New Haven Independent

Posted by: Almost ex-resident | October 27, 2009 12:31 PM

Here we go again. Glad I'm moving away.

Posted by: Jay | October 27, 2009 12:37 PM

I agree with Alderman Brison, and that those who walk to school (which I completely support) should do so by the schools intended entrance on Whitney Avenue. If safety on Whitney Avenue is not a concern from school officials and parents, then you should have never built the school there. If there are concerns, then those issues should be dealt with and not simply coming up with an alternate route. We should fix the problem (although, I don't think it has been proven that there is an issue there in the first place).
Keep diversity in our BOA and vote Green. It's the best way we have in making sure that the decisions the BOA make are truly in the best interest of the residents.

Posted by: Ward 10 Resident and Yale employee | October 27, 2009 12:39 PM

I like Justin and I think he could be a good Alderman for Ward 10. I'm voting for Allan.

Justin offered some good ideas and a bevy of attractive promises. But what what he offered, we already have in East Rock. His name is Roland Lemar. Justin, time and time again outlined his "breakfast hours" his "newsletter" and his commitment to "complete streets" and "community policing". Justin sounded wonderful, largely because he sounded just like Roland. The truth is, most of us already have Roland's wonderful "newsletter", already count on Roland to push innovative policy and "get things done". Its the benefit we have, even those of us who live in Ward 10 and not Roland's Ward 9, of having an East Rock alderman who is focused on important things and has a good relationship with important players in City Hall. We don't need two of those types of alders.

We need Allan. In the microcosym of East Rock politics, Roland and Allan are perfect. Allan can be the constant critic, the persistant reminder of a job not yet well-done, a voice removed from the machine and without personal ambition.

Allan is a constant voice for the little facts of life that need representing. He's fought for residents, not ideas. He's fought for people, not for policy. Allan deserves our vote.

In another neighborhood, Justin should be elected. In East Rock, when we already have a wonderful Alderman like Roland Lemar, why do we need a Justin Elicker? We need Allan's check to Roland's balances.

For a complete neighborhood that can fit every need, we need Allan's constant voice fighting for the everyman.

Posted by: robn | October 27, 2009 12:48 PM

So the most roiling scandal of this years election cycle is, ahem...."GategGate".

...sorry...I had to write it...

Posted by: anon | October 27, 2009 1:08 PM

It seems like a silly idea to close the gate. People will walk around through other properties or jump/cut the fence if they do that. Think about it from the perspective of a student.

Why does this school have to be a fenced-off compound? We need more permeable and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, not more urban balkanization.

If there is a traffic problem on the street, install some mid-block chokers plus raised crosswalks and bumpouts at intersections.

Posted by: new alders needed almost everywhere | October 27, 2009 1:15 PM

the main objection to elicker from brison is: he's over qualified for new haven and will move-out because he'll have opportunities elsewhere!

that's it. otherwise, it seems elicker has been doing an alderman's job for some time now, without the fancy title that helps get stuff done. he also has been communicating with the neighborhood and promoting new haven and the green economy throughout his time here.

i haven't seen brison do a quarter of what justin has done. additionally, during any question about the budget, brison could not give a single answer other than to say, "good schools and lower crime raise the tax base". great. thanks for the introduction to civics. he touted his efforts as a member of the Blue Ribbon Budget Review Panel and yet had not one single constructive thing to say other than we should change the pie graph.

It is important to get a clear view of the pie graph. The entire time the panel was in session Brison was dedicated at looking at the "Yale issue" and the Board of Education, but not one substantive idea or research was put forth by Brison.

Good intentions, not enough energy or talent to follow through, both things Brison stated last night that Elicker has in spades.

Good luck next Tuesday Ward 10 - should be a good one.

Posted by: Reality Check | October 27, 2009 1:18 PM

Ward 10 Resident and Yale Employee, your logic confuses me. You think that Roland is an excellent alderman and you think that East Rock is lucky to have him (although you don't; it just so happens that you benefit indirectly from Roland's work in his own ward). You don't attribute any positive changes in the ward to Allan, but you like his complaints. You think Justin is a wonderful candidate and would be a wonderful alderman, but...? I fail to see why you are afraid of East Rock having two wonderful aldermen, as opposed to a wonderful alderman and one who is most distinguishable by his vocal opposition to anything endorsed by City Hall?

Posted by: critical | October 27, 2009 1:23 PM

ward 10 resident and yale employee: lemar does not actually represent you... i know you stated that, but it's just a fact that because in your neighboring ward, you have an active and 'powerful' alderman, it does not mean that he is also acting on your behalf. lemar has, though, stepped up and engaged your ward during the lack of leadership by your alder. (whitney ave) also, when was brison's voice heard that was challenging people? when did he follow-up and actually propose something?

elicker is right to say that if brison actually was useful, he would put together a coalition to bring about a referendum and charter reform. not just with a few other alders that also pay plenty of lip service to this issue. but actually going out to various communities in new haven and getting more people on board. that has not been seen.

g'luck on 11/3 and beyond. you need a real visionary, someone that can actually produce results and not just run his mouth that change needs to come.

Posted by: Anika Singh Lemar | October 27, 2009 1:33 PM

While the Hooker gate discussion was the most heated of the night, the debate (thankfully) covered other substantive issues, notably crime, taxes, and, as Melissa describes, traffic.

But I can't resist commenting on GateGate. I could not take Allan's purported commitment to safe streets seriously in light of his stance on this. We are lucky to live in a neighborhood where kids can actually safely walk to school. This is an incredible amenity. I'm not sure why we would make it harder for children to walk to school. Being against kids walking to school is like being against moms and apple pie (or, in New Haven, community policing which both Justin and Allan advocated but only Justin seemd to actually understand).

Everit Street is a public street. Newsflash: cars drive on it. Those cars should obey traffic laws, speed limits in particular. I'm not sure, though, what right Everit Street residents have to prevent a subset of drivers from using their street, anymore than I can tell St. Stan's, on my block, that its parishioners have to park and enter church from State Street on Sunday mornings. I'm not sure why they care so much either. I live directly across the street from the entrance to the Hoooker swing space where students walk to school and are dropped off by car and by bus every morning. Yes, there's more traffic on my street for 20 minutes every morning and afternoon. But, no, it doesn't affect my quality of life one bit. It doesn't affect my safety, as a pedestrian or as a driver, one bit. Parents tend to be responsible about their use of our street. At the end of the day, it's safer and easier for kids to walk or bike to school on Everit Street rather than Whitney avenue. Don't we want that?

To Ward 10 Resident and Yale Employee:

Justin is a great candidate and well worth voting for on his own merits, putting aside any comparisons to Roland. But, in response to your comment, all I can think is that if East Rock had two energetic, smart, well-spoken, active, community-focused "Roland Lemars" as alder, I might see my husband more often! So I'm all for it! There are a number of BOA members who have demonstrated that it is possible for a single person to act as both a "check", when that's appropriate, and as a "balance", when that's appropriate, on the administration and I think Justin will be a welcome addition to that group of alders.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 27, 2009 1:35 PM

OMG I am voting for brison to for Alderman of Everit street!
Then I am voting for Justin for Alderman of WARD 10 all of ward 10.

Posted by: I was at the debate | October 27, 2009 1:53 PM

It's a pity this article is so narrowly focused when there were questions to the candidates on such a wide variety of topics. Perhaps those topics didn't lend themselves to an article because only one candidate, Elicker, gave legitimate answers to each question. Brison dodged numerous questions or dismissed them by saying, "I think I've already addressed that topic." Well, the question-asker certainly didn't think so! One important function of news coverage on an event is to let people who were not present know what happened. I wish the author had not just looked for an angle, but had shared with readers how each candidate introduced himself and responded to questions posed during the debate.

Posted by: Really? | October 27, 2009 2:00 PM

Nice to see that in Ward 10, what is supposed to be a bastion of liberal values, that the main issue surrounding a school is how students get to the building, not what they are taught or how they are taught once inside. In a City about to undergo a major education reform initiative, that is selfish and a shame.

Posted by: Bruce | October 27, 2009 2:02 PM

How about "HookerGate"?

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | October 27, 2009 2:04 PM

ROBN -- Or to give it a real D.C. scandal ring to it, we could call it "HookerGate".

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 27, 2009 2:07 PM

Sorry I had to put the above comment….but seriously. I sat there last night on my best behavior trying to give both candidate a fair shake. And what I did notice a lot of people that did vote for Allan last year are not. And some that where have changed their minds. The question is why. Because East Rock in general are well informed voters. They are aware of what has and has not been done. They sat there knowing full truths and hear them turn into fish stories…. “And it was this BIG!” And there was at least one fish story that was out of line. Justin was honest did not do fish storys (which he could of) and he educated the group on some facts on promises Allan made. It is easy to say… ok they want this and that, and I will tell them I will “try” or “I will do my best”to get you this and that. But it is a much bigger man that can stand there and say these are things I cannot do and this is why, but these are some alternative that I can do!! I am proud to be supporting Justin!! I with his skills and know how he will make Ward 10 a better place to live. And I may add the city will have some real improvement when he is in office!!!

I just want to add…. What is with these candidates not wanting debates or not wanting to talk to the press……. What they did not write you cheat notes or a script for for the after interview???

Posted by: latichever | October 27, 2009 2:15 PM

The lawsuit against Hooker's new location, which cost the city millions, and delayed the school for years, should already be sufficiently on the plaintiffs' consciences so that they won't persist in their obstructive, elitism. If the people on Everit want to live in a gated community, they should move to one. Open the gate.

Odd that the people on Loomis Street don't protest all that hustle and bustle and traffic of folks dropping off their kids at the PRIVATE Foote School.

This is a city, get over it.

I am a Hooker parent who will insist that my child be able to walk and enter on Everit.

Posted by: jawbone | October 27, 2009 2:23 PM

This is a true story...
So I am driving around down in San Antonio, Texas this past week with a friend of mine from there. We're tooling along until everyone on the road inexplicably drops to 15mph. I say, "why'd everyone slow down?" The response is, "Because we're in a school zone and and here in Alamo Heights if you speed in a school zone, you WILL get ticketed." The cops do not fool around in Texas.
The point is, Whitney Ave. is a speedway and it doesn't have to be that way. I've seen it for myself. The police department needs to be pressed into setting up long term speed traps. Sooner or later, like Pavlovian dogs, drivers will automatically slow down.
Whitney Ave. is a JOKE. Two weeks ago, in the height of the a.m. rush hour, I saw a mother and child dangerously trying to cross at one of the cross streets that by all rights should have a light and a crosswalk. It was a scary and sad sight. The lack of crosswalks and a dedicated bike lane on Whitney is a crime against the citizens of New Haven.
To me, it shows how powerless our elected representatives and citizen activists truly are when going up against a powerful and atavistic bureaucracy such at the State DOT.

