

as required by C.G.S. 2-36b 

November 15, 2010

OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS 

Room 5200, Legislative Office Building 

Hartford, CT 06106  ● (860) 240-0200 

E-Mail: ofa@cga.ct.gov 

www.cga.ct.gov/ofa

Section 1: FY 11 – FY 14 Budget Estimates and Assumptions for 

Appropriated Funds

Summary 

General Fund 
We are currently projecting an $83.0 million deficit for the current year, FY 11.  Although estimated net revenues have improved by $267.4 million since the year began, these are more than outweighed by an additional $350.6 million in additional estimated expenditures or unrealized budget reductions.

We continue to project significant deficits in the out-years (FY 12 – FY 14) ranging from $3.31 billion to $3.67 billion or 15.4% to 18.3% of estimated spending requirements.  The deficits increase significantly in the out-years as the one-time infusions (about $2.4 billion in FY 11) of federal  stimulus, rainy day funds, economic recovery revenue bonds, surplus funds, and elimination of a  corporation tax surcharge are no longer available. 

($ - millions)                    FY 11        FY 12           FY 13           FY 14
Est. Expenditures      $ 18,017.8   $ 20,065.9   $ 20,741.4   $ 21,539.6
Est. Revenue                17,934.8    6,392.6       17,254.8      18,221.8
Est. (Deficit)/Surplus      ($83.0)   ($3,673.3)   ($3,486.6)    ($3,317.8)
% of Est. Expenditures      0.5%       18.3%          16.8%          15.4%


http://www.ctmirror.org/sites/default/files/documents/OFA_Nov%2015%202010%20report2.pdf

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU COULDN'T CORRECT A MISTAKE! YOU MUST LOOK FORWARD TO THE FUTURE.

Ousted Miami-Dade Mayor: 'It's a Sad Day for Me'
Published March 16, 2011 | FoxNews.com

IS IT POSSIBLE IN A TOWN TO HAVE A REFERENDUM TO REMOVE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL  IN A TOWN MEETING FORM OF GOVERNMENT?  WHY NOT! 

Ousted Miami Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Wednesday that not only were the last 24 hours in which he was recalled by voters "extremely difficult," but also the last two years in which his administration struggled to close huge budget deficits.

"A lot of people ask me 'How do you feel?'" he said during a news conference. "It's a sad day for me. But I'm also relieved."

Alvarez defended his budget, which included a property tax rate increase and salary raise for county employees in a county struggling to recover from the recession.

"I made a decision to recommend a budget that held services together as much as we could," he said, adding that it's not easy to confront four consecutive years of budget gaps.

"Everyone has an opinion. It's much harder to actually make decisions and live with them," he said.

With 100 percent of precinct votes counted, 88 percent voted to oust the mayor Tuesday, making Miami-Dade the most populous area, with more than 2.5 million people, ever to recall a local official. Just 12 percent of the 204,500 who cast ballots were in favor of allowing Alvarez to finish his second term, which ends in 2012.

The county commission will most likely schedule a special election to fill the remainder of Alvarez' term. The effort to remove Alvarez was led by billionaire car dealer Norman Braman.

"County voters have demonstrated by their ballots that they are tired of unaccountable officials, of being ignored and of being overtaxed in this very difficult recessionary time," Braman said at a news conference.

Alvarez maintained throughout the recall effort that raising taxes was necessary to fill a $444 million gap and avoid cuts to critical social services. He said those affected by the property tax increase had enjoyed an artificially low 3 percent annual cap on tax increases during the real estate boom, and that the last round of contract negotiations had authorized most of the employee raises.

Alvarez said Wednesday that the next mayor will have a clear mandate after the recall election.

"It's very clear where the voters stand on the issues and they want smaller government and that's what they'll get," he said. "But they'll get it at a price."

Alvarez said he has no bitter feelings.

"I want to wish the next mayor much success and all the luck in the world and that hopefully the economy turns around," he said. "It certainly makes a difference."

There have been numerous recalls of state officials in recent years, but not any of a local government official in an area as big as Miami-Dade County, said Joshua Spivak, a recall expert and senior fellow at Wagner College in New York. The Los Angeles mayor was recalled in 1938, but Spivak said the population at that time was smaller.

Alvarez, a former county police chief, also says Braman is angry over losing an effort to block the county from funding a new $600 million stadium for the Florida Marlins baseball team.

At Alvarez's urging, the county commission approved it.

