Temporary Parking Options During Winter Storms

As posted http://www.town.wallingford.ct.us/News/newsView.asp?newsID=40968223

The Department of Public Works reminds local residents that when a parking ban is in effect during winter storms, temporary parking is available in municipal lots. The parking options listed below are located in the downtown area.

Town Hall - 45 South Main Street
Municipal Credit Union - 88 South Main Street
Wallingford Public Library - 200 North Man Street
Caplan/Wooding Property - located behind the building that corners North Main Street and Center Street
Simpson Court Rear Lot - park in designated municipal area
Whittlesey Avenue & Orchard Street - park in designated municipal area
Meadow Street & William Street - park in designated municipal area
Railroad Station - park behind station on the west side of the tracks

Please remember that relocating your vehicle from the street assists with the removal of snow and proper treatment of the roadway surface. When a parking ban is in effect, motor vehicles may not be parked on any public street and are subject to removal.

Wallingford Parking lot letter brings up issue again - Three councilors wrote to state, opposing grant

As published in the Record Journal, Wednesday January 30, 2013

By Russell Blair
Record-Journal staff
rblair@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2225
Twitter:@RussellBlairRJ

WALLINGFORD - Most town councilors learned recently that three of their fellow members sent a letter last fall discrediting the town’s application for a $500,000 grant to improve the parking lot behind the businesses on Simpson Court.

Republican Councilor Craig Fishbein joined Democrats Jason Zandri and Nicholas Economopoulos in sending the Nov. 1 letter to the state Office of Policy and Management. The town applied for the grant in late September.

“Components of the application do not appear to comply with the grant specifications and should be taken into consideration when reviewing the town’s application,” the councilors wrote.

The Simpson Court parking lot, near the intersection of Center Street and North Main Street, has been a subject of contention for more than two years, with politicians from either party supporting or opposing attempts to improve the lot. A plan backed by longtime Republican Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. and others was overwhelmingly defeated in a 2011 referendum.

Fishbein said he never intended for the letter to be kept private and believed fellow councilors were aware of it when it was sent, almost three months ago. But most councilors said they weren’t aware of the letter until last week.

Republican Councilor John LeTourneau, a supporter of the grant application, said the councilors are entitled to their opinions but feels the letter is misleading.

The letter points out that the property is not owned by the town, but instead is leased from private business owners. It states the property is not visible from the street and that a town-owned lot fronting the businesses on Simpson Court will not be upgraded.

The letter also says that many parts of the town’s plan do not conform to grant requirements.

While the parking lot is not visible from North Main Street, it is visible from Center Street, LeTourneau said.

“To put a statement out like that, signed by three councilors,gives it a sense of legitimacy, but not all of their facts are spot on,” he said.

Fishbein said his chief concern was that the lease agreement in the grant application was the same one quashed by voters in the 2011 referendum. Officials have said that if the town receives the grant, the property owners have agreed to enter into a 30-year lease allowing the town to maintain the area as public parking.

“They included the lease that was defeated,” Fishbein said. “That was the major objection that I have.”

The town’s grant application makes reference to the referendum,but said the project is still necessary.

“That defeat, however, in no way diminishes the importance of the project to the vitality and success of downtown for businesses and residents,” the application reads.

As for the upgrades, according to guidelines for the Main Street Investment Fund, “any renovations that are solely the result of ordinary ... maintenance” are excluded from receiving state funds. Fishbein argues that elements of the Simpson Court project, such as repaving, restriping and new drainage, amount to maintenance and should be excluded.

Fishbein said he worked on the letter because he was absent from the meeting at which the Town Council voted 6-2 to approve the grant application. Zandri and Economopoulos voted against applying for the grant at the meeting.

Zandri said he’s concerned that if the town receives only a portion of the grant amount, officials may attempt to fund the remainder with tax dollars. State officials said 64 towns submitted projects worth a total of $26 million under the new grant program. The state has set aside only $5 million.

“There’s zero interest by any taxpayer to put town money into that lot,” Zandri said. “The project didn’t have the full support of the council and the people in town.”