Posted by: Peter | October 27, 2009 2:35 PM

First of all, this article focuses attention on an important issue within Ward 10, but only 1. Unfortunately, the article somewhat misrepresents what we saw last night in that short discussion. My understanding is that Alan's position is very clear -- "no gate." And he has clear reasons for that position, even if some constituents wholeheartedly disagree.

Justin, on the other hand, agrees that any previous compromise should be upheld and sees that the gate could pose problems to the residents on Everit. It could also offer benefits. He hasn't found substantive evidence about whether the promise of a closed gate was in fact made or not, which puts him in a tough political position. In the debate, he suggested that there are two valid views about the best policy decision. Both of them involve a potential cost to the other side. My sense is that he wants to facilitate discussion and potentially find an alternative solution that is agreeable to all involved.

I think that this is indicative of the type of adlerman that Justin will be. He considers the concerns of all involved and then searches for creative solutions. And he engages all of us in the process.

Posted by: Loomis St | October 27, 2009 2:54 PM

Latichever - it is protested, heavily!

Posted by: Ward 10 Resident and yale employee | October 27, 2009 3:03 PM

Also....There were 3 current alders in attendance last night that are supporting Allan. Jackie James, from the Hill, Mike Smart from Wooster Sq., and Al Poalillo from the East Shore. Justin only had Roland Lemar, from East Rock. Who is better at creating partnerships and working across the aisle, Justin or Allan?

Posted by: Debate Observer | October 27, 2009 3:05 PM

I was at the debate last night and am truly disappointed that this article is so focused on the Hooker School gate, as it was but one out of many important issues about which were debated. The real focus of the article should be on the candidates and what they can contribute to Ward 10, rather than pinpointing this issue. I believe that the reporter should have followed Justin�s advice and kept her eye on the ball, which should have been to provide an objective overall evaluation of the debate and all of the issues that it encompassed.

What was not included in the article was that Justin provided several solutions for ensuring that there would not be a traffic issue on Everit, while still allowing the gate to remain open for children walking to school. This is reinforcement of one of Justin�s main claims: He is not focused on complaining, but rather on providing solutions.

Our focus should be on the candidates and the debate. Justin has so much energy and is passionate about representing each and every citizen of Ward 10, and that is the kind of representative that is needed to actually achieve tangible results. He has already contributed a significant amount to the Ward 10 community; just think what he could do as Alderman.

Justin is a good public speaker and was very engaging last night. He gave concrete examples of what he planned to do as Alderman, was very knowledgeable about Ward 10 and city-wide issues, and handled difficult questions well. When both candidates were asked what they would cut from the city�s budget in these trying economic times, Alan had no concrete answer, while Justin focused on what is truly important -- what shouldn�t be cut -- programs that foster education and decrease crime. Justin is keeping his eye on the ball, and so should we. I believe that he is the best candidate, who will truly deliver concrete, positive results for the Ward 10 community.

Posted by: derek | October 27, 2009 3:10 PM

Jawbone's comment is spot on - the New Haven Police Department can curb the driving habits that make streets like Whitney and Canner and Willow very dangerous for pedestrians - especially kids. When will they start some serious enforcement? I'd like to see the NHI take a good hard look at that please.
As for Everit Streeters... Latichever has it right, "If the people on Everit want to live in a gated community, they should move to one." I live on the other side of Whitney, but when I walk my kids to Hooker Upper School next year we'll most likely go a block out of our way to walk down Everit Street, and why shouldn't we? Isn't that a public street?
And finally, I live just outside Ward 10, but I've encountered Justin's name in many forums of activity in this city. I barely even knew the name of the current Alder...

Posted by: Bob Solomon | October 27, 2009 3:22 PM

Any discussion of "compromises" is disingenuous. There were years of discussion and supposed agreements. When people on Everitt Street did not get their way, they honored the agreements by filing suit. The CT Supreme Court held the suit to be without merit. Then, the losing plaintiffs want to know what happened to all of the compromises and agreements. Here's what happened - you succeeded in delaying the construction for two years through litigation. You lost. Noone who was involved in the process thinks you have acted in good faith. Then, after all that, Allan Brison comes in to "compromise." Since the litigants have already lost, there really is nothing left to compromise, so what Brison is really doing is siding with the litigants to get something they could not get from litigation. Every Hooker parent and every supporter of public schools should understand that Mr. Brison has done nothing to help public education and has sided at every turn with obstructionists who do not support pblic school and do not want public school children on their block.

Posted by: Tom | October 27, 2009 3:31 PM

Jawbone,

The state DOT does not own the portion of Whitney Avenue in New Haven, the city does. Any problems with Whitney Avenue are the responsibility of the city and the city alone. I'm no fan of many of the actions of our DOT, but Whitney Avenue is one boondoggle that is not their fault. The city has the power and authority to improve Whitney as they see fit. Unfortunately, many of our elected officials (not all) have chosen the path of inaction despite the obvious safety hazards the road presents in its current condition.

Posted by: NewHave | October 27, 2009 3:42 PM

I agree with Cedar Hill Resident. Brison for alderman of Everit St. Boy, I wish I could keep pedestrian and car traffic off of my street, but last I looked, all city residents are allowed to use it. An awful lot more than anyone ever uses Everit. And I look forward to seeing how many Everit Street families will benefit from having a strong small public school in their midst. If he didn't live there, perhaps his position would seem less self-serving.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | October 27, 2009 3:49 PM

Any discussion of "compromises" is disingenuous. There were years of discussion and supposed agreements. When people on Everitt Street did not get their way, they honored the agreements by filing suit. The CT Supreme Court held the suit to be without merit. Then, the losing plaintiffs want to know what happened to all of the compromises and agreements. Here's what happened - you succeeded in delaying the construction for two years through litigation. You lost. Noone who was involved in the process thinks you have acted in good faith. Then, after all that, Allan Brison comes in to "compromise." Since the litigants have already lost, there really is nothing left to compromise, so what Brison is really doing is siding with the litigants to get something they could not get from litigation. Every Hooker parent and every supporter of public schools should understand that Mr. Brison has done nothing to help public education and has sided at every turn with obstructionists who do not support pblic school and do not want public school children on their block.

Posted by: YIMBY | October 27, 2009 3:53 PM

Echoing Anika's comment above, we've lived opposite the current Hooker Gate (on Eld St) for five years. The buses come, the buses go, pick-up and drop-off is over in 20 mins max. There have been no problems whatsoever, with the school traffic or the church traffic.

My kid will be walking or biking from Eld St to the new location and I cannot see what earthly right a handful of Everitt St residents have to block his most direct and safest route to the school.

(Actually, the recent demographic changes on Everitt St suggest to me that this is no longer even a majority opinion - can we get some numbers on this?).

By the way, I notice that the driveway into the new school enters from Whitney and terminates in a turning circle well short of the Everitt St gate, so there is no chance of through-traffic - in other words, major concessions have already been made to the neighbours on this one. It strikes me as extremely ironic that the school design thus appears to prevent fire engines from accessing the school from more than one side, or ambulances from a direct route onto the playing field where they'd most likely be needed. Nice one.

Jawbone, your true story is inspiring. Who wouldn't love to see that level of enforcement in New Haven?

Posted by: YIMBY | October 27, 2009 3:55 PM

Hmm, why is it OK to protest school drop-offs, and not church parking?

Also, given that the number of "walking-buses" will be in inverse proportion to the number of cars dropping off one or two students each, isn't it in the interests of Everitt St residents to argue IN FAVOUR of a walkers' gate?!

Posted by: jawbone | October 27, 2009 4:07 PM

My guess is that at least half the kids walking to the school will be approaching from the rear, Everit side of the school. They will find a way to enter from the rear, like it or not. The best thing to do is provide a well considered, reasoned and designed way to enter the school grounds from Everit.
It is a well know maxim of college campus planning that you do not put down sidewalks on campus until you give the students a chance to wear paths across the green spaces along the routes that they are naturally going to take. My point is that humans will find the shortest route possible. Attempting to dictate a route that adds travel time and distance is both foolhardy and a mistake.

Posted by: Everit St resident | October 27, 2009 4:21 PM

Gee...I have REALLY missed the acrimony and downright mean-spirited attitudes of both sides of the Hooker thing. Can't we just GIVE IT A REST????

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 27, 2009 4:22 PM

"without personal ambition" as stated by Ward 10 Resident and Yale employee

hmmmm please that man did not want to do anything for anyone unless you called the media! Glory hound.
"without personal ambition"
a man who wanted to put a early release program in Cedar Hill when one of the reasons we wanted Ed out was because we have 4 such houses, Columbus House and Leway already... and when the community said no he said well I have to do what I feel is right. Really so a whole community minus one buniess church owner and one resident...did not want it.... and who just wanted to make a name for your self!!! AT OUR EXPENSE!!!! AFTER YOU MADE THAT PART OF YOUR CAMPAIGN LAST GO AROUND!!!! Shame on you!!
"without personal ambition"
A man that claims he is working on a community center for Cedar Hill...OH REALLY..OHHH REALLYYYY. Did you mean that meeting with the church down the street over a year ago? that wanted grant money and us to raise funds for them to VAN troubled kids from Newhallville to Cedar Hill to hang out out at there Church and play pool in the church garage??? When we are already over whelmed with our own troubled youth and you because you went to one meeting a year ago you think you are helping us??? What the heck... that kind of help we do not need!!! For those that are street smart...Da Ville kids and Cedar Hill kids what does that SPELL???? HMMM Not one of us was on board with that...sorry yes one, but he does not speak for all of us!

PROMISED COPS DID YA.... Well guess what allan I talked to our district manager regularly.... HONESTLY DID YOU EVER CALL HERE TO HELP US OR GET MORE COPS!!! DID YOU EVER ASK LEWIS TO SEND MORE COPS HERE!!!!!NO For that fact you did not do it for the other side eighter!!!!
BE HONEST!!!!!!

SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!! And the fish was thhhisss Big!!!!

He did not care what the community wanted he saw his name is print if he did these things!!!

ok ok I feel better???

And when I called him to inform him of our feelings and mine guess what he said.....
�I don�t have time,�
SHAME ONE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: jawbone | October 27, 2009 4:29 PM

Tom,
I'm sure you and I agree. The fact that New Haven 'owns' our end of Whitney Ave. makes it even more of an embarrassment. It's the Indy 500 out there every morning and every afternoon.

Posted by: Kevin McCarthy | October 27, 2009 4:31 PM

As the moderator of last night's forum, I would like to thank both candidates and all of the people who participated in a very lively and far-ranging discussion.

The next meeting of the East Rock management team is Monday November 23 at East Rock school-all are welcome.

