New Haven Independent

Posted by: Stan Konesky jr. | March 13, 2009 9:42 PM

Mr. Twohill should be acting on behalf of all residents when interested in the complete and detailed issues of Founder's Village and its' long history.

There are many people effected by this project. They live in dwellings and work in businesses surrounding this property not just on Cedar Street but North Main, Ivy, Rose, Park, Hillside, Palmerwood area, Silver and the center of Town. Then there are citizens and voters that may be effected who live/work throughout Branford. They all are entitled to a voice and government representation.

When this project first became an issue, I contacted numerous RTM members. Only a handful of RTM members from both parties listened and became involved along with our Board of Selectmen. Several stated it was not their issue. Where were you Mr. Twohill?

A handful of citizens from the surrounding neighborhoods became active and along with many others, all contributed time and money to fight this project.

We are now at a critical point in this issue. The courts have become involved and the econony has raised many financial crossroads in Branford. This project still has a few issues as blasting and review by P&Z, Inland Wetland and Sewer Commission.

I support this agreement once clarity on the blasting issue with State oversite, as we were promised, and a full and complete review by the Town's boards is determined.

It provides needed senior housing, sewer relief on Rose Street, no impact on the school system, no egress onto North Main, Cedar or Ivy Street and a compromise to this 7 year old conflict.

Posted by: JohnH | March 13, 2009 11:37 PM

"The pump station is an integral part of the plan. DaRos said Vigliotti agreed to build and maintain a pump station to serve the existing apartments and the new complex. "He'd be responsible for all of that, the installation and the maintenance," DaRos said."

On Tabor, DaRos said he had no objection with Affordable Housing. Here the settlement gets rid of the same, substituting Age Restricted Housing. Why? No schools! Seems like anti-affordable, anti-children to me. By the way, when a pump station is built, the ultimate responsibility for its maintenance is ALWAYS the municipality. The State requires the Town to step in if it is beyond the means of the local condo association to maintain or repair.

There is really nothing wrong with Age Restricted Housing or private pump stations. But, be honest. This is Tabor Kool-Aid again. A little straight talk, please!

Posted by: scjerry | March 14, 2009 4:33 PM

Ok, I thought we explored the concept of age restricted housing when we explored the Queach project, and didn't find P&Z regs that enforced the transfer of ownership restrictions (nor the personnel to do so effectively) during the title process from one 55+ family to another.

Were'nt there other projects that started out this way and ended up appealing P&Z to sell to age-unrestricted owners?

Maybe I'm wrong.

Have we changed the P&Z regs since?

The other issue is that for every age-restricted housing unit we provide in a town (most elderly residents come from the same town) we leave available on the real estate market in the same town, a housing unit capable of accommodating a family, with the potential for many school-age kids.

Seems like keeping elderly folks in their homes with ad velorem tax subsidies (like Florida's homesteading legislation), reforming the state's support of public education through a constitutional referendum, and, thus use a different formula for relieving the taxpayer is a better, albeit, further-out, approach to what we are doing now with Vigliotti.

Is that approach viable under the current circumstances?

Probably not, but we keep repeating the same process with the same end result.

There are many uncertainties with this new plan, but at least the Town is not on the hook for improving the sewer system, assuming the water treatment plant can accommodate the added load.

Of course that leads into yet another conundrum, placing of a water-treatment plant next to Long Island Sound. A subject for yet another time.

IMHO

Posted by: Wayne Cooke | March 15, 2009 10:57 AM

SCJerry...Your elitist, anti-housing, anti-development, anti-family, anti-children views represent nothing but contempt and disdain for the principles that made Branford great.

Read some local history and you'll find it was fellowship and innovation, not your "I'm-the-last-one-in-close-the-door" philosophy that offered hope and opportunity to those who built this town.

Most people are all for the environment, conservation, and an appropriate amount of open space. Left unchecked, however, these areas can be just as suffocating and harmful to a community as overdevelopment and sprawl.

The key is balance. And your thinking, my friend, needs some.

Posted by: scjerry | March 15, 2009 7:40 PM

For those who truly lack a more regional perspective on what ails us here in CT, see :
"Still ''behind the curve on smart growth,'' Connecticut boomed mostly in sprawl -- ''ill-planned, low-density, auto-dependent, single-family residential or strip mall construction on what had been forest or farmland'' -- and though the public belatedly recognized the sprawl-imposed infrastructure and service costs, air and water pollution, energy use and social isolation, it may finally see a new day, says a Hartford Courant editorial on ''sweeping legislation'' just proposed by state Democratic Representative Brendan Sharkey and others in his bipartisan public-private Smart Growth Working Group."