Democratic Councilor John Sullivan said he had no problem with the letter being sent, but questioned the language in it and said it could be misleading. The letter said 90 parking passes will be given to property owners for use by their tenants with no time limitations. But Sullivan said it’s not as if the parking spaces will be specifically reserved.

“It’s going to be first come, first served,” he said.

And Sullivan disagreed with the assessment that this project is the same as the one voters rejected. Physically the work is the same, but the money comes from the state, not locally.

“It’s totally different,” he said. “The funding source is completely different.”

The town is expected to learn whether it will receive the grant in March or April.

Wallingford Center parking and the Main Street Investment Fund (MSIF)

As published via http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2990&q=505894

This is the grant that Wallingford is going to be applying for with respect to the private parking lot rehabilitation and the funds for that work.

Connecticut Main Street Center (CMSC), in collaboration with the Office of Policy and Management OPM, held a series of workshops around the State in July and August 2012 to provide information on this program, including who may apply and project eligibility requirements. The PowerPoint presentation from the workshops and sample Town Commercial Center Plans can be found using this link.

Authorizing Statutes

PA 11-1, AN ACT PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION IN THE STATE, Sections 78 and 79, (herein after “the Act”)

Program Overview

This act provides grants in the amount not to exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to municipalities with populations of not more than thirty thousand (30,000) or municipalities eligible for the small town economic assistance program (STEAP) pursuant to section 4-66g of the general statutes for eligible projects as defined.

The grant shall be used for improvements to property owned by the municipality, except the municipality may use a portion of the proceeds of the grant to provide a one-time reimbursement to owners of commercial private property for eligible expenditures that directly support and enhance an eligible project. The maximum allowable reimbursement for such eligible expenditures to the owner shall be $50,000 provided at the following rates:

(1) expenditures equal to or less than $50,000 shall be reimbursed at a rate of 50%, and

(2) any additional expenditures greater than $50,000 but less than or equal to $150,000 shall be reimbursed at a rate of 25%.

Supporting Documents:

MSIF Program Factsheet (pdf)

MSIF Program Application and Instructions (.doc)

Contact Information

Dimple Desai
Community Development Director
Office of Policy and Management
Intergovernmental Policy Division
450 Capitol Avenue, MS#54ORG
Hartford , CT 06106-1379
Phone - (860) 418-6412
Fax – (860) 418-6486
Email - dimple.desai@ct.gov  

MY TAKE on Simpson lot owners have ‘skin in the game’

This morning in the Record Journal there was a story titled Simpson lot owners have ‘skin in the game’ and I have it cross posted over on my other blog.

Councilor Craig Fishbein made the following point - "the town should ask for $50,000 from each property owner and $100,000 from Holy Trinity School for the retaining wall determined to be on the school’s property."

I agree and that you could "sell" to the majority of the people that voted against the deal at referendum.

At the same time - if the original deal wasn't correctly honored by the town as Mary Pimentel states (and I can certainly see her argument) I would go further to say "split the difference" - $25,000 from each property owner and cut the contribution from Holy Trinity School to the same - $25,000; $125,000.00 in total from the five (net - after any reimbursements); I would support that.

I don't like the way this was bum-rushed to the Council; I understand the timing situation but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth especially when you consider the will of the people at the last referendum which overturned the similar deal.

If we could go forward with either of these two offers to the property owners (and again - I would favor a softer deal to the town because of the years of not honoring the original maintenance agreements) then I say let's do it this week and then see where it goes from there.

This is supposed to be give and take but all I am seeing is push and shove; let's stop the posturing on all sides (the Council as well as myself personally is guilty of it) and move downtown forward.

And the number of parking spaces in Wallingford Center for PUBLIC parking is…

So before I get to the meat and potatoes of my post I want to remind everyone that I have the agenda posted for the regular Wallingford Town Council Meeting over on Wallingford Patch for Tuesday’s Council meeting on September 11, 2012.