Posted by: YIMBY | October 27, 2009 4:41 PM

Everitt St Resident: I'm not seeing any acrimony or mean-spiritedness here! Just a rational discussion of the ins and outs of a standard-issue town planning problem. Pick a side, any side, and make your argument. Everybody's listening.

Besides, you may be surprised at how lovely it is to have a school on your street. Best part of my day is sitting on the front porch steps in the afternoon with my younger child, waiting for big brother to cross the road. We watch the kids board the buses, and see the sweet reunions between parents and children at pick-up time. People nod and wave, stop to have a chat or say hi to our cat, sometimes come in for a cup of tea -- I feel part of an old-fashioned, warm-hearted, properly functioning community. I'm kind of jealous my school is moving to your street.

Seriously. Try it, you might like it.

Posted by: i love east rock | October 27, 2009 4:51 PM

I think we all need to take a step back and think about what an Alderman means to us. Is it someone who will represent a small subset of the community and complains about a gate that might increase their commute by 30 seconds? Or is it someone who is dedicated to holistic development of the neighborhoood?

Has Brison done anything that brings the community together? Anything that even closely rivals Friends of East Rock Park? The only time I have heard/seen him in the last 2 years is when he is campaigning. I have not seen any changes or support from him. period. I think his failure in the blue ribbon panel sums up his experience so far as alderman.

Vote for Elicker. He is the best candidate this ward has seen in some time.

Posted by: clarity on whitney | October 27, 2009 5:16 PM

the whitney comments need more beef to the bones. the DOT paid for the reconstruction on the city's road. someone needs to set this record straight here -

Posted by: robn | October 27, 2009 5:16 PM

WARD 10 RESIDENT AND YALE EMPLOYEE has uncovered my sinister plot. For many years I’ve been toiling in my secret underground laboratory cave dug into the granite of East Rock with the single diabolical purpose of cloning Roland Lemar … Justin is my first try. If everything had gone as planned I would have first taken over the Board of Aldermen, then the State Legislature, then Washington and then the world…all along the way spreading peace, prosperity, sympathy, kindness and social activism….and planted a few trees also.

And I would have gotten away with it too…if it hadn’t been for you meddling kids.

Posted by: East Rock Resident | October 27, 2009 5:16 PM

I am disappointed that this article focuses on the Hooker School debate. It was a debate where Justin repeatedly offered inclusive and realistic solutions to resident concerns. In contrast, Alan seems wholeheartedly concentrated on Hooker when there are many other concerns of East Rock residents. Alan was unable to list a single significant accomplishment over the past two years and avoided giving a serious answer to many important questions. When asked about community outreach and communication, he first avoided the question, and then mumbled and trailed off when pressed; when asked about budget cuts, he could not summon a single reasonable idea. I want to see Alders who are progressive, creative, and pragmatic. As an environmental profession who promotes a bright green urban future, I am embarrassed that Alan is using the green party facade to hide his lack of accomplishments. Alan may claim to be progressive, but his main platform is focused on reducing the walkability of the neighborhood by closing the Hooker gate. He lacks the drive to bother to fully answer questions during a debate--a reflection of his time in office. I fully support Justin and believe that anyone who cares about the future of East Rock and New Haven should as well.

Posted by: clarity on whitney | October 27, 2009 5:18 PM

the whitney comments need more beef to the bones. the DOT paid for the reconstruction on the city's road. someone needs to set this record straight here -

Posted by: Josiah Brown | October 27, 2009 5:38 PM

As a Ward 10 resident who attended the October 26 East Rock Management Team meeting as well as an event the ward's Democrats held June 2nd, I am supporting Justin Elicker for alderman.

It's nothing personal. I urge partisans of one side or the other to keep the tone of this debate civil as Election Day on November 3 nears. Prospective voters may register at the Registrar of Voters office until 8 p.m. tonight (Tuesday, Oct. 27).

Why support Justin? For months, this is a question neighbors have asked. Here are several specific reasons -- some in response to concerns raised in comments on the New Haven Independent website, as well as at last night's session:

*First, let's take Justin at his word that he is not merely passing through New Haven but rather intends to make it his home. Many of us were once new to town. Imposing an extra-legal, arbitrary residential litmus test (one year? two? five? twenty-five?) for civic participation -- especially within the narrow confines of each small ward -- would deny us the involvement of many neighbors. Justin spoke directly last night about his purposeful move to New Haven and his intention to remain here. Innuendo to the contrary is baseless.

*Second, his record demonstrates the hollowness of any charge that his being a student and prospective graduate makes him too busy to serve effectively as alderman. (At last night's discussion, this charge came with a distinctly patronizing tone -- the implication that the incumbent should be entitled to remain in office, with his challenger allegedly too "busy" or "talented" to handle the daily responsibilities of an alder.) In fact, Justin's steady advocacy and consensus-building -- for example, on issues related to Whitney Avenue's traffic and safety, where he, David Streever, and Roland Lemar convened a neighborhood planning and consultation forum -- are evident. Also clear is the time and persistence Justin devotes to neighborhood and city-wide concerns, as well as his accessibility in person and via e-mail. He listens well, takes initiative, stays in touch, and follows through.

*Third, his being a renter rather than a homeowner is in itself irrelevant. One could argue many New Haven renters have as much at stake as, and less cushion than, homeowners in our community. Surely many renters are more financially vulnerable than most homeowners. Granted, the most vulnerable are not necessarily grad students in East Rock, some of whom enjoy family financial support. And homeowners looking to sell at this sluggish moment in the real-estate cycle may feel trapped, with property-tax bills at odds with their ability to pay or to escape the burden through profitable sale of the property. Still, census-tract data (as in the ROOF analysis described in an April 15 Independent article) would reveal the facts about the ability of renters versus owners, in one neighborhood or another, on average to withstand economic turbulence. Of course, some portion of landlords' tax bills are in effect passed on to their tenants, too, making the distinction between owners and renters less stark than often assumed.

[I'm hardly alone as a homeowner who's voting for Elicker; the entire block on which my wife and I live is unanimous, with all five homes' lawns containing signs endorsing his candidacy.]

*Fourth, Justin has impressed with his energetic leadership -- along with Betty Thompson -- of the Friends of East Rock Park (FERP). The group's revival would not have been possible without Betty's and Justin's vision and action. Their good-humored prodding, hard work, and example have boosted FERP and the neighborhood's already strong sense of community, as well as its connection to larger happenings across the city (biking, clean-ups, etc.). This bodes well, both Justin's role in the progress and Betty's endorsement of his candidacy, as it reflects his appeal in the Cedar Hill section of the neighborhood as elsewhere.

*Fifth, Justin's concern for promoting economic development -- one of New Haven's greatest needs -- helps to distinguish him. His studies at the School of Management, as well as at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, are no coincidence. He recognizes the importance of cultivating private-sector growth, including in the area of green jobs, and promises to work with other New Haveners in this regard, as part of a broader effort to strengthen the City's tax base and job base.

*Sixth, Justin will be a proponent of innovation and efficiency in government, scrutinizing the budget and recognizing trade-offs in his characteristically straightforward way. Last night, he acknowledged the gravity of the city's (and state and federal governments') potential fiscal plight as federal stimulus dollars dissipate and the full impact on pension funds of the stock market's decline becomes apparent, while many cyclical revenues (e.g., state sales tax and state and federal income and capital gains tax) remain depressed. He declared education and police -- admittedly major budget lines commensurate with their significance -- the only two areas he would be inclined not to cut. Virtually everything else, in other words, could be cut if this view were to prevail.

*Seventh, while single-party rule anywhere has limitations -- with groupthink and stasis real risks -- there is room for creative thought within a caucus. Justin can be one of these creative thinkers, with both specific plans and a resourcefully cooperative disposition for getting things done in areas including public safety, transportation, and other municipal services. He is of course still learning, as anyone with a curious mind should be. As many wards as possible should have such alders.

Finally, voting isn't primarily about making a statement of protest; it's about translating intentions into practice. I comment as a former door-to-door environmental campaign canvasser for Connecticut PIRG, a Nader-inspired organization. Like both Justin and incumbent Allan Brison and surely the majority of other voters in the ward, I regard the environment as a significant priority, to take one issue the Green Party has embraced. Some Democrats (and Republicans) can be as environmentally oriented as Green Partisans, and more able to advance the policies they espouse.

Emerson said, "Not insulation of place, but independence of spirit is essential." Justin would be less likely than Allan to be isolated or insulated within the Board of Aldermen. Justin would also be independent enough to introduce alternative, effective ideas as he works vigorously to accomplish the work of the ward and of the city.

Posted by: Jack Hitt | October 27, 2009 6:51 PM

Allan Brison is depressing. He's fighting tired old quixotic battles that ended a long, long time ago. Reading this article made me wonder if Brison still frets about fluoride in the water.

Justin Elicker is full of clever ideas, charming, energetic, and brilliant at seeking real consensus before acting.

I reached out to Elicker professionally last year when I grew concerned that there were too many unemployed teenaged kids wandering about during the summer. He immediately arranged meetings with city officials, got all the potential parties happily on the same page, and then smoothed the way so that in several months time we had the East Rock Park Youth Program. Run like a career-oriented day camp, the Youth Program enjoyed its first session last summer and was very successful. It will be back again this coming summer. While lots of us love to claim some credit for this program, we all know that without Elicker, it just never would have happened.

This side of East Rock deserves an alderman in the mode of Roland Lamar, another smart and foresighted representative.

Let the old battles drift into the history books, and instead, let's move forward with the kind of consensus change that this neighborhood could use.

East Rock and Cedar Hill deserve Justin Elicker.

Posted by: streever | October 27, 2009 9:04 PM

There is almost nothing to add to this debate, except to note that: "Ward 10 Resident and yale employee" is probably a union member. Why is the union so interested in this race?

For an alderman who promises to be an independent voice, I have to ask myself why Brison has not spoken out in favor of independent ideas and thinking, and instead is in the Perez/Labor Union rut.

Brison's supporters at a debate are union members and Perez alders from outside the neighborhood: Justin has almost 50 out of 60 people in the audience there as supporters.

Elicker is endorsed by over 60 neighbors in writing--Brison has a handful of endorsements mostly from people outside the ward on his website--Elicker has almost 200 signs up--Brison has half that--

Brison has more money donated then Elicker from a few people and a lot of links to union money--Elicker has almost the same money donated almost entirely by residents of the ward in much greater quantity.

Who represents East Rock? Who is already doing work the Alderman should be doing? Working to get crosswalks installed, infrastructure changes, and bringing the neighborhood together.

When is the last time Brison coordinated a community meeting? Not a social event--a community work group. I can tell you when Elicker did--he's held dozens, on Whitney Avenue, on the future of our Park, on crime in our neighborhood.

