New Haven Independent

posted by: What on February 10, 2010  9:51am

This woman is a disgrace to democracy.

posted by: City Hall Watch on February 10, 2010  10:22am

How many board members were there? Did any of them challenge Ms. Weber’s decision to vote and discuss public business in private? According to my notes, the other members of the BZA are: Regina Winters, David Streever, Walter Esdaile, Secretary Gaylord Bourne.

posted by: Jeffrey Kerekes on February 10, 2010  10:38am

Wow!!!  This is as unfortunate as is typical. I am not convinced the Administration is serious about transparency.  Even if it is starting too, it is a foreign concept and they think that sneaking in BOE Budgets and unamplified BZA meetings is helping their cause. I think the administration is serious about Education reform, but they are so used to autocratic governance, that they probably think they are being transparent to meet without mics or to have three days to review a budget.  You have much further to go to gain the trust of the people.  Not many people trust, and this isn’t helping.

Just like the Mayor tried to wipe the slate clean by replacing the BZA, we may need to do the same with the administration if we really want an administration serious about transparency.

posted by: City Hall II on February 10, 2010  10:47am

Another score for the community, job well done Sheila, John V. and Eli!

posted by: streever on February 10, 2010  11:03am

City Hall Watch:
The board is currently composed of 3 full-time members and 3 alternates, and 5 total members are needed to vote. I am an alternate, and was not able to vote on this, because I was not at the previous meeting. Both Walter Esdaile & I are alternates, and Victor Fasano is a new alternate.

I understand the frustration of the public on not having access to the discussions/etc—just to let you know, they are all tape-recorded & part of the permanent record. you can obtain them by contacting City Plan Staff.

posted by: V on February 10, 2010  11:04am

I can’t wait until I move out of this over-taxed disgrace of a city.  Have fun spending my money until then.

posted by: JB on February 10, 2010  11:21am

I don’t know much about the BOZ, but that does seem like odd behavior, particularly from Ms. Weber (“no more comments unless I have a lawyer present”?)

It sounds a little like she and other committee members either don’t fully know how to make certain types of decisions or there aren’t well developed guidelines for them to follow, and because of that, they are afraid for some reason.

Perhaps the committee needs a leader who is more assured of their role and aren’t afraid to leave the mic on?

Weird.

posted by: Brian V on February 10, 2010  11:27am

I CAN"T WAIT to hear Streever’s comment on this one…..

posted by: working(too hard) mom on February 10, 2010  11:43am

Ms. Weber seems to relish flaunting the little power that an appointee of Destefano possesses.  However, deep down she probably understands that she is nothing more than a soldier of DeStefano and dutifully follows marching orders to fulfill his agenda.  Kind of sad.

posted by: Nan Bartow on February 10, 2010  12:15pm

Congratulations to the Whalley Avenue Special Services District (WASSD).  You helped us save Shaws.  Whalley Avenue needs Shaw’s, and the Save-A-Lot would have put Shaw’s Supermarket in jeopardy.  Let’s try to find a better fit for the Staples and the Rite-Aid properties. Whalley Avenue needs a diversity of well-run stores that will attract a wide variety of customers. The new businesses should make a significant contribution towards increasing the cleanliness and safety of the area so that more people will see Whalley Avenue as a shopping destination.  To that end, attractive store facades and street-scape improvements will draw pedestrians and bicycle riders along with more motorists to the area.

posted by: Catch 22 on February 10, 2010  12:48pm

Streever-

Either you’re with us the residents of with them the Administration, can’t have it both ways.  There is no gray area on this one, please don’t try to water down the facts with telling us to go FOI information.  Streever on this one you’re wrong, period.  ... if you’re a man of the community you will immediately resign from the BZA.

posted by: streever on February 10, 2010  2:23pm

Catch 22,

you misunderstand my comment. I didn’t take ANY side, and you are completely incorrect: you may view it as “all or nothing” but no one else does. I was not part of the voting session & was not even sitting on the board when this happened. I was in the audience. I don’t understand how my taking a position changes anything or what you mean precisely.

I’m also not telling you to “FOI” anything. I’m saying, by law, the City will let you hear anything said at a meeting, and encouraging you to use your right to that information. Sorry if it sounded like I wanted you to jump through hoops. I just was trying to let people know that by “off mic” they meant not amplified, but still recorded. I can see how that could have been misconstrued.

posted by: Brian V on February 10, 2010  3:38pm

Streever:

So what IS your position on the matter?
Do you think Ms Weber’s actions are appropriate, and living up to the promise of: ” the BZA would take public accountability seriously.”
It may not have been against the rules or illegal, but do you think the BZA should behave this way? Will you, or will you not, try to affect any change on the rules governing this body? or do you stand behind these actions?
I would like to hear your response to these questions.

posted by: Nope on February 10, 2010  3:53pm

Streever,

I generally like you and agree with about 75% of what you write, but man you are wrong on this one. This is a public meeting. Turning the mike off so that the public can not hear is inappropriate and inexcusable. To suggest “oh, well sorry, but you can request a copy”, which takes time, and money is not the answer. You need to take a more public stand on this one. Do you or do you not agree with the turning off of the mic? If you do not agree with that practice, will you insist, as a member of the board (voting or otherwise) that the chair should stop this practice? Take a stand, no middle of the road on this one.

posted by: streever on February 10, 2010  4:14pm

Nope:

Please re-read my comment. I didn’t take a position on the issue. I simply let people know something they may not have known.

Brian V:
Do I need to take a position on everything? I have a lot of opinions, but I don’t need to share my view point when it’s pointless.

posted by: Nope on February 10, 2010  4:23pm

Streever:

That is exactly the point, you did not take a stand. You sit on this Board. It is not pointless to have open meetings (that means the mic on) in a democracy. Take a stand.

posted by: Nope on February 10, 2010  4:26pm

Streever:

Not taking a stand is taking a stand. If you do not oppose this tyranny, you are supporting it.

posted by: notty on February 10, 2010  4:54pm

Streever if you are a board member and disagree with Cathys arrogance, then even if it means resigning from the board, you should take a stand one way or the other. I sit on a board in the city and trust me, if I see that type of arrogance, I will have a talk with the chair and ask that the mics remain on when in a public hearing. Its the rights of the people that attend the public hearings, thats why its public hearing because the public needs to hear.

posted by: streever on February 10, 2010  4:57pm

Nope:
Opinions are like… well, something I can’t write in this space :). Let’s be honest, you’re just grandstanding to prove your point(s). I don’t need to engage in that type of game.

posted by: streever on February 10, 2010  5:03pm

Unfortunately Notty, my personal opinion on what happened that night, is nuanced & fueled by actually being there. I’d hate to share a logical point of view with people who aren’t interested in that, which is why I’m simply not taking any view point.

Great slogans though! “You’re with us or against us” “Take a stand or you do take a stand!” Really! I didn’t realize we were back in the McCarthy era.

You folks should go hang out at a tea party rally, they need people to come out and get angry!

posted by: Nope on February 10, 2010  5:05pm

Streever:

Seriously