Of special note regarding that I want to make sure to call out the following point; the Simpson Court / Private Downtown Parking Lot issue returns to this upcoming Town Council meeting.

You might not know it from this agenda item but the issue of Wallingford paying for the private parking lot at the rear of the businesses at Simpson Court uptown is going to be discussed.

8. Discussion regarding:

Report from the Town Attorney on the Simpson Parking Lot Wall
Possible options for the Town to pursue

The “Possible options for the Town to pursue” regarding the “Report from the Town Attorney on the Simpson Parking Lot Wall” is to apply for a state grant in the amount of $500,000.00 to “improve the Simpson parking area.”

The above link provides you with some additional details and along with my thoughts on that.

With the recap done – on to this post

I decided to talk a walk Sunday morning with my oldest son and count all the public parking spaces available in Wallingford Center.

By definition, a public parking space is one that is made available for the general public to park their car at will (within the limits posted by any signage) on a first come, first served basis.

I will outline what I counted and where as well as what I left out that I could have otherwise justifiably counted as part of the parking scheme for Wallingford Center.

So first – what did I leave out?

I left out the entire Wooding-Caplan site; even though we are presently rebuilding the area and may be using it for the next five to ten years, there has been no effort to fully commit the area permanently for parking. So due to that I skipped all the planned spaces there – all 100 spaces

I also left out the first block of every street off of Center between Route 5 and Main. It would be very easy to justify that area of parking as being available (as it is) but for the sake of discussion I left those spaces out too. I also left out any available spaces on Prince Street and Church Street.

I also did not count the BUSINESS spaces at the rear of Archie Moore’s because if there is any public parking back I didn’t see the signage so I erred on the side of caution and left it out.

The highlighted map below details the specific areas that I left out of my count.

All those yellow highlighted areas I left it out of the count – approximately 200 additional spaces for a total of 300 when combined with what I did not count at Wooding-Caplan (that area is shown below).

Also, beyond the 300 mentioned above I did not count the spaces we currently have use of by way of the year to year agreement on the private property behind the business at Simpson Court (as shown below)

What I did count

The 43 spaces at the Credit Union on South Main (shown below).

The 173 spaces at Town Hall and along South Main

The 69 spaces in Simpson Court and along North Main to Church Street

The north side of the lot, which has public parking space designation, between North Whittlesey and North Orchard which totaled 30 spaces.

The small lot behind that, across the street from the synagogue, which has 15 spaces.

The north sides of the Back of America lot and the lot across Meadow Street (only the areas designated as Public Parking by signage) – total spaces 83.

I also counted all the spaces available on Hall Avenue down to North Cherry and all the spaces at the rear of the Train Station that are available to the public as Public Parking – 108 in all.

The last major area of mention is Center Street itself from Route 5 North to Fair Street which encompasses 107 spaces.

So what’s the bottom line?

When you add all of these areas of available parking together you have a grand total of 628 spaces for the public to park their cars.

And there is even more space if you include the omitted first block areas of the side streets directly off of Center Street.

In the 27 years of driving my car into Wallingford Center for any reason whatsoever on any random day I have never had to walk more than one block to get to the destination of my choosing and that is because there is plenty of parking if you know where to look and are willing to walk about a block’s distance when necessary.

Simpson Court / Private Downtown Parking Lot issue returns to this upcoming Town Council meeting.

You might not know it from this agenda item but the issue of Wallingford paying for the private parking lot at the rear of the businesses at Simpson Court uptown is going to be discussed.

8.     Discussion regarding:

        Report from the Town Attorney on the Simpson Parking Lot Wall
        Possible options for the Town to pursue

The “Possible options for the Town to pursue” regarding the “Report from the Town Attorney on the Simpson Parking Lot Wall” is to apply for a state grant in the amount of $500,000.00 to “improve the Simpson parking area.”

Before I continue let me define this.

Parking in that lot to patronize a business is business parking and would always be allowed. It is no different there than going to CVS as an example and parking in their lot.