What is Brison's involvement in the block watches? Elicker is incredibly involved in the District 7 Block watch. He is endorsed by it's leader.

I've knocked on every door in the ward for Elicker. The number one reason people volunteer for Brison is, "It's important to have a green." Really? Is it important to have a green party member who is ineffectual and focused on fighting with the mayor? Or is it more important to have a hard-working neighborhood advocate who can get our streets calmed, our sidewalks fixed, trees planted, neighbors out working together, & solve the problems that face our neighborhood?

I'm voting for the guy who doesn't single-mindedly focus on tearing down his enemies--the guy who doesn't become a single-issue pusher in a neighborhood which deserves better.

Elect Elicker!

Posted by: streever | October 27, 2009 9:11 PM

While I'm questioning Brison's contributions:

Ward 10 has serious traffic issues. Car crashes on East Rock road, drivers not stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks, & Whitney avenue is a mess.

Brison takes credit for the in-road pedestrian crosswalk signs, which is news to me, because like the bike racks in front of our local eateries, I pushed for those & promised to be accountable for them and move them back into position when they are moved.

For an independent thinker, I've never seen Brison at any of the well-publicized meetings on traffic safety/improvement in Ward 10.

He can't make it to those meetings at City Hall--which I take time off from work to attend--and didn't spend 1 minute with the 6 figure traffic consultation we had for the city. He has no idea how traffic calming methods work, because he hasn't been to the work sessions that have been held.

For such an independent thinker, for his sole contribution to traffic calming to be preventing children from walking/biking to school along a safe route because he's worried about cars on his street, I have a hard time buying it.

Tons of solutions exist for preventing the traffic problems he anticipates: targetted enforcement, bump-outs around the gate, bollards to prevent car parking there, etc.

Posted by: AnnaF | October 27, 2009 9:56 PM

As a lifelong East Rock resident, homeowner of multiple properties and a taxpayer you WILL see me using the gate on Everitt Street when I WALK my child to school. I live near the Kindergarten thru 2 Hooker on Canner Street and have never seen any traffic jams or issues with pick up and drop off. Mainly because there aren't many cars associated with the Hooker School community. They are mostly walkers.

As a child, my friends from the neighborhood and I would ride our bikes and take short cuts through what was once the Christian Science Church to head towards Orange Street from the Whitney Ave area. We always hung out int he parking lot playing football, riding our bikes and roller skating. There were never any issues back then and I do not foresee any issues now. For people walking from the Orange Street area taking Everitt is shorter than walking around to Whitney Avenue. This is a neighborhood school with neighborhood kids. Please Everitt St. residents get over it already. We are tired of hearing your laments. You are not the only tax payers in East Rock. Let's move on and do what is best for our children. I love my neighborhood, love my neighbors and love the fact that my children will be able to walk to school and not have to take a bus or be driven.

And please don't forget to vote on November 3!!!

Posted by: Anon | October 28, 2009 12:19 AM

I think that this issue regarding the impact of the placement of an unwanted school on a quiet residential street certainly persists. THis is not simple "elitism" or people wanting a gated community--if they wanted that they would not be in New Haven.

But yes, if folks purchase a home in New Haven on a quiet street completely zoned for residential only and then the city drops a school in the middle of it with huge traffic issues, of course people will be upset:

1. unsafe and unregulated traffic just like Foote and St Stan. If you dont believe me, please do some research about the child who was killed years back on quiet Loomis Place, run over by a parent dropping off kids at school. Impact? Hello?

2. Property values--please examine the way the city mismanages ALL of its school properties, the poor placement, the poor maintenance. THe city here is trying to exploit a nice neighborhood and let the school be protected by the residential houses to keep the school safe. Wrong strategy.

3. Whitney Avenue is a highway with quadruple the traffic over the past 10 years. I NEVER see New Haven police monitor or ticket people on WHitney. It is a death trap. Of course parents will sneak around the back entrance to drop off their precious little snowflakes away from Whitney.

4. Why cant kids walk to school AND enter on Whitney? Doh!

5. Knock off the elitism charge folks. People are trying to protect their investments. Maybe next time your house/street will suddenly have a school, a halfway house, an abortion clinic, or a highway dropped next to you and you wont be laughing, all recent events in this neighborhood. The last decent neighborhood close to downtown is close to its demise.

Posted by: Kevin | October 28, 2009 12:37 AM

Hooker this Hooker that. My damn taxes went up 200% in 2 years. Did Elickers taxes go up 200% in the past two years? Is he renting? Oh yeah thats right, he's endorsed by our arrogant mayor that's building a Billion dollars worth of monuments around the city called schools that has bankrupt the state. Wake-up people. I have been a democrat for thirty years and after I voted for Obama and Biden I switch to the Republican party in protest of our mayor that's charging the TAX paying citizens of New Haven into becoming the working poor. I'm suspect of anybody the mayor endorses.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 28, 2009 7:46 AM

Kevin I want to address that. I am a home owner and a member of the working poor of New Haven that is growing. I also work in the property management industry in New Haven. For you to suggest that renters are not effected by the property tax increase, I would have to say you are dead wrong. Do you really think that home owners do not pass some and or all of the increase down to their tenants???
I am also aware of the 5 year projection that the mil rate in this city maybe as high as 74mil. That is one of the reasons I AM SUPPORTING Justin. He has a plan not just words to help true growth of the grand list. And as a property tax payer....that is one of the reasons I am supporting him...I WANT SOMEONE that will do the work to make these things happen... note just write letters and complain!!

Posted by: AnnaF | October 28, 2009 9:09 AM

ANON:
The area of Whitney Avenue where the new school is located was once a church with plenty of attendance and meetings that took place. Not to mention, the red cross is next door, has been for many many years, there is the Presbyterian church across the street, again with great attendance and meetings, there is St Thomas School and church another block from there. By having Hooker School at its new location will not change the integrity of the neighborhood. It will still remain its quaint, quiet neighborhood. My children and most of the children of Hooker are walking students. If they are walking there is no reason for them not to use the Everitt St entrance, which for many parents and students makes more sense. I too as a homeowner am always trying to protect my investments and my children are a part of that. I invest in their future. Which is why I chose Hooker School for them. If you truly want to invest in the integrity of the neighborhood and school we must make sure it never becomes a magnet school. With Justin as aldeman he will try to protect the neighborhood and will do something about the traffic on Whitney Ave. I agree, growing up on Whitney Ave, the traffic has drastically changed and better monitoring and trafficing are a must. With Justin as Alderman that will happen. As a child one of our dearest neighborhood friends was killed in front of the new hooker site by a school bus and this happened when the traffic wasn't nearly as bad (over 30 years ago). Accidents happen everywhere and we must be cautious at all times.

Having been present at the debate Monday evening, I am convinced that Justin will be able to manage most of the issues and concerns people have in regard to safety, policing and traffic issues. Justin is not going anywhere but here Ward 10. He's been everywhere and wants to settle down in East Rock. Let's give him a chance. He's done more for our ward as a resident in his short time here, imagine what he'll be able to accomlish as Alderman. Yes he is going for 2 degrees, more power to him, most of the alders have full time jobs. He's young, energetic and a go getter. GO JUSTIN!!!

Whomever you vote for just go out on November 3 to vote!!!

Posted by: Bruce | October 28, 2009 9:38 AM

Streever: you call it "single-mindedly focus on tearing down his enemies". I call it standing up to a monopoly. Demonizing your opponents is easy to do in the heat of election, but these inflammatory attacks tend to stand in the way of any productive discourse. Also, a lot of the things that Justin has done are great, but they are not necessarily an alderman's job. I do some nice things in my spare time (used to, anyways) but I wouldn't necessarily consider those qualifications for a city legislator.

BTW, I rent property in New Haven and I can assure you that the tax rates translate directly into higher rent for my tenants.

Posted by: anon | October 28, 2009 9:52 AM

"Accidents happen everywhere and we must be cautious at all times" / Please use "Street Smarts"

=

"Let's blame the victim again. Society has nothing to do with those injuries and deaths even though decades of research shows they are mostly preventable."

This is so easy for white, middle age, middle class, healthy people and city officials to say, especially considering that traffic injuries disproportionately impact children, youth, minorities, elderly and disabled residents who are not very well represented in government, if at all.

Let's do away with these catchphrases once and for all and enact policies that make the neighborhood actually safe for people to live in. It's our collective responsibility and if we don't, our social infrastructure will continue to decay.

Posted by: streever | October 28, 2009 10:21 AM

Bruce:

What has Brison gotten done?

He's "stood up" to a monopoly by working with people who are just as bad, simply not in power. Do we honestly think the labor unions/Perez are the champions of transparency?

He should have taken a cue from Lemar and worked to improve his neighborhood.

and I don't consider it an attack: Brison has stated in the past his position on the board is to oppose the Mayor.

If that's how he views the job, then I feel he's failed his own job description, because I have yet to see him have an effect on the administration.

Why hasn't he pushed for environmental initiatives? Where was he when they hammered out the office of sustainability? Where was he when Lemar opposed the raises out of budget

As a check and balance for the mayor, he's accomplished little but straight "no" votes

Bruce, you live in Hamden, so I can only assume your investment in this is out of your green party affiliation. Why not declare that? Brison hasn't lowered your taxes on your rental property.

I'm in this because I want the best for my neighborhood. that's why I support Elicker: I can't afford to be idealistic, because I want the best for my neighborhood, not a political party.

Posted by: latichever | October 28, 2009 10:54 AM

"If you truly want to invest in the integrity of the neighborhood and school we must make sure it never becomes a magnet school."

It's already a magnet, de facto. I believe 40 percent of its students come from out of the district. There are not enough students in-district to fill all the slots. It's a magnet for the persistent who have the time and energy to work the system.

I think it's a good thing that my child at Hooker shares his academic experience with kids from all over New Haven. I don't see his education being diminished by this. I think it's arguable that the fairest way to fill the slots would be by a lottery.

Posted by: V | October 28, 2009 11:48 AM

This issue highlights the need for much better enforcement of the speed limits in New Haven. Much like Jawbone's experience in San Antonio, I've driven in Ocean City, NJ, where everyone goes the speed limit. If you drive 28 you get a ticket. That kind of blanket enforcement makes HUGE difference in driving behavior. If our government would do that here all of our property values would rise.

Posted by: Bruce | October 28, 2009 12:12 PM

Streever, I now live in North Haven and I have not been involved with the Green Party for many, many years. But I have known Alan for a long time and I think it is completely out of character for you and others to portray him as part of some evil, obstructionist coalition.

I can't speak for everything in Alan's record, but according to the NHI, he supported Lemar and Perez's resolution to "postpone" the raises as well as Lee's ammendment to "eliminate" them.