See http://www.ctsmartgrowth.com/

Most of us Branford residents revulse at the thought of becoming another Orange or even worse another Bridgeport.

So much for pseudo reverence for the Branford of old as seen through the eyes of advocates of their own self interests.

IMHO

Posted by: Wayne Cooke | March 16, 2009 5:54 AM

By the way, SCJerry....When you decide to move out of YOUR million-dollar ''ill-planned, low-density, auto-dependent, single-family residence on what had been forest or farmland'' -- and stop participating in "air and water pollution, energy use and social isolation" YOURSELF, maybe you'll be in a little better position to tell the rest of us how to live.

Posted by: Jay | March 16, 2009 3:55 PM

Mr. Cooke:

Bravo! Your refutation of SCJerry's irrelevant and mis-informed objections to the Founders Village project are on-the-money. I applaud you for taking a strong stance against such dangerous sentiments.

SCJerry:

Your response to Mr. Cooke's refutation seems off-base to me. Denser housing in the center of town, close to merchants and transportation seems to me to be the very essence of "smart growth". Furthermore, if I am fortunate enough to still be living in Branford when I am elderly, I do not want tax breaks to remain in a home that is bigger than I need surrounded by a yard absent laughing children. My dream would be to move close to Main Street, the green, and the train station, and turn my home over to my son, his wife, and my grandchildren. Sounds like your worst nightmare.

Posted by: scjerry | March 17, 2009 9:31 AM

Jay
It all sounds good on paper... the idyllic image of grandchildren playing in your former home's yard, robins and bluebirds encircling their heads, as in a Disney cartoon epic etc. etc. But consider, as we have, the total costs of home ownership in Branford, and Connecticut in general, for our daughter and son-in-law and our two grandchildren, including real estate taxes. Our kids can't afford to live here, even if they get the property without other encumberances, and could get jobs here.

As to my nightmare, it is that Conneticut will continue to have one of the highest per capita tax burdens in the union. Changing the way in which education is funded is part of smart planning, and will require a constitutional amendment. It will eliminate the tyranny of the grand list and, also eliminate the dependence on ad velorem taxation of the homes of seniors on fixed incomes. And it will provide a more balanced educational system across the state. As you know, Branford doesn't fare well with Educational Cost Sharing.

Unlike you, we will fight to maintain our home residency here by whatever means, since we don't want to leave our familiar surroundings, neighborhood and friends to go elsewhere. It sounds as though you are looking forward to leaving your home to go to senior housing. My sympathies.

I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest that senior housing in the town center is compatible with smart planning? There are no commensurate plans for centralized services, amenities and stores to accommodate senior's needs. It wouldn't make demographic or economic sense. There are not enough residents to make it worthwhile. They are still dependent on fulfilling their needs by transportation to outlying areas. Of course there are some who would like to supply them with Targets, Whole Foods (talk about elitism) and Home Depots (they need them?) in the outskirts. And I don't see too many seniors walking down to Caron's Corners for groceries.

I'm not in opposition to senior housing, since it fulfills a social and moral need, however to propose that part of a multifaced rationale for building senior housing is based on zero school-population impact, I suggest isn't true.

Demographic studies on 55+ housing suggests (at least it did 2 years ago) that there there is (was) a glut of such units on the market and that developers were attempting to reverse the age restriction. You may wish to review this 2008 article in the Boston Globe entitled "Age of Broken Promises": http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2008/03/30/the_age_of_broken_promises/

Here's a quote in case you can't get to the link:

"But harsh economic realities have prompted the Esplanade's developers to break a fundamental promise made to Cobb and dozens of his neighbors - that they would be free to grow old in a community of their peers. MP Development LLC is petitioning Hudson officials to reverse the residential age restrictions so they can sell Esplanade units to anyone, citing a state law that forbids towns from enforcing zoning burdens that make a development "uneconomical.""

End Quote.

In summary the Connecticut tax structure is anti-family, anti-child and anti-business, and people need to take heed in order to pressure their polical representatives to change the system.

What is dangerous thinking, is doing nothing except to continue the same pattern of development.