Public parking is to park there and go elsewhere. If you go to CVS and park your car and then get into a friend’s car and go to Hartford they could feasibly tow you because you are not using the parking as it is intended which is the patronization of that business. There is no PUBLIC parking permitted there.

Right now for 80% of that rear lot uptown you can park if you wish and walk all over uptown and downtown without being towed.

You could also park at Town Hall and do the same.

You can park at the Credit Union and do the same.

You can parking behind the divider at the rear of Bank of America and do the same.

You can park in the lot behind the train station where Brother’s Restaurant used to be and do the same.

All those lots allow for public parking as those lots are owned by the Town of Wallingford

So with that better defined, on to the details:

So the bottom line?

The business put up $20,000.00 and get reimbursed 50% so their skin in this game is really $10,000.00. The original lease discussion was 30 years so we are asking them to invest into their own property $334.00 a year for their share of $500,000.00 worth of improvements. They would also get 30 years of operational support and maintenance.

If I were a business owner you couldn’t get me signed up for this deal fast enough.

I am a Town Councilor charged with making sure your tax dollars are spent in the wisest and most prudent fashion and this is far from it.

You as a taxpayer (in this case taxes to the state and then via grant support) are putting in $500,000.00 for the use of these lots for public parking.

I think the residents were loud and clear at the referendum – do not spend tax dollars for the benefit of the private parking lot owners (mainly) and for public parking there.

I won’t support this but I will be in the minority I am sure. I will never support the spending of tax dollars in this manner. I could consider it if someone is providing a case study that shows public parking there is needed (number one) and where the owners of the property are putting in 50% of the costs at least (number two). Without that there is no justification.

You’d need to start with a case study of demand and need and there isn’t one; this is a desire to simply do this and I do not understand the directive to do so.

The private property owners there already get the benefit of some maintenance and snow removal provided on the taxpayer dime as they do not have to take out of pocket money from their rents to pay for this themselves like every other business owner that is responsible for their own parking areas.

It is a mystery to me how a supposedly fiscally responsible and conservative administration continues to champion an effort towards this when it is something that the tax payers have already spoke out against at referendum.

What IS their motivation for this? There is no demand for PUBLIC parking like this at this level at THAT location.

If this passes the Town Council, these same fiscally responsible and conservative individuals will be crying over the $30,000.00 that will need to be spent, AGAIN, on a referendum vote because the residents will most likely petition for the right to vote this down. If the past results are indicative to future events they will get enough signatures and it will happen.

If we are eligible for this state grant money it can be spent on the $200,000.00 price tag over on the Wooding-Caplan property where we are creating short tem (supposedly) parking to alleviate the out of pocket tax burden to the residents. Additionally, we could take the remaining $300,000.00 and spend it on the other downtown lots that the town already owns and fix them up with repaving and better lighting.

We wont spend the money on all the lots we already own (mentioned above) but we keep bring this effort back before the Council to try to ram it through when the people do not want it

Why?

POLL RESULTS - How much should the town be responsible for regarding Wallingford Center Parking?

Sixty votes in total. This is the sentiment of just those 60 respondents for whatever it is worth.

The majority of the respondents in this poll felt that if Wallingford is going to make any type of investment it should be as close to equal as the property owners

Obviously this is not a full representation of the wishes of the voters.

The referendum, just six days after the municipal election, drew 6,888 voters, with 2,768 in favor of the lease and 4,120 against.

There is no way to say just what the nearly 6,900 voters would want unless you could poll them all.

I do expect this issue to come up again so with that I will be trying to solicit the input of the voters and I will be reaching out to try to do that.

For those that would be willing to proactively reach out to me I can be reached at Jason@Zandri.net or by phone at 860 614 6069

Last day for the poll - How much should the town be responsible for regarding Wallingford Center Parking?