Posted by: streever | October 28, 2009 12:17 PM

Bruce:

if you support Alan out of personal reasons, that's fine, but those of us who live in Ward 10 need to support the candidate who supports us.

"evil obstructionist" is not my phrasing: it's yours--Alan's campaign lit proudly proclaimed his role was to oppose the Mayor.

Look I'm not saying anything he himself didn't say! He also said that at the first debate.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for a resident of the neighborhood to question if he's done a good job on the things he claims to do. I also think it's fair to point out that he's had very little "green" work done as a "green" legislator.

I certainly have never called him evil nor meant to imply that: but he claims he is an obstructionist & his actions seem to back it up. They just rarely get anything constructive done. Straight no votes that don't succeed are hardly an example of standing up to the Mayor.

Posted by: Tom | October 28, 2009 12:20 PM

Anon,

Your comment about traffic safety seems pretty insulting. I'd like to think that people of all ethnicity, genders, and backgrounds can act safely and responsibly when it comes to using the road,whether it be in a car, on a bike, or as a pedestrian. In fact most New Haven residents of all backgrounds already conduct themselves this way on the road. It's few that don't that cause the problems.

There's nothing wrong with promoting personal responsibility and mutual respect among roadway users as a means of reducing crashes. This isn't a catchphrase and it certainly doesn't belong exclusively to middle class, middle-aged white people. Frankly, I find your comment to be somewhat elitist, as if poorer residents are incapable of using the road safely without massive micro-management by the government.

Yes, our roads need major overall in terms of accommodating all users, but no amount of design can fully replace the need for personal responsibility and mutual respect among drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | October 28, 2009 12:30 PM

Anon - (ah, the courage to state strong convictions under a phony name)

Your posting is full of false assumptions. Let's start with your first sentence, concerning "an unwanted school." If you went to any of the many public meetings, you would know that the breakdown was highly correlated to private school parents being opposed and public school parents being in favor of the site. The opponents were a highly vocal, well-funded minority. Second, on your notion of the school adversely affecting property values, why is it that every real estate ad in the district prominently displays "Hooker School District" as a drawing card? Why is it that the real estate prices in the Hooler district have increased at a faster rate than the rest of the city? The absolute, undeniable empiracally provable fact is that the Hooker School has increased property values in the neighborhood. Is this a good thing? No, not in the sense that we should work toward every schoool having the same impact, but to claim that the school has decreased property values is ridiculous. At a public hearing, one opponent testified that he could not give away his Everit Street home, then sold it for over $1 million AFTER the school site was approved. Here's a question - what has Allan Brison done to improve public schools? What has he accomplished in his two years on the board?

Posted by: It takes a village | October 28, 2009 12:55 PM

Most New Haven public schools have one main entrance that is left open at school entrance and dismissal times with a school staff member and/or security guard attending it. They also often have an alternate entrance/exit available at the bus platform, also staffed during these times. The reason for this is for student safety. Visitors and parents are to sign in and out at the main office after being buzzed in, or entering the main entrance past a security guard. This is again not to discourage participation by parents, but to keep our students safe. If leaving the gate open at the new Hooker school does not compromise student safety, then it should not be a problem.If however it provides access to playgrounds or other secure entrances, it should remain closed.

Posted by: Orange & Canner | October 28, 2009 3:58 PM

Let's try to stay positive. These are complicated issues and
everybody's trying to do their best--reasonable people can disagree.

I thank Allan Brison for his time as alderman--it's a hard job, and it
seems clear to me that he cares about this neighborhood. I'm an
independent voter (somewhere on the left edge of the Greens but I have
voted for Republicans in my hometown) and am always glad to see
diversity of political party.

That said, I am supporting Justin Elicker in this election. Not
because he's the Democratic candidate, but because his personal
strengths make him the best candidate. Justin is a good politician
in the very best sense of the word: he is excellent at listening,
bringing people together, and creating consensus. He gets things done
and always has good humor and energy to spare.

Since he moved to East Rock, he has been right in the middle of all
kinds of issues, acting as an advocate for area residents on traffic
and crime, and motivating people to take action themselves on
improving East Rock Park and other projects. He takes initiative.
Perhaps my favorite moment of Monday's debate was when an audience
member asked both candidates what they've done to improve street
safety and reduce traffic problems in Ward 10. Justin started out,
"Now, keep in mind--I'm not currently your alderman," and then went on
to ennumerate the things he has already gotten done anyway.

Justin Elicker has a real vision for the city of New Haven as well,
including focusing scarce resources on education and safety, improving
the tax base, encouraging municipal employees to live in town, and
starting a Green Jobs program to create good jobs and retrofit many
homes for energy efficiency, which saves money and is good for the
environment. These are ambitious objectives, but realistic ones.
That's the kind of alderman I want.

Posted by: Tanner | October 28, 2009 5:42 PM

Speaking of Traffic. It seems that over the past months at least once a week a car accident has occured along Orange St. I dont think its the speeds its the lack of sight lines comming out of the side streets. Does any one know what the proper procedures are for a blinking yellow light.

Posted by: anon | October 28, 2009 6:17 PM

Tom - again, that is an easy claim to make if you aren't among the group that is disproportionately affected by such injuries or lack of access (review the SRTS data). It is always easiest to pass the blame off to the victims or the "few" who cause the problem.

However, I think there is little evidence available to prove your point. For example, the vast majority of drivers -- not just a "few" -- speed regularly, and many if not most also text message and talk on the phone while driving. There is little evidence to show that "personal responsibility" leads to an increase in the number of people who feel comfortable walking or biking to their friends' houses in the middle of the night. Many "personal responsibility" campaigns have been conducted, and people talk about it ad nauseum for the reasons I alluded to above (after all, it's "easier" than actually doing something), but little impact has been shown.

On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence collected over decades of research showing that reduced speeding within dense pedestrian environments (particularly those with high concentrations of disabled, elderly, children and disadvantaged residents who are disproportionately likely to become victims), complete streets and sensibly-designed roads can eliminate injuries and encourage greater access by users of all ages and abilities.

The point is only that we shouldn't try to pass off the responsibility of injuries to the victim, or to the "bad" drivers -- or to think of this as a problem that can be addressed within our education system -- instead, we should all share collective responsibility and blame for what is indisputably a systemic problem caused by regressive social policy and an inequitable distribution of social goods.

Posted by: streever | October 28, 2009 6:54 PM

Tanner:
sadly, that is a speeds issue I think--
it's a combination of design speed (the sight line) being low & the illusion of safety that the street suggests, making drivers feel like they can drive quicker then is actually safe.

I think the fix is far more complex than traffic signals--it involves cultural changes and neighborhood changes.

Posted by: Katie Rohner | October 28, 2009 7:32 PM

Allan Brison lives on Everit Street, opposes the gate being opened during drop off and pick up on school days, but purports to represent the interests of the entire Ward 10 constituency -- can we say "conflict of interest." That is reason enough to distrust him and vote for Justin. Here's another -- Justin is smart, engaging, creative, and totally committed. And by the way, he only has to commit to the next two years, like any elected alderman, not the next ten or twenty. Hopefully, that is exactly the length of time Mr. Brison will have served his community of Everit Street sore-losers.

Posted by: AnnaF | October 28, 2009 9:00 PM

latichever
Hooker is not a magnet school. Out of distract students do not characterize it as a magnet school. A magnet school is when children get bused in from other towns, ie the suburbs and those towns pay a stipend for those kids. The out of distract children that attend Hooker are ones that either need english language lessons or those that are friends with Mayo. Or those who use their grandparents address. What we want to avoid with it becoming a magnet is the buses being used to bus these kids in and thus creating possible traffic issues. It would be nice to maintain the integrity of this school by keeping it a neighborhood school. If there are not enough children in district to attend than the BOA need to extend the district to the surrounding current district.

Vote Nov 3 and vote for Justin Ward 10 Alderman!!!

Posted by: katie Rohner | October 28, 2009 10:50 PM

Why do you people have to lie. Kids from out of district are accepted into Hooker after submitting a request for transfer (as we did when our oldest daughter was ready for kindergarten, and as many of our friends did as well -- none of whom needed English language lessons, were friends with Mayo, or had grandparents living in or near New Haven) If, after applying, there is room, they may attend the school. Certainly, there may be a few who get in by less honorable means, but that is the exception not the norm.

Posted by: anon | October 29, 2009 12:21 AM

Hey BobSolomon,

First of all, I am posting not under a phony name, but anonymously because first of all I choose to do so, and because of awareness that views that are not perceived as politically correct such as by people as yourself leads only to personal attacks as you have demonstrated by attacking my comments as elitist and false.
So in answer to your response, my statement that the school was unwanted is supported by your comments about the many and vocal opposition. I do not know about the breakdown correlated to private versus public schools or where you derive this data. Please post this data since I think we all would find it helpful in reinforcing stereotypes further.

Yes, to a large number of us, the school's location was and is unwanted. What is wrong with us being highly vocal by the way? This is a democracy, right, and we all get a voice, right? Or do you have something against free speech too? As to your assertion of "well funded", please post the information what money went into opposition of Hooker School placement.

Absolute, undeniable, and "empiriacally" (sic)?
Really? Good try. The housing values in the neighborhood will be found to have their own rate of increase over many years independent of Hooker. What I stated was the concern that with the erosion of the residential quality of the neighborhood, by adding more and more institutional buildings, that property values may well be hurt and that is a valid concern for residents. Especially given the disastrous track record of New Haven's schools.

And to ANNAF, the former building at the Hooker site there never had anything going on at any time I had ever seen over 15 years of living here. Maybe on Sunday morning (do Christian Scientists go to church on Sundays?) but not in the weekday morning rush hour as will be the case with Hooker School, right? And afternoons right? Ditto for the Presby church across the street.

I do not think for a minute that having Hooker there will do anything but make Whitney Avenue a huge and more dangerous nightmare, create traffic overflow onto Everit and absolutely change the traffic on Everit, probably by anyhere from 10 times the number of cars on that street or greater. Will that study ever be done? Ha!

ANd finally to Tom, my comment about traffic safety has nothing to do with ethnicity, gender or background since I experience on a daily basis in a car and on a bike what complete unsafe, hostile, moronic, aggressive and inconsiderate drivers of all races and genders can be--albeit each in their own precious ways. The point is that you have THE main artery--Whitney Avenue-- into and out of New Haven as a school drop off area. Hello?!?!?
I have never seen this anywhere but know it is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by: streever | October 29, 2009 8:46 AM

Anon:

your numbers on accident statistics are entirely in your own head.

The single biggest factor in if a cyclist will be hit by a car is their level of competence. This is held up by LAB & every serious study to date.