"The defining issue really is the type of government that the citizens of this community are looking for," Braman said. "It's about empowering the people of this community to take it back from the politicians who have been running it, and running it in a way that I think endangers the fiscal future of our community."

Braman, a former Philadelphia Eagles owner, gathered twice the 51,000 signatures needed to recall the mayor. County Commissioner Natacha Seijas was also on the recall ballot and removed from office.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/16/miami-dade-voters-overwhelmingly-choose-remove-mayor/#ixzz1H0e9Wk9k

KEEP YOUR OPINION IN THE UPRIGHT AND LOCKED POSITION ... I DON'T THINK SO!

New Fairfield leader buys communications tower in Patterson
Robert Miller, Staff Writer
Published 09:35 p.m., Friday, March 11, 2011

NEW FAIRFIELD -- One controversy is resolved.

Another may be starting.

On Thursday, the town completed the $190,000 purchase of a communications tower in Patterson, N.Y., just over the town line. The site had been owned by Tower Hill Communications.

The tower, which sits in the middle of the Michael Ciailoa Conservation Area, does away with a plan to build a tower for the town's emergency radio communications system in the middle of the 890-acre Great Hollow Preserve.

First Selectman John Hodge said Thursday the tower purchase is a "win-win.'' [SO WAS THE BRIDGE TO THE OLD HOUSES ...

AND THE TOUR BUSES TO NEW FAIRFIELD TO THE MUSEUM DISTRICT TO ENJOY THE HISTORY OF THE TOWN!  LET'S NOT MENTION THE RESTAURANT ON THE BEACH ... AND THE MANY OTHER "WILL NOT COST ONE THIN DIME OF TAXPAYER FUNDS PLANS"!]

It gives the town a tower to complete its emergency radio system, Hodge said, and because the town owns the tower, it will be able to rent space on it to generate revenue.

"This will pay us back in eight years,'' Hodge said Friday.

It also gets the tower out of Great Hollow, he said.

The state attorney general's office had objected to the town's plan to build the tower there, claiming it would go against the will of Walter Merritt, who left the land to Wesleyan University with the expressed intention that a wildlife sanctuary would be created there.

"That's good new,'' said Dr. Peter Rostenberg, the leader of the Friends of the Quaker Brook Haviland Hollow Watershed, which includes the Great Hollow property. "It means the town will have safety and a communication system. And it preserves open space, which I think provides the town with economic benefits.''

Susan Kinsman, spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, said Friday the attorneys involved with the case were pleased by the purchase and would reconsider their actions against New Fairfield.

But some opponents of having a tower in Great Hollow also faulted Hodge's decision to buy the Tower Hill property.

"It's terrible,'' said Ronald Graiff, a radio frequency consultant who works on cell tower projects.

The tower, he said, is far too high to work well as an emergency communications tower without picking up a lot of interference.

The tower is also too high for cell phone companies, so Hodge's plan to generate revenue won't work, he said. "It's useless." [A POINT WELL TAKEN ... IF THE LOCATION WAS THAT GOOD AND COVERAGE AS COMPREHENSIVE ... THEN WHY DID THE CELLULAR PHONE COMPANIES PUT THEIR ANTENNA'S ON OTHER TOWERS WHEN THIS ONE EXISTED?]

Graiff and Steven Roe, another opponent of the tower at Great Hollow, also questioned who will pay for maintenance of the 1,200-foot road to the tower and its aging buildings.The tower, built in 1947, was part of the nation's first microwave system, allowing television broadcasts.

Graiff and Roe also wondered if the town will have to pay Patterson taxes because it owns the land.

Roe said the town could have avoided these issues if it had rented space on a tower in New York at Quail Ridge.

"Let's say it cost us $1,000 a month, Roe said. "At $190,000, that's something like 13 years without worrying about maintenance."

Roe also complained that no one in town was consulted about the project. Hodge completed the sale without going to the Board of Finance or the Planning Commission and without a vote of the Board of Selectmen.

"There are probably more questions about this now than if we had followed the process,'' said Selectman Monika Thiel.

Hodge said Friday all these criticisms came from people who have always been opposed to the tower.

"They'll never be happy,'' he said.

Hodge said Thursday the height of the tower had been an issue -- one that made the town's consultant, RCC Communications, reject the site.

But after a second look, Hodge said, RCC and Motorola, which is supplying the town with radio equipment, realized the Tower Hill site was viable and could be a good location for the town's emergency system. [WHAT CHANGED?]