Cast your vote at http://wallingfordpolitico.blogspot.com/

100 percent of the cost
75 percent / 25 percent should come from the property owner
50 percent / 50 percent should come from the property owner
25 percent / 75 percent should come from the property owner
zero; all of the costs should come from the property owner. It is their property

WALLINGFORD NOTICE OF REFERENDUM

http://town.wallingford.ct.us/images/customer-files//RefPollPlaces111411.pdf

OFFICIAL BALLOT Referendum WALLINGFORD, Connecticut November 14, 2011

http://town.wallingford.ct.us/images/customer-files//RefBallot111411.pdf

Wallingford votes today on 30-year lease agreements

As published in the Record Journal, Monday November 14, 2011

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD — As voters head to the polls today to decide whether or not to support the town’s 30-year lease agreements for a municipal parking area behind Simpson Court, groups that back either side of the issue will make their final push to sway residents to cast their ballots in favor of their viewpoint.

The Town Council in August approved the lease agreements, which say the town will supply up to $500,000 in upgrades and maintenance to the parking area owned by four building owners in exchange for municipal use of the lot. A successful petition drive forced today’s referendum.

The Simpson Court parking deal has been a hot-button issue since the council’s action, and signs from two political action committees far outnumbered campaign signs for candidates in last week’s municipal elections.

Republican Councilor Craig Fishbein, one of two councilors who voted against the lease, said he would be handing out leaflets to en­courage people to vote “yes,” which would repeal the lease agreements.

“I’ll be out there telling people what they need to know about this — there seems to be a lot of confusion,” he said.

Christopher Diorio, vice chairman of the Republican Town Committee and head of the political action committee Support Our Downtown, said more than 400 signs have gone up at homes and businesses and a staff of a half-dozen volunteers would spend the last days calling up registered voters. Support Our Downtown is in favor of the 30-year lease and improvements to the parking area. A final effort will be made today to hand out flyers at post offices and grocery stores, in addition to ads in local newspapers, Diorio said Friday.

“It’s certainly been a challenge because people are very confused, and they want to know why it’s not on Election Day, and they’re confused about the yes and no situation,” he said. “It’s less of a challenge than a process.”

A “No” vote keeps the leases in place.

Council members voted to hold the referendum on a separate day after the Republican Registrar of Voters Chester Miller told them it would be a strain on the voting system due to the limited number of ballot machines and minimum space needed.

Wallingford Parking Lot Referendum November 14, 2011 VOTING LOCATIONS

VOTING LOCATIONS listed incorrectly in the Sunday Edition of the Record Journal

The polling locations as listed in the Sunday edition of the paper were incorrectly listed.

The proper locations can be found via http://wallingfordpolitico.blogspot.com/2011/11/wallingford-parking-lot-referendum.html and / or http://www.500kparkingdeal.com/html/voting_locations.html

The PAC for the “NO” vote is leveraging the Mayor.

Just got a robo call recorded by the Mayor regarding the NO vote on the Parking Referendum for Monday; must be [THIS] close for the PAC to have to leverage the Mayor on this.

If this is such as great deal for the town and the property owners then the benefits AND the cost burden should be shared and NOT 100% input from the town's budgeted monies for the fiscal year.

Whatever happened to that fiscal conservativeness of the Mayor and the Republicans (who are the majority of the "NO" supporters)? I guess as long as the conservativeness is on the "little guy" only it works.

I support the YES vote but I encourage everyone to get the facts on their own and get out and vote.

Don't forget to vote! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wallingford-Parking-Lot-Referendum-November-14-2011/107225926053398

Vote YES!
NOVEMBER 14, 2011
$$$ STOP PRIVATE PARKING DEAL $$$

http://www.500kparkingdeal.com/

FACEBOOK - Wallingford Parking Lot Referendum - November 14, 2011

Question: Why should Wallingford spend upwards of $500,000.00 to improve private property at your expense? Answer: IT SHOULDN'T! On November 14th, Vote "YES" to Repeal the one-sided deal!

It’s your town – get informed, get involved and VOTE on November 14th

For more information see the Wallingford Parking Lot Referendum Facebook page or go to the 500K Private Parking Deal site.

The Simpson Court Referendum - The difference between misinformation and outright lying

Let’s first define “public parking”.