You ride horribly--directly into traffic on Whitney for example while leading a group through a red light--and this is why your perception of safety is so poor. You simply don't know what you're doing. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I've ridden with you. You slam your brakes while in front of a group of 40 (that time coming back in from West Haven) because you "Wanted to see the beach". Thankfully I am a competent cyclist and was able to avoid the collision with you. You don't call turns, you don't look when you go into the road, and in short, it is truly awful to ride with you, and this is coming from someone who has logged thousands of miles in a pace line.

... This isn't an article about safe streets, so why not just this once gracefully bow out?

Posted by: jawbone | October 29, 2009 9:16 AM

Tanner and Streever,
As a begining on Orange Street, I believe that the blinking lights need to change to actual red, green, yellow stop lights. Also, the police need to be pressed to ticket and have towed any vehicles that ignore the signage and park too close to the corners.
In my immeadiate neighborhood, the corner of Anderson and Willow (in front of Archie Moore's) is a nightmare because you can't see down Willow in either direction because the chicken wing eaters park too close to the corner.
After that, vehicular speeds and reckless bike riders need to be reined in.

Posted by: Maureen | October 29, 2009 9:59 AM

Why should Everit Street be different than any other street in New Haven? Therein lies the rub. The gate should remain open.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 29, 2009 10:15 AM

ok people ok ..."lets keep our eye on the ball!"

Just is not a puppet of any group! He is a true independent Democrat. Owns nothing to the city, nothing to the unions...all he will owe is the Ward!!

So lets rock the vote...VOTE FOR JUSTIN!!!!

Posted by: Bob Solomon | October 29, 2009 10:31 AM

Anon -

Well, you got me on my spelling. Good one. Your need to bring that out does, however, show more about you than you might wish, So - I don't care how loud and obnoxious the Hooker opponents were. The phony posters, talking at public hearings well beyond their three minutes, claiming to be design experts because of a course in art history, signing up in a group of 50 to prevent others from speaking - many of us thought it was pretty funny, especially since it alienated those you were trying to convince, i.e. everyone other than yourselves. What I object to is the self-characterization by so many of you as a majority, as opposed to a vacal minority. So, "you" didn't want the school, but characterizing the school as "unwanted" implies something broader.
Property values - I'm talking increased value over many years, tied directly to the Hooker district. You are talking your own projections drawn from where? Your vast - but still anonymous knowledge? Are you also an expert in architecture?
As for well-funded, the opposition retained Bernie Pellegrino, an excellent lawyer, for several City Plan and zoning hearings, litigation in the Superior Court, and the appeal to the Supreme Court. If you tell me that Bernie did this pro bono, I will apologize. I doubt it, especially since at the time, someone delivered a flyer to or home seeking funds for the litigation. Maybe that was a joke. If so, thanks, because I did enjoy it. As for attacking your post for being elitist and inaccurate, I did that because I believe it was elitist and inaccurate. And, yes, I believe that hiding behind an anonymous name says something as well.

Posted by: streever | October 29, 2009 11:04 AM

Jawbone,

Definitely true. Elicker has promised to ask the city to do bump-outs at spots where cars can not park, which would eliminate the problem without increasing ticketing. That specific corner is one that we looked at in fact.

I hope he has your support in November--we can actually change these things with an effective leader on the BOA.

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | October 29, 2009 11:21 AM

BOB SOLOMON,

Not everyone enjoys the protection of a permanent lifetime appointment in their job regardless of what they say. I don't mean to be derogatory in any way, but the freedom of expression for a Yale law professor is exceptional - and is rightfully and strongly protected by your employer and society in general.

I don't know this to be true, but what if ANON works in the mayor's office, the school system, or the State DOT? He or she does not enjoy the protection of tenure status and would absolutely be susceptible to painful personal consequences by attacking the status quo.

I'm just making a fine point about why anonymous posting may actually serve a useful public purpose other than allowing the individual to hide behind a shrouded keyboard.

Posted by: YIMBY | October 29, 2009 11:30 AM

"If leaving the gate open at the new Hooker school does not compromise student safety, then it should not be a problem. If however it provides access to playgrounds or other secure entrances, it should remain closed."

Bummer. Aren't neighborhood kids allowed to use public school playgrounds after hours? It's the norm everywhere else. There goes childhood.

And a note to Anon: you're really advocating making children walk the long way around to the front gate in a New Haven winter?

Also, re your worry about traffic on Whitney: Based on five years of observation I can tell you that, strangely, the *only* time traffic actually does the speed limit (or below) on Eld St is during the morning and afternoon period when the street is momentarily busy with buses and parents dropping off children. It's a well-known traffic-calming effect.

So, paradoxical as it may seem, I think you'll find that one or two yellow buses and several parental cars on Whitney will have a similar traffic-calming effect on Whitney, at least during that morning and afternoon window. Maybe what we need is MORE schools near busy arteries, not fewer?!

Posted by: anon | October 29, 2009 11:52 AM

I agree, Fix the Schools. It might even be helpful if everyone posted anonymously: then the discussion could focus even more on ideas, and leave out the personal attacks against various candidates, people whose comments don't matter because they live in Hamden, campaign hacks, bike tour leaders, commissioners, etc.

In terms of "filtering" the comments, a simple system could be used where people could vote on which comments they agreed with our found most helpful, similar to Amazon.com.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | October 29, 2009 12:58 PM

Fix The Schools -

I agree that some people have good cause to post anonymously, but I believe that most don't. In your case, for example, there may be certain positions that you hold that should be disclosed, but are not. When you complain about the inefficiency of the school system, as you have many times, are you comparing it to private enterprise? The the banking system? Isn't that am important consideration for those who want to have a real dialogue? But you have your reasons, and I understand that you are a bit sensitive about the implied criticism.
Yes, I have a privileged position. Still, the fact that you can address me by name means something. It also means that when I am told in a post, as I was not too long ago, that I should leave town, it's by name, and a little more threatening.
This site allows anonymity. If you read sites that require names to be posted, you will find that the discussion is more civil, but with fewer comments. Paul Bass understands this better than any of us and has made a decision in favor of encouraging as many comments as possible. That's his right and, as a result, every person who comments has the right to remain anonymous. That doesn't make it morally right or brave. ANON stated that s/he has chosen to remain anonymous to avoid being critcized by people like me. Since I am routinely criticized by people like ANON, I will retain my right to consider ANON's anonymity to be a choice not of conscience or necessity, but out of a desire to take free shots at others while hiding behind a wall.

Posted by: Christine Bartlett-Josie | October 29, 2009 3:25 PM

Hello All,

As the former PTA President of W Hooker School and a current parent and a parent of an alum, I need to get in on this debate. This process of a new school has taken years. My daughter who is a college freshman was in 2nd grade when the process of a new Hooker School began. To the new parents and to Mr. Elicker the gate needs to stay closed and be used in emergancies only. In the original plans there was no access on Everit, The gate is a Fire Department requirement. To the Hooker parents, please stop, those of us who have been in this for the last ten years are happy that we have a new school. For years I have seen parents not respect the neighbors on Canner and Livingston Street, double and triple parking. Many of the home owners on Everit supported the school, those with kids at Hooker and those whose kids had long graduated. Yes there were those who sued the city and delayed the building of the school, but what about those who supported the school. Please, if the neighbors want it closed that it should stay closed. Enough, Enough. Why aren't we more concerned about what happens in the building? EDUCATION!!!!!!

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | October 29, 2009 3:33 PM

Bob S., To anon's point, the nice thing about anonymous posts is that they MUST be taken at face value, purely on the merits of their logic.

While anonymous posters do not have the burden of having to explain potential conflicts or self-interests, neither do they have the benefit of being able to utilize their personal reputation or experience as assets in defending their arguments. If an anonymous poster says "Believe me, because of my background I happen to know the real story!" The response is "No, of course we don't believe you. As an anonymous poster, you need to base your case on verfiable facts. Your claim of knowledge is not enough" And this is as it should be.

But given that lots of government folks seem to tune in regularly to these pages, this medium, with all of its anonymity has still had an influence as to how the government works. This is a good thing.

btw, anyone who thinks that the banking system is example of efficient private enterprise ought to have their head examined! :-)

Posted by: Bob Solomon | October 29, 2009 5:37 PM

Fix The Schools - well, at least we can agree on the banking system.

I totally disagree on the notion of taking anonymous posts at face value. Some people have said in the past that they have NO value, because they have no credibility. I don't agree with that, but I think it is a lot easier to post junk when you have no accountability. The NHI is practically a scholarly jurnal compared to the Register, where blatant rascism is a daily occurrence, but there's plenty of stuff in the NHI that people would not dare to say if there were any accountablity. And to come back to my last post, do you think for a second that the "person" who wrote that Karen DuBois Walton and I "should leave town and not stop to pack our things" (something like that) would say that under his real name? I do think that you push a particular party line that is predetermined by other associations, but you would rather that readers look at each comment as coming from an objective source. I like your comments, I think they are thoughtful and intelligent, but I also believe they always support a particular organization's goals. I do not believe that helps healthy debate, because I think well-stated propoganda is still propoganda. (And, as it happens, I agree with you on almost every issue.)

Posted by: katie rohner | October 29, 2009 7:01 PM

Christine:

I understand you want to stick up for your friends on Everit Street, but where did this small group of people aqcuire the legal (or moral) right to dictate who is allowed to traverse a public street during certain hours or to restrict a particular group from utilizing a convenient gate to access their public school, thereby denying this group (of children) a shorter, perhaps safer, and more pleasant means of getting to school. That kind of narrow self-interest is, by definition, elitism. We new and old Hooker parents will make sure that all's well inside the building as long as our children make it there in the best way possible. If people are inconsiderate about parking or what not, that is unfortunate and surely will be addressed -- happens here in Berkeley too -- that's life, deal with it folks.

Posted by: AnnaF | October 29, 2009 7:58 PM

Everitt St. residents are not the only residents affected with the schools location. How about the residents on Whitney Avenue directly opposite the school? The side streets such as Huntington St. that will be affected probably more so than Everitt St.? Give it a break people. These are our children who have nothing to do with the politics of any of this. Let's give them a break and allow them to attend school in a manner that is safe, consistent and fun. The gate on Everitt St. should be one that allows parents to enter and exit by foot without anyone raising issues.

Christine the Hooker parents are not the only ones that have been in on this for the past 10 years, so have the residents of that entire area. Including Whitney Ave, Huntington St., East Rock Rd., and so on. The focus is always about Everitt St. but we forget about everyone else being affected by this. A tree was cut down at the corner of Whitney and Huntington to make room for the traffic light that now blinks in Whitney Ave. residents homes, with the traffic light posts in front of their homes not to mention the big green control box in front a residents home. Why wasn't that control box discussed with those residents? Seems to me the Everitt St folks have it pretty easy with just a gate. Let's move on people.

