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.

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.

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

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.

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).

AGENDA - WALLINGFORD TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING / Item 11 to deal with parking issue

I have the agenda for the next Town Council Meeting over on my Wallingford Politico blog and it should be posted over on the town website as well.

Of special interest with respect to recent news:

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

‘Citizen Mike’ talks Simpson Court at 9PM

WALLINGFORD — Former City Councilor Mike Brodinsky discusses the Simpson Court parking plan on the latest edition of his public access show “Citizen Mike.” In studio guests include Town Councilors Nick Economopoulos and Craig Fishbein.

The show airs on cable Channel 18 at 9 p.m. every night, except Sunday. It can also be viewed on demand at wpaa.tv. Comments or suggestions can be sent to citizenmiketv@gmail.com. Record-Journal Executive Editor Ralph Tomaselli is regular contributor to the show.

If you can’t catch the show on TV you can catch it online on their Video On Demand page.

Getting the details on the Simpson Court deal

I am working on getting the details on the Simpson Court deal and I will put them online as soon as I can get them.

As with most things in town, I think I am going to have to request the paper documents and pay for them because I believe they are not readily available on line but be that as it may we need to have this information and the details out there.

There was a story in Wednesday’s Record Journal (August 31, 2011) regarding one of the owners and his decision to pull out of the year to year deal if the referendum is successful and the vote decision is to reject the deal that the Town Council has cut here.

That is Mr. McGuire’s prerogative – it is his property. If I were him and had this better deal in front of me (the one being proposed) I might not (at first) be all that excited about going back to something less. It’ll be up to him to decide if he wants to enforce and restrict his parking to the renters and customers in his building as well to fully maintain and upkeep his own lot, a lot of which right now the town does instead of him under the current deal.

People are going to take the slant of blaming the petitioners for the downfall of this deal if it goes that way just as some did regarding the Wooding-Caplan property.

Let’s be clear, the petitioners stopped nothing; the results of their work allowed the referendum to happen – the voters said no to the deal on the table at the time.

The Town Council could have re-visited one of the other three plans or come up with something new. Instead they’ve taken no action over four plus years.

The blame there is not on the voters or the petitioners.

There are a lot of details in the Simpson Court deal that every tax paying resident should review on their own. That is why I am trying to get that copy and post it online.

I am against the deal as it is presented currently as I don’t believe it is the best deal that Wallingford could make. We could and should do better. There are other options available as far as overall parking is concerned and if an agreement with the tenants at Simpson Court is still desired it can be re-done so that the town gets a little better deal and it could still be fair and somewhat lucrative for the property owners too.

I am not against them getting a little benefit for their sacrifice but the town benefit should be at least equal and presently it is not.

Having said that, I encourage you to get the details and make up your own mind.

Stay tuned.

Simpson Court and Downtown Parking – the ongoing struggle for the truth

Without a doubt, the current earmark of $500,000.00 to expend on private property and the petition drive to stop it is going to be a polarizing issue as we enter into the local elections.

We have a lot of heavy hitting on the support side of the project and the Council decision to move forward with this. (Councilors Fishbein and Economopoulos voted against it).

There is strength in the opposition as well as the petition efforts pick up steam.

Steve Knight, a former Town Councilor and co-writer of the Record Journal’s FROM WALLINGFORD column came out in support of the council’s decision (please see FROM WALLINGFORD - Vision and sophistication)

The Record Journal ran a story this morning titled “Small says Wallingford isn't on hook for $500,000” 

I’d like to review a few things that Steve wrote, and mind you, those are his opinions and like mine are going to differ. As an op-ed piece you don’t need to be objective – the whole point is to offer an opinion.

So I’ll start with:

“First of all, who benefits from the improvements? Opponents would have us believe that only the four property owners do. Nonsense. We all do, because a viable town center benefits each and every one of us, whether it’s in the property values of our homes or the quality of life we all wish to have. And that viability only exists because people want to come downtown. And they will only drive downtown if they know to a certainty that safe, convenient parking is available for their car. No parking? No people. No people? No successful downtown.”

I have said this before and I’ll say it again, there is plenty of parking downtown other than this one lot that is available for public use. The way that this gets outlined it makes it sound like there is no parking at all if we give up or lose the rights to use this lot as public parking that the entire downtown collapses.

I would like to see the study of how many cars use this lot on a daily basis as public parking in that they are not patronizing one of the businesses there.

The thing is, you won’t see it because there hasn’t been one. It is all done on estimation and assumption that there are users in this fashion and there probably are. I would argue they are a very small minority and at such a low use level that it can be equally argued that the spaces available at Town Hall and on the Wooding-Caplan property would suffice.

Next is:

“Secondly, let’s look at this investment. Yes, the Town of Wallingford is spending taxpayer money improving a piece of private property. But we are leasing this property. The owners are giving up control of the property. For thirty years”

I agree with Steve on the first part – we would be spending taxpayer money improving a piece of private property, something I don’t support out of the box.