Public parking means using the lots to park your car where you do not patronize any of the adjoining businesses. You park your car in the lot and walk away from all the businesses in the area. You park and leave your car and carpool with someone else to go somewhere. That is public parking.

Parking in the lots and then going into one of the businesses – that is customer parking.

When you go to Target and park in the lot to go into the business you are leveraging customer parking. If you leave your car in the Target parking lot and go with someone into their car elsewhere you are leveraging that parking lot as if it were public parking and you could be towed in theory if they were enforcing that.

We are not discussing customer parking; that is not at issue. For these property owners to lease their spaces for people to establish businesses there they must provide some minimum level of owner, leaser, and / or customer parking.

Now onto the heart of the matter – public parking.

“135 Free PARKING SPACES”

Let’s all forget about the $500,000.00 the town is talking about investing into these private owners’ properties over the next 30 years for a moment.

On a year to year basis for DECADES the Town of Wallingford has been putting tax dollars into these properties and other private lots downtown on behalf of the tax payers in exchange for public parking use. 

This has been mainly in the form of man hours from public works; plowing and sanding in the winter and other work throughout the year.

These actions and efforts have resulted in the expenditures of tax dollars.

That means these parking spaces have not been “FREE”.

With the decision as it currently rests from the vote of the Town Council, we are planning to enter into a 30 year lease with these private property owners where Wallingford will STILL be expending monies for regular maintenance and upkeep.

In addition to that, Wallingford will be investing, solely, up to $500,000.00 into period lighting, lot resurfacing, line repainting, other structural and integrity repairs without a single dime coming from any one of the four property owners.

How is this “135 Free PARKING SPACES”?

It is coming at the cost of tax dollars expended annually and other monies in lieu of taxes for capital expenditures.  

How is this “135 Free PARKING SPACES”?

How is it that the main drivers of this and the Support Our Downtown movement are (primarily) our conservative leaders in town? The ones that will generally claim that they are fiscally responsible with our tax dollars. Where we cannot raise taxes to spend on this and that in this economy. They are the same ones that say that everyone is struggling and where the elderly who have gone without cost of living adjustments over the past couple of years cannot bare the burden of any higher taxes.

Where are all those fiscal conservatives these days?

That’s right – many of them are out there telling you to vote no and support the council’s decision to spend your tax dollars on this benefit. A benefit that the property owners will enjoy as equally as Downtown Wallingford will.

Without those property owners investing a single dime to the effort.

So you see folks the “FREE” in “135 Free PARKING SPACES” is just that for those four property owners in that all of this benefit they are getting for free.

Think about that before you go out to vote on election day Tuesday November 8th for who will represent you over the next two years

You will also need to think about whether the council decision should stand at referendum on Monday November 13th.

If you support the town investing the tax dollars in this manner then you will vote NO to maintain the Council’s decision to move forward.

If you are against this expenditure, where Wallingford foots the entire bill and the property owners spend nothing then you would need to vote YES to repeal the Council’s decision.

It’s your town – get informed and get involved.

MY TAKE - Letter to the editor - A few facts

Current Town Councilor Rosemary Rascati sent a letter to the editor of the Record Journal and it was published on Saturday October 8. The full letter is available on my Wallingford Politico blog.

Political letters to the editor after Labor Day are supposed to be limited to 100 words or less. By the paper’s own admission, an error was made allowing Rosemary’s piece to run at the 300 word standard limit.

I wrote a full reply to this submission that the paper will not publish; they admit the error and take full responsibility but they are going to continue to re-enforce the standard of 100 words or less for political letters and letters from candidates.

While I think an equal response is fair and warranted given the fact that an error was made on one side of the argument, I understand the paper’s position on trying to maintain the original intent of the directive of limiting political letters to 100 words or less.

I am going to work on my 100 word response but in the meantime my full response to this is posted below and an expanded version will be online at The Post-Chronicle as they allow for 500 word submission.

 

There have been numerous letters to the editor regarding the Simpson Court public parking situation downtown.