Don't forget to vote November 3!!!

Posted by: robn | October 29, 2009 8:43 PM

CHRISTINE BARTLETT-JOSIE,

Sorry Sister...Education is important but kids and all sorts of other people walk by my house everyday and thats their right. MAUREEN put it best... "Why should Everit Street be different than any other street in New Haven? Therein lies the rub. The gate should remain open."

Posted by: streever | October 29, 2009 8:49 PM

Anon:
it's great to say that, but I've been personally attacked by you. Are you asking for total anonymity as a counter-measure to prevent you from attacking individuals?

You & Norton Street will still attack citizens featured in articles--although you never take it as far as Norton Street who implores neighbors to hit children with a baseball bat over a beat up old mountain bike--but you'll get his back.

Your desire for anonymity is lame. You aren't doing it so you can speak freely out of fear of personal retribution, but because you're passive aggressive and unable to speak so openly to someone's face.

The only way anonymity could work as you seem to hope is if the subjects of the stories were also anonymous. Otherwise, there is no way to prevent you from making unfounded personal attacks on them in your never-ending pursuit to sell walking & biking as fraught with peril and sure to end in death unless we all agree 100% with your latest brilliant idea.

Posted by: Steve | October 30, 2009 3:35 AM

Getting this back to who is the more effective candidate, more energetic, attentive to residents, responsive and far more qualified candidate (since the election is Nov. 3) Justin Elicker wins on all counts and he should be voted for on your ballots. I echo what Canner & Orange wrote above and repeat it here: "I am supporting Justin Elicker in this election. Not
because he's the Democratic candidate, but because his personal strengths make him the best candidate. Justin is a good politician
in the very best sense of the word: he is excellent at listening,
bringing people together, and creating consensus. He gets things done
and always has good humor and energy to spare."

I would add that he also is the most effective and helpful person I have dealt with in more than 30 years living in the same home in Ward 10 to achieve results in dealing with City Hall, cutting through bureaucracy, and getting practical, tangible benefits for ward residents. I have seen him more in the neighborhood, talked to him more and heard from him more in the past year, than I heard from Alan Brison, Ed Mattison, Dick Lyons, and all other prior Ward 10 alderpersons put together in 30+ years. He has also communicated effectively for me as a taxpayer and made me recognize that if you care about the neighborhood, and care about the residents of the neighborhood, one person can and will make a difference for our neighborhood in the future. As for the above debate, Justin Elicker's listening skills, ability to mediate and bring people together, intellect and knack at getting things accomplished civilly and courteously will help resolve these issues in a manner that is best for the entire neighborhood and Hooker Community.
Please vote for Justin Elicker !

Posted by: Confused... | October 30, 2009 9:16 AM

Why are people so NASTY to one another? I've never seen such a polarized neighborhood. Glad I'm moving away. You-all can have it.

Posted by: Tom | October 30, 2009 10:08 AM

Anon,

Streever is right. You do have a history of attacking those who disagree with you.

Posting anonymously to focus on ideas and engender a productive debate is one thing, using a phony name so that you can take shots at people in the news without giving them a chance to respond to you openly is destructive and just starts flame wars.

Posted by: jawbone | October 30, 2009 1:57 PM

confused...
the answer to your question, in my opinion, is because the internet allows people to be much nastier to each other than they might otherwise be in person. A major drawback to cyberspace.

Posted by: Mark | October 30, 2009 2:36 PM

I don't know if I'm deftly changing the subject or opening a new can of worms, but I'm curious about the reference to "getting Burn Street narrowed to reduce speed." I assume it's supposed to be Burns Street -- is there a problem there with speeders? Do people turn off of Whitney there to avoid Whitney traffic on the way into New Haven?

Posted by: anon | October 30, 2009 2:47 PM

Tom/Streever may be confused due to several anonymous people posting on the site. If you just read this thread, they are the only person(s) making a personal attack - intended irony? I didn't see Norton Street making a personal attack, yet one of them is ranting nonstop about him/her supporting baseball bats. Pot calling kettle black a recurring theme.

Posted by: Ned | October 30, 2009 3:09 PM

"The more one is hated, I find, the happier one is."
Louis-Ferdinand Céline; oh wait, that wasn't his real name!

Anyway, speaking as the self appointed curmudgeon of East Rock Park, I'm giving Mr. Elicker my endorsement and my vote. Justin's ability to motivate people to get things done is a great personal asset which will benefit the citizens of Ward 10 and the rest of New Haven too.

Also, I am also encouraging any Local 34 members/residents (of which I'm one), of the ward, to support Justin's candidacy. Democracy is from the ground up, not from the top down.

Posted by: Norton Street | October 30, 2009 4:47 PM

Streever,
...
Here is the article with my comment that you were inaccurately referring to:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/08/eyewitness_repo.php

Here is my quote:
"Just yell out your window 'Hey you kids, stop that or I'm callin' the cops!' Or grab a bat and walk outside and stare at them; there, problem solved. These are just some punk kids, stand up to them."

And later I clarified this is another post:
"If the kids approached me I would #1 definitely not fight them, theyre kids and #2 would go back inside or run out onto the sidewalk."

I've already set this issue straight with you, so stop reaching up you butt for crap 'cause that's all you're gunna get.

The responsibilty of drivers and cyclists (and all other transpoartion like walking, bus riding whatever) should be proportional to their propensity and possibility of harm. The street ain't merely for the circulation of stuff and life isn't about getting from point A to point B fastest. The street is a place, not a line on a map.

Can anyone supply a link to some images of what the new Hooker school is going to look like, because surely that prison isn't nearly complete.

Posted by: streever | October 30, 2009 9:43 PM

Norton,

you take a weapon up[ on someone, stuff happens

don't pull a weapon unless you are prepared to use it
that is my advice to you

Posted by: streever | October 30, 2009 9:44 PM

anon,
am I personally attacking you?
or calling you out on nonsense?

you take over a story by ranting about traffic safety

knock it off

Posted by: Chris Gray | October 31, 2009 3:19 AM

Well, the article did focus too narrowly on that one issue (about which I have no position) but the comments continued what had been a truncated education on both Ward 10 issues and the candidates. (I have absented myself from these pages for quite a time.)

I haven't been a Green for even longer than Bruce, I would guess. I really don't know who the Party was which gave us that moderately effective, careerist carpetbagger Hall from the '90s but, from what I've read over the last few years, about the only thing the Greens have done for New Haven since then is represented by the professional rather than the political life of Co-chair Charlie. Joyce was sure a peach!

During my humiliating run for Mayor, I will admit that my slogan was , "Throw a wrench in the works," but I only meant 'on election day by forcing the poll monitors to have to count official write-in votes', which they didn't really bother to do anyway. I, and other Greens, had worked both independently and in concert, worked with members of other parties to actually do things that had positive impacts on our community lives. None of us, yet, were adept at taking on Ward level issues, as well, as Elicker obviously has.

Now, I did recently get cable tv for the very first time (despite helping found and produce for public access) and caught the tail end of the recent Mayoral debate. DeStefano was the only one, in that short segment, who make a professional presentation, something I started valuing much more highly after Hurricane Katrina. I still can't vote for him, even after registering as a Democrat in honor of Ted Kennedy's legacy.

I'd write Elicker in except that I committed to whomever asked me to join the "Wewant Change" write-in campaign. It might have been anonymous and ineffective but it was well-meaning.

Posted by: streever | October 31, 2009 8:52 AM

http://www.walkingschoolbus.org/

Maybe we should get this out and about--

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=161196038014&v=wall

Looks like some New Haveners are trying to do one here.

Posted by: Christine Japely | October 31, 2009 8:57 AM

Elicker did an excellent job getting those pedestrian crossing cones put up on Orange ----- it's hard NOT to vote for such an effective and pragmatic person. It was difficult to walk across Orange to get to Romeo's or the drug store before those cones. Now it's wonderful for pedestrians. And yes, of course-- students should be able to access the new school from multiple directions. We need to pressure the city to do something to slow down traffic on Whitney. (Speed bumps?) The record suggests that Elicker has more ability to get things done than the other fellow. I'm voting for Elicker.
If the Green candidate is so very Green, maybe he could start a movement in East Rock banning toxic lawn chemicals .....

Posted by: A Green | October 31, 2009 9:13 AM

The conversation has wandered far afield from the small issue of whether the rear gate will be used to drop off arriving students.

The City showed a gate in the original plans, but residents were assured it would not be used for pickups and drop offs because of traffic concerns.

Now City representatives deny making such statements, even while confirming the potential traffic impact.

Does anyone think it's important for the City to deal with its residents in good faith?

This raises the suspicion that the point of the back gate was always to use it for drop offs and pick ups, but someone didn't want to admit it.

If the school wants to be a good neighbor, it has to act like one.

Posted by: EastRockette | October 31, 2009 10:54 AM

Having been to the debate I'm surprised at the focus of this article. The discussion about the pedestrian entrance on Everit Street was very short (5 min of an hour debate) and the position of Justin was far more nuanced than presented. That said this issue is definately important to a ton of people (is this a record for comments or something?). I think after Tues we will see some real leadership from Justin in mediating the conflict that seems to exist.

Posted by: katie rohner | October 31, 2009 8:01 PM

It is my (and many others) understanding that the City may have agreed originally to keep the gate closed IF the opponents of the new school site would agree to end the litigation (a proposal to which the opponents may, in fact, have agreed.) However, they then decided to continue the litigation afterall (was that in good faith?) We are all well aware of the delay and cost of that decision, and, more importantly, this meant all previous offers were off the table -- as is the common practice in any type of good faith negotiation.

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 1, 2009 4:56 AM

A Green, at least several posters rightly criticized the article for its limited focus and went on to take on the core issues (independent leadership and constituent services) in this campaign and their implications, city-wide, in yet another failed Green incumbency. As is typical, when the wider debate goes against a party, they criticize participants for not limiting the terms of the debate to the miniscule issue with which they are (unjustifiably) comfortable.

Don't kill the messengers, but the Greens lost.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 1, 2009 8:43 AM

Anon,
I agree with David Knock it off. If you truely want traffic calming in Ward 10 and across the city you should be supporting Justin WHO YOU KNOW has been a fighter and a DO-ER for it! Not unlike the whitney Ave. Freeway, Cedar Hill has the State Street freeway that needs to be addressed. We know that justin will be the only candidate that can make things happen on the traffic calming issues.

The gate, yes" a green", "Ed Madison" MAY have stated that the gate would not be used as a drop off area. But that was the only person I heard the everit street crowd say that promised that. What other "City Reps" promised you that?? Allan?? If so you need to call him to task on that issue!