We would be leasing the property but to say the owners are giving up control is more than a stretch. They are still able to pretty much do anything they currently are allowed to do but about the only things they will not be able to do is back out of the agreement on short notice as this would be a 30-year agreement and not a short term one. The other thing that they are effectively giving up is the ability to say “this is parking for my business only and all others will be towed.”

Now I am not sure what Steve was referring to with his next statement of “Frankly, I think it took a real leap of faith on the part of the four owners to make this deal. Without the parking behind their buildings, their property is worth zilch. It is a credit to them, and to the town government, that there is enough trust between the parties to enter into such a sweeping and lengthy arrangement” – Is he suggesting that the town could potentially take the property by eminent domain? I wouldn’t support that either and it is completely unnecessary as we have Wooding-Caplan and all the parking we should need if we would just fix that lot. I haven’t had the chance to speak with him so I am not entirely sure of his point here.

Someone else commented somewhere and I forget if it was a letter to the editor or someone I spoke with but they inferred that if we are leasing that property and it is in disrepair and if that someone was injured the town could be sued and if found liable, we might be on the hook for medical bills, pain and suffering and all that.

Could be the town and the property owners both in a situation like that.

So what do you think happens when someone sustains the same injury on the Wooding-Caplan parcel? We own that outright and it is in equal or worse disrepair right now. That’s right, the town, and only the town gets sued. The point here is we are at risk of being sued in both places and that is always a matter of risk but if we have this money I argue that we use it to repair our own property that is being used currently in the same manner (public parking).

Steve’s next point was:

“Okay, so the Town of Wallingford spends money on the parking lot. It directly benefits every single merchant downtown, and it indirectly benefits every single property owner in town because the downtown remains vibrant. You don’t need to be a professional urban planner to see the bright line connecting this investment with the benefits to the entire community. It’s obvious.”

So I am not sure how this is a direct benefit to every single merchant downtown; if people won’t park at town hall and walk one block to eat or go shopping why can anyone assume they’ll park there and walk down the hill? Be that as it may, then I could apply the same argument to the Wooding-Caplan property – if you fix it, a property that we already own – then you are providing a direct benefit to every single merchant downtown two fold; you have fixed a dilapidated public property and added net new parking to downtown.

Tomorrow I will write some additional comments with respect to the story in the Record Journal - “Small says Wallingford isn't on hook for $500,000”

More opinions on the Wallingford Parking controversy and the petition drive

As published in the Record Journal, Sunday August 21, 2011

900 sign petition against Simpson Court plans

As posted online at MyRecordJournal.com and as published in the Record Journal, Tuesday August 16, 2011

Robert Cyr
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD - Town Councilor Nicholas Economopoulos was out on a rainy Monday afternoon, talking to voters in front of Stop & Shop on Route 5, but he wasn't campaigning to retain his seat on the council.

Economopoulos was collecting signatures, as were others circulating the petition to force a referendum on a council decision last week that entered the town into a 30-year, $500,000 agreement with four North Main Street businesses to pave and maintain their collective parking lot in return for free municipal use.

The intent is to create a safer, more attractive municipal parking lot that will continue to provide an alternative to the often crowded parking area in front of the Simpson Court businesses. Economopoulos, a Democrat, voted against it, saying the town should not pay to upgrade private property.

Robert Gross, a local man who has run for council, started the petition drive Wednesday and has until Sept. 8 to collect 2,491 signatures, or 10 percent of the town's registered voters. That's the amount needed, by town law, to force the council to reverse its decision within 30 days or go to a town-wide vote on the matter.

Economopoulos was in good spirits and said he's gotten a positive response so far. A small group of people had collected about 900 signatures over the weekend. In his hand were three full pages of official signature pages, with 50 signatures on each page.

"People have been great and they really want to find out what's going on," he said.

Holding more pages at the store's other entrance, local resident Robert Hogan said he was confident the signatures would come and a referendum would take place.

"Everyone I talk to has been unbelievably responsive to what we're doing," he said. "When we tell them what has happened, they are awestruck - they can't believe it."

Petition supporters, who have called it an example of "democracy in action," included 24-year-old Troy Livingston. While he works in New Haven, he was born and lives in town, he said.

"I don't think it's really necessary for the town's money to go to something like a parking lot," he said. "We could be using that money for something more important in town."

Scott McLean, professor of political science at Quinnipiac University, said Wallingford's case of petitioning for referendum has a rich tradition in American history and is an example of a government process that once astounded foreign visitors who were accustomed to turmoil in Europe.

Among visiting dignitaries was 19th century French historian Alexis de Tocqueville, whose book "Democracy in America" is still read today.

"He thought it was remarkable that Americans were so involved in their municipalities," McLean said. "It was very different in Europe at the time, when revolutions were sweeping across Europe, but Americans put their political interests very close to home."

Whenever a community petitions for a referendum to overturn a government decision, they are evoking the spirit of early America, he said.

"Of course the right to petition the government is in the First Amendment and it's a very fundamental idea, a right that goes back to Colonial days," he said. "There's a long tradition of seeing petitions as vital to the health of democracy in America."