Over 3,000 people lent their signatures to the petition to force the referendum.

In order to make the referendum binding, yes or no, 20 percent of the registered voters need to vote. That would be 5,000 plus registered voters.

While it may be a minority it is not small; in the last local election only 37 percent of the registered voters showed up to vote.

Recently one writer to the paper indicated that the petitioners and subsequently the voters “forced a referendum on the Wooding/Caplan property” and, “Now they advocate that Wooding/Caplan be used for parking. Isn’t this a bit short-sighted since we may need it for a new police station? Or perhaps they will then suggest that the Town buy another lot.”
The voters “stopped” only the proposed plan at the time; the Council could have revisited and come up with another option that the public might have liked better but they chose instead to take no action.

If we are talking about “short-sighted since we may need it for a new police station” – the Council voted to sell it – if the referendum failed where would we be? The Council’s decision would have been done and Wallingford would be buying another lot.

Other comments were “In its present condition, should someone fall and be hurt (behind Simpson Court), the Town of Wallingford could be held liable” – this can also be applied to the Wooding-Caplan property where the town is the sole owner.

Get the facts; make up your own mind and then vote.

Vote for your representation on Tuesday November 8^th and then vote your option on the parking matter on Monday November 14^th

It’s your town – get informed, get involved and vote.

MY TAKE - Citizens Against Private Parking Deal in Wallingford

There is a new website at http://www.500kparkingdeal.com/ set up by the organizers of the petition drive.

On the site they have a lot of pertinent information, they cross post to the Wallingford Referendum Facts blog (which may or may not be their blog – I am not sure of the identity of the actual owners) and they have PDFs for the four lease proposals.

(I was going to post these myself but now that they are here I will simply cross reference. I will still put up the original lease since it appears to not be online there).

They also have a page there as to how you can help if that is something you wish to do.

I am in favor of overturning the decision of the Council on this and I will be voting “YES” on Monday November 14, 2011.

Bottom line and whatever your thoughts – it’s your town, get informed, get involved and VOTE at the local election on Tuesday November 8, 2011 and at the referendum on Monday November 14, 2011.

For or against the Council’s decision and the parking deal – make sure your voice is heard.

Wallingford Referendum Facts

As provided on the Wallingford Referendum Facts blog, which “has been created so as to give the residents of the Town of Wallingford a fair and unbiased account of the facts behind the referendum taking place on November 14, 2011. Whatever your position, please take the time to vote on that day.”

This is NOT my own blog; as you may know I have four (two concerning Wallingford directly, one personal blog and a technology blog).

Bottom line – these are some great facts that will allow you to review the information and make up your mind between now and the November 14th referendum vote.

Over the next week I will be posting online all the leases, prior and proposed, so that people might get informed and make up their own mind.

Having said that as well, I am fully on the side to repeal the Council’s decision, but whatever your thoughts I agree with the blog creators:

”Whatever your position, please take the time to vote on that day” (November 14, 2011).

REMINDER–WALLINGFORD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT

Just a quick reminder that there is a town council meeting this evening.

I have the agenda posted in an earlier blog post.

There are a couple of important agenda items with respect to the downtown parking situation and the referendum:

10. Discussion and Possible Action on the Repeal of the Town Council’s resolution of August 9, 2011, approving Lease Agreements of the parking lots at 2-26 North Main Street, 36-40 North Main Street, 60 North Main Street and 48-50 North Main Street - Councilor Nick Economopoulos

11. Discussion and Possible Action on setting a date for a referendum vote on the repeal of the Town Council’s resolution of August 9, 2011, approving Lease Agreements of the parking lots at 2-26 North Main Street, 36-40 North Main Street, 60 North Main Street and 48-50 North Main Street – Councilor Nick Economopoulos

 

Barbara Thompson, Wallingford Town Clerk, has certified that there are enough signatures for force the referendum if the council doesn’t repeal their decision.

The letter went out to Town Council Chairman Parisi yesterday and can be found via this link.