I would like to address some canvassing issues I have coming across. When going door to door I have been told by people that they came home and found Allan lawn signs in there yards they did not give anyone permission to put them there. I have a lawn sign on city property, again did the city give you permission to put them there?? And people the CEDAR HILL BLOCK WATCH NEVER took a vote to endorse ALLAN!!!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 1, 2009 10:47 AM

ohh and one more thing...
In the last article I asked
Still waiting on the questions…. Did the union take a vote on this??? How many residents in the area are in the union and did they get a say??? meaning there support of Allan.

The only respones I got was from "a green"
As for Cedarhillresident, if you want to ask questions about the union, contact the union people. Allan got their endorsement; Justin didn't. End of story.

I would like to thank the union member above for giving me the answer to that question.
Also, I am also encouraging any Local 34 members/residents (of which I'm one), of the ward, to support Justin's candidacy. Democracy is from the ground up, not from the top down.

Which pretty much says NO they did not vote or have a choice! What a shame!! And what a lose for that union! Because I know many of the leaders no Justin and who and what he is about! SHAME ON ALL OF YOU FOR BEING DICTATORS!

Posted by: Marshall | November 1, 2009 11:49 AM

I was at this debate, and what I found particularly revealing was the divergent responses to the seemingly simple question: “What will you do to reach out to your constituents?”

Elicker talked in detail about his *two* newsletters—“Friends of East Rock Park” and “Northern East Rock News,” his weekly “office hours at Lulus every Tuesday morning, and his plans to continue going door-to-door after the campaign in order to stay in touch.

Brison at first avoided answering the question entirely, preferring to return to an earlier question about the Democratic vs. Green party distinction. When pressed, he said that people had his phone number, and that he was home a lot, and generally thought he was pretty accessible. The questioned reminded Brison that the question was not how do people reach you?, but how do you reach people? Yet Brison still didn’t list any major ways he does outreach.

Part of being an effective alderman is being actively in touch with your constituents, not just “being available.” That’s what is needed if an alderman actually wants to accomplish meaningful changes for the neighborhood—rather than just using the platform to criticize the Mayor. Brison fundamentally does not understand this. Elicker does! Vote Elicker.

Posted by: Christine Japely | November 1, 2009 12:00 PM

Whitney Ave in East Rock is crazy. Drivers are pressured by other drivers to go 35MPH ------- I know; I'm driving on that road all the time. When i go 25 (which is the legal limit there), drivers behind me tail-gate and even honk --- and generally act like I'm insane for driving the speed limit!
What has Brison done about this during his tenure as alderman and/or what's happening with slowing down Whitney at the moment?
Not only do I drive it, I also walk it with my dog and I ride on it on my bike ------ so I know it well, and it's just not monitored as far as the cars driving too fast. Why not? I've just been in East Rock for 15 months, and so I don't know the history.

Posted by: jawbone | November 1, 2009 2:57 PM

Marshall,
Justin should just join Roland at MENU on State Street during his office hours and tack his name onto Roland's email newsletter. They have the same exact content slightly different graphics. Justin's email comes out about a day later. About the amount of time it takes to change the headers and the graphics.
If I was Roland, I'd be thinking 'whose this kid named Murray the K whose shadowing me. He's copping my moves.'
I'm not disagreeing with you, though. You have a point about Brison. Alotta aloof... Maybe it is a generational thing? Brison is old enough to be Elicker's father.
-Jawbone

Posted by: Sam | November 1, 2009 3:39 PM

I first met Justin Elicker the spring before last when my family started working with ferp. I wish thati was old enough to vote for Justin because I can see all the great results that he has helped us to accomplish over the years. Justin not only gets a lot of things done but he makes work fun! Even in a deluge when we planted daffodils in the shape of a big smiley face in East Rock Park. (: ))

Posted by: anon | November 1, 2009 9:21 PM

Making Whitney Avenue a livable street, that contributes to the neighborhood instead of massively detracting from it (from Humphrey out, it is currently the one street in East Rock where I would purposefully avoid looking for a place to live) should be a piece of cake.

Just use the recommended design guidelines for roadways in cities: 1) design it for a lower travel speed, not the current 40 MPH (easy), 2) leave at least a couple feet of refuge space in the center (already done in most cities outside of New Haven), and 3) pick the low-hanging fruit, like installing some of the crosswalks that are still missing.

The city owns and has full control over the road, so it's just a matter of convincing the right people.

I have witnessed several people nearly killed on Whitney Avenue, and a potential Nobel Laureate was killed a few years ago on the Hamden section ... so I hope this happens soon. Elicker and Lemar both seem to have a plan to do this and even a few people already signed up to help.

Posted by: Edward Mattison | November 1, 2009 9:42 PM

When Allan Brison defeated me 2 years ago to become the Alderman of the 10th Ward, I was sad, but I thought there was a reasonable possibility that he would become the "independent voice" that he promised to be. There are certainly a lot of Green issues in this town that could use a strong spokesman. What has disappointed me about Allan is how passive he has turned out to be as an Alderman. I have a number of opportunities to observe Allan at aldermanic committee meetings and at Board of Alderman meetings. I have never heard him speak at all and he seems to have no relationships with the other Alders. I have talked about this with several alders of different views and they have all expressed surprise at how disengaged he seems to be.

When I was elected Alderman, I thought it was a great opportunity to advocate for the things I thought would benefit the ward and the city, like aid to the homeless and a new school in the East Rock area. Sometimes others persuaded me to modify my views, and sometimes I persuaded them—but I always participated in decision-making. If Allan has strong opinions, he has not expressed them or put them into action.

Justin, on the other hand, has been incredibly active in working for the things that matter to him. Everyone can see what he has done for East Rock Park and making our neighborhood a better place to live. I have no doubt as Alderman, he will continue to be an East Rock leader and will gradually become a citywide leader on a great many issues. I support him wholeheartedly and I deeply believe his election on Tuesday will be a great step forward for our neighborhood and our city.

Edward Mattison

Posted by: diana | November 2, 2009 5:58 PM

sour grapes, ed.

Posted by: katie rohner | November 3, 2009 3:24 PM

Very unfair Diana. Ed disclosed his identity, as opposed to some on this site, and acknowledged his defeat to Brison. He has valuable and first-hand knowledge of Brison's demeanor during aldermanic meetings and his insights are reasonable, fair, and deserve to be heard. Besides,they correspond with nearly everyone else's observations of Mr. Brison regarding his actions (or inactions) of the last two years, so I don't see anything bitter about his comments.

Posted by: janyce m | November 3, 2009 9:58 PM

Fascinating that Mr. Knisley has concerns about traffic with Worthington Hooker's drop offs. I know, Jonathan, that your children do not currently attend Worthington Hooker, and if they have in the past, I am unaware (and willing to publicly say mea culpa). If, for example, your children attend the Foote School, which, by that community's own admission, has an extremely chaotic traffic situation, you are exhibiting brazen hypocrisy. I've witnessed the chaos of Loomis Place on the several occasions I've driven to Foote to pick up a friend's children. Triple parked cars? check. Cars blocking drives? Check. Folks driving against traffic (reportedly, traffic is supposed to be one-way at drop off/pickup)? Check.

If they attend St. Thomas School on Whitney, then the issue remains the same. Cliff Street, while not as chaotic as Loomis Place, certainly has significant congestion at school times. It is hair-raising for parents crossing their students in the midst of rush hour traffic, even on these side streets.

So, I ask you: what is different about Foote's situation as opposed to Hooker's?

People of right minded thought and good will can answer this quite easily: this is elitism. Plain and simple.

Many liberals love the fact that our current President was a community organizer. Well, get ready for some community organizing, because our parents want this gate open, and will ORGANIZE to make it happen.

Posted by: YIMBY2 | November 3, 2009 10:58 PM

"Enough, Enough" is right CBJ

KR wrote: ..."where did this small group of people acquire the legal (or moral) right to dictate who is allowed to traverse a public street during certain hours or to restrict a particular group from utilizing a convenient gate to access their public school, thereby denying this group (of children) a shorter, perhaps safer, and more pleasant means of getting to school. That kind of narrow self-interest is, by definition, elitism."

The Everit Elite NIMBYists ALREADY received special consideration and 'neighborly' conciliations like nixing the straight through vehicle access from the original Everit Street curb cut necessitating a giant paved turn around over the schools first Play Field/Greenspace. It's the countless future students who will pay for this concession that resulted in a huge decrease in play area; all for the pacification of a privileged few and only to see them continue their selfish lawsuit forcing the city to spend all those tax dollars on lawyers and keeping the children camped & cramped at State Street for years with nowhere decent to play, breathing the fumes from I-95, next to the homes of OTHER people.

The GREATER good was served when FIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES RULED UNANIMOUSLY against the NIMBYists and this school was finally allowed to join the ten other schools along Whitney Ave. from Trumbull to Skiff Streets but now we hear more shrill whining. Before it was unwanted sounds of children playing and now chicken little squawks that children walking to school might disturb the tenor of their precious Eden.

A selfish, privileged MINORITY does not deserve, and should not receive any more concessions from these children/the MAJORITY.

As M said; "Why should Everit Street be different than any other street in New Haven? Therein lies the rub. The gate should remain open."

Posted by: Pissed off | November 6, 2009 1:22 PM

Yimby2 et al:

Let's see...do YOU own property on Everit St? What are YOUR taxes? Are YOU going to see your property values decrease? Great to talk about rights of the majority unless of course you happen to live in close proximity to this monstrosity. You seem to think New Haven is some sort of socialist experiment. Got news for you...we are still a capitalist society and at least some of us are interested in hanging onto what little wealth we still have.

Posted by: MORE PO'D YIMBY #652 | November 10, 2009 12:53 PM

PO'd:

Our Everit St property taxes are the same rate as yours and no, we will not see our property values decrease because of this school. After all these years how could you not be sick of regurgitating this BS?

Yes, it is valid to consider the rights of the majority as opposed to a handful of self serving obstructionists; after an exhaustive design review process now you label the new school a 'monstrosity'? Your opinion aside, it is doubtful that the architect designed a 'monstrosity' for the street he lives on.

No spinster nimbyist, not a socialist experiment...nor a Feudal State with gated manors and lowly vassals but, yes, a capitalist society...and, 'got news for YOU,' a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC where ALL are free to lawfully walk, bike, drive and park on any public street they so choose.

Posted by: Pissed Off | November 11, 2009 11:15 AM

Yimby:

1) Are you sure that I live on Everit St. (or even in New Haven)? Maybe I don't...
2) Am I really a spinster? Eh??
3) I've obviously gotten your goat on this one...militant, aren't we?
4) It's fun getting such a rise out of people who take themselves too seriously.

Have a nice day.