Tonight the Republican Party in the City of Waterbury held their convention for local office. The convention was more interesting then usual, as the Republicans have decided to cross-endorse current Mayor, Mike Jarjura, as he seeks a fifth term in office. As a result of this cross endorsement, the Republicans only put up six candidates for the Board of Aldermen, and three candidates for the Board of Education. The candidates that will appear on Row A this November are:
Mayor - Mike Jarjura (D)
Town Clerk - Antoinette Spinelli (D)
City Clerk - Mike Dalton (D)
City Sherrif - Steve Conway (D)
Board of Aldermen - Paul Ciochetti, Carlo Palladino, Jason Van Stone, Sam Rush, Jerry Padula, Bryan Baker
Board of Education - Charles Stango, Christine Chauncey, Ollie Gray
The decision to cross endorse the Mayor was met with some dissension in the Republican ranks, as it sounded like at least 6 members of the Town Committee voted against the cross endorsement.
Regardless of the debate that will almost definitely ensue from the Town Committee's decision, I am honored to have been chosen for a chance to serve Waterbury on the Board of Aldermen. Waterbury has been my home for almost my entire life, and it is a city that I love despite all of its faults. I look forward to an interesting campaign season, and hopefully victory in November.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Good Riddance
In today's Republican-American was a headline that I had been hoping to see for several months now. "Power plant calls it quits." I know that there are those in town who have accused the citizens of Waterbury of being NIMBY's and not taking a good look at the facts. However, as a member of the Waterbury Environmental Control Commission, and a nearly lifelong resident of the city, I know that this move is in the best interests of the city.
The only disappointment in today's article was a quote from Mr. Maynard, one of the principal investors in Chestnut Hill;
On April 16 of this year, the Environmental Control Commission (WECC) sent a letter to Chestnut Hill with 31 questions that we still had about their proposal. Those questions were never answered. In fact, Chestnut Hill considered it "premature" to answer these questions, as they did not have an application before the state boards. It would seem to me that the WECC was more then willing to listen to Chestnut Hill. They didn't want to answer our questions.
Furthermore, on May 26 I was scheduled to meet with Mr. Goodemote to discuss the "misconceptions" that he said were floating around the city regarding the Chestnut Hill proposal. We all know how that meeting turned out.
So, while I agree that the city of Waterbury needs new investment and companies willing to move into town, remediate our brownfields, and provide our citizens with good paying jobs, we cannot afford to have the city take a step back just for the sake of moving.
On a final note, I found it interesting that the article in today's paper closed with a reference to Mr. Maynard's previous comment about a "tyranny of the few" derailing this project. If that was the case, how come the only person to speak out in favor of the plant is the editor of Connecticut magazine, who has one letter to the editor referenced three times? (The original printing on 6/28, the article on 7/5, and today's article.)
Meanwhile, a rally against the plant draws dozens to downtown on a Saturday morning, and three separate letters are published in the newspaper condemning this particular proposal. Additionally,one of the letters even provided some alternative options for the Anamet site. While not all of the options mentioned are viable, at least the letter does not just say no.
In closing I would like to commend Steve Schrag, the Chairman of the WECC for his work in getting the commissioners and the public the facts that were necessary for us to make an informed decision about the Chestnut Hill proposal. Despite what Mr. Maynard would like to believe, this was not the tyranny of the few, but an informed decision by the citizens of Waterbury. Hopefully the future will bring brighter days, and better options for the Anamet site.
The only disappointment in today's article was a quote from Mr. Maynard, one of the principal investors in Chestnut Hill;
"We're not interested in engaging in a fight for 18 months with people who aren't even willing to listen to what we're going to do and give us a fair shot at trying to explain ourselves." (emphasis added)The reason I highlight these two sections of Mr. Maynard's quote is because I have had first hand experience of their attempts to "explain themselves.
On April 16 of this year, the Environmental Control Commission (WECC) sent a letter to Chestnut Hill with 31 questions that we still had about their proposal. Those questions were never answered. In fact, Chestnut Hill considered it "premature" to answer these questions, as they did not have an application before the state boards. It would seem to me that the WECC was more then willing to listen to Chestnut Hill. They didn't want to answer our questions.
Furthermore, on May 26 I was scheduled to meet with Mr. Goodemote to discuss the "misconceptions" that he said were floating around the city regarding the Chestnut Hill proposal. We all know how that meeting turned out.
So, while I agree that the city of Waterbury needs new investment and companies willing to move into town, remediate our brownfields, and provide our citizens with good paying jobs, we cannot afford to have the city take a step back just for the sake of moving.
On a final note, I found it interesting that the article in today's paper closed with a reference to Mr. Maynard's previous comment about a "tyranny of the few" derailing this project. If that was the case, how come the only person to speak out in favor of the plant is the editor of Connecticut magazine, who has one letter to the editor referenced three times? (The original printing on 6/28, the article on 7/5, and today's article.)
Meanwhile, a rally against the plant draws dozens to downtown on a Saturday morning, and three separate letters are published in the newspaper condemning this particular proposal. Additionally,one of the letters even provided some alternative options for the Anamet site. While not all of the options mentioned are viable, at least the letter does not just say no.
In closing I would like to commend Steve Schrag, the Chairman of the WECC for his work in getting the commissioners and the public the facts that were necessary for us to make an informed decision about the Chestnut Hill proposal. Despite what Mr. Maynard would like to believe, this was not the tyranny of the few, but an informed decision by the citizens of Waterbury. Hopefully the future will bring brighter days, and better options for the Anamet site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)