New Haven Independent

Posted by: J. Hart | December 12, 2007 11:50 AM

Shouldn't somebody with such obvious personal interests in a zoning decision recuse themselves? His refusal to comment only deepens suspicion. Regardless of whether or not his vote was actually biased by his business holdings, he should have been taken out of the decision making process to preserve the perception of integrity of a powerful government instrument. Once again the City government shows its contempt for its citizens with such brazen displays of disrespect.

Posted by: Ben Berkowitz | December 12, 2007 2:23 PM

Chris Vigilante did offer to recuse himself at the meeting, but the applicant did not require it when asked.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | December 12, 2007 2:58 PM

If Chris Vigilante wants to serve on this board, and vote on matters of public interest and consequence, I suggest he explain himself or get off the board. You should not be able to serve in a public capacity, cast votes that affect us all, including potential competition for your own bar, and stay silent. Anybody with an ounce of integrity should know that, expect that, and should be so instructed by the person who appoints him. Vigilante is not just there to rubberstamp what's handed to him, or to make sure he has a free zone for his own money making ventures.

Posted by: Ben Berkowitz | December 12, 2007 3:24 PM

I just spoke to the Office Manager at the BZA:
Apparently the notice for a zoning appeal went to condominiums on Chestnut Street.
Chestnut Street is 2 Miles from 932 State Street.
There are 11 property owners within 200 feet of this property that were not notified that there was going to be a bar opening next door and the process to appeal a decision by the BZA requires a lawyer.
Is this a frequent occurance?

Posted by: Clark Pearlman | December 12, 2007 4:58 PM

I am a lifelong resident of that neighborhood and I did attend the first hearing and Mr. Vigilante did offer to recuse himself and Mr. Urbano said that would not be necessary. Also, it is my understanding that Mr. Vigilante voted in favor of Castaway Bar and Restaurant which is two blocks in the other direction of 860 State St. Could it be Chris voted no because there is NO parking at the proposed Granite location?
I do not know Mr. Vigilante just from a few interactions that I've with him around the neighborhood, but I can assure you that he is as honest a human being that one may have the pleasure in meeting. Please don't take my word for it, just walk by 860 State St. and see that mountain of toys in the window that will be going to New Haven area children because of Chris or just ask one of those 500 people who had a hot meal on Thanksgiving and walked away with a warm coat. Mr. Vigilante represents all that is good in our community and I wish others would follow his lead!

Posted by: Gary Doyens | December 12, 2007 6:36 PM

Every chairman of all these boards should be required to attend a basic ethics and governance course. When a matter comes before one of these boards - NH BOA, Zoning, or any of them - and you as a member have a financial or familial interest in the matter before you - you automatically recuse yourself. If you need a blueprint, follow what the courts do. They take no chance that any decision can be miscontrued or that their action can be bring dishonor to the decision making process. It is NOT a discretionary move that some chairman, applicant or individual can decide - it's a matter of integrity, fair play and disclosure. What in the world is so hard to understand about that? How hard is this to follow?

This issue comes up again, again and again. When do you think we can get it right? It's great that Chris Vigilante does so many good things for the community. Good deeds are not a replacement for good governance.

Posted by: brian | December 12, 2007 6:46 PM

I dont c the big deal its a new business with the parking and security addressed. And this is a business that gets people walking and leaving other area business' where they are allready parked and there is valet going to be offered at granite to there lot. I saw the new design for the facade in a poster in the window for both Granite and the other business next door and it looks great adding a new addition to the block... others should consider to update.

Posted by: J. Hart | December 12, 2007 6:50 PM

Thanks for the information, Ben and Clark. The article seemed to suggest nefarious doings. From what the other posters have said, Mr. Vigilante seems to be a decent person and I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

That being said, I do not think that anybody in public service should have the luxury of declining to explain or support their positions.

Posted by: bugupit | December 12, 2007 11:44 PM

Clark: Face it, giving away toys and meals does not make an "honest man".

While I am not convinced at all that this vote was motivated by personal interest, I am disturbed that Vigilante, or any member of any Commission, would serve with a policy of not explaining the reasoning behind his votes. Exception -- votes of a confidential / personnel nature. But don't blame the man, blame the machine that brought the man before the King to be Knighted. Perhaps the gears of the machine asked, and told the King that Vigilante could be trusted to vote on principal, not profit, but we would not know because none of them feel we have a right to know.

Posted by: Bruce | December 13, 2007 4:42 PM

Sweet! I have a feeling the neighborhood is going to love this new addition. I can't wait to check it out when it opens.

Posted by: edsicle | December 14, 2007 9:46 AM

I agree with Gary, common sense must prevail, and those in roles of responsibility must put their personal interests in second place. The appellants are not the ones to agree or not to agree for recusal, it should always be the member making decisions. But then again, look whose administration we are being ruled under. No responsibility for their actions.

Posted by: robn | December 14, 2007 12:54 PM

Whether or not Mr V is good guy, no person serving in public office (whether paid or volunteer) is entitled to keep secret the reasons for their job related decisions.