Hodge also said it made no sense for the town to rent space at Quail Ridge when it could own Tower Hill and rent space on it to other companies. The town's existing emergency communications tower earns about $140,000 a year in rental fees. [WHY WASN'T THIS CONSIDERED DURING THE INITIAL PLANNING?]

"It's the old question, why do people own their own home as opposed to renting?''' Hodge said.

He also said the town had approved building a new communications system and allocated money for it, so there was no reason for him to consult the Board of Finance. [THE ISSUE HERE IS THE POTENTIAL CONTINUED ON GOING LIABILITY AND TAXES]

Likewise, he said, because the land the tower sits on is in Patterson, not town land, the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over it. [WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT?]

Hodge said he hopes to have the emergency system installed and running in a few months, and it will provide coverage to police, fire and ambulance crews in 95 percent of the town. [WHERE ARE THE NEW MAPS OF COVERAGE?]

"That's the most important thing,'' he said.

Contact Robert Miller

at bmiller@newstimes.com

or at 203-731-3345.

Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/New-Fairfield-leader-buys-communications-tower-in-1083541.php#ixzz1GOZcmfch

2010 CENSUS DATA ... VERY INTERESTING

A BRIDGE OF BROKEN PROMISES, HALF TRUTHS, AND SPIN ...

WHEN EVERYTHING IS AN EMERGENCY AND PLANNING IS THE FIRST CAUSALITY ... AN AFTER THOUGHT ... THIS IS WHAT THE BRIDGE TO THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE!  THE LANDING FOR THIS RUBE GOLDBERG (NO OFFENSE TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITY) IS BEHIND THE SENIOR CENTER.  IT IS A BRIDGE OF SORTS TO THE OLD SHACKS.  NOT CERTAIN WHETHER A HELMET AND LIFE VEST IS REQUIRED.

BALANCED BUDGETS, FALLING FUND BALANCES, AND A 'TRUST ME BABY' FORM OF GOVERNMENT LEADS TO A BRIDGE OF REMEMBRANCE REQUIRING HIP BOOTS TO GET THROUGH BRAGADOCIOUS POSTURING.
JUST IN CASE ... A BRIDGE OF REMEMBRANCE DOES EXIST AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE:

AND TO THOSE WORLDLY TRAVELERS THIS IS WHERE ITS LOCATED: BRIDGE OF REMEMBERANCE.


THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR ... REMEMBER THE BRIDGE!

U.S. CENSUS FOR CONNECTICUT DUE TODAY ...

Conn. census results to be released today

Tim Loh, Staff Writer

Published 07:20 a.m., Wednesday, March 9, 2011

It's time to look in the mirror again. 

The U.S. Census Bureau will release today the results of Connecticut's 2010 headcount, offering a once-in-a-decade glimpse of how many of state residents there are, where they can be found, how much they earn, how educated they are, and how they stack up against neighboring towns, states and the rest of America.

To make sense of the reams of data, the Connecticut Post will be sifting out the past decade's biggest demographic shifts -- on a statewide, regional and town-by-town basis.

Here's a preview of what we're looking for:

-- Is Bridgeport still shrinking? In 1990, nearly 142,000 people called the Park City their home. By 2000, though, that number had dropped to about 139,500. Recent studies ballpark the city's current population at 3,000 or so people fewer, which could bring financial and political trouble. But how accurate is that assessment? Who's leaving? Who's staying? And who's arriving? Taken together, can Bridgeport still claim to be Connecticut's largest city?

-- Southwestern Connecticut is home to extreme income gaps. A decade ago, Easton's median household income -- nearly $126,000 -- was almost four times greater than that of neighboring Bridgeport. But has the economic tsunami that's hit the globe in recent years served to soften that income gap or amplified it? And have any towns and cities come out on top of the downturn? Which ones have come out as losers?

-- Outside evidence -- anecdotal included -- suggests that diverging trends have flown through the Valley this decade. Some areas have grown younger and more diverse -- Derby and Ansonia -- while others are aging. Does the census data bear this out? Or has something altogether different been taking place?

One preview: A study released earlier this week found that Fairfield County's population has climbed 2 percent in the past decade to about 900,000 people. That information, however, was drawn from the American Community Survey, and not the U.S. Census data. Whether it's true will take sharper focus by the end of Wednesday. As will the question of whether Connecticut can claim a spot as housing one of the nation's oldest populations.

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Conn-census-results-to-be-released-today-1049345.php#ixzz1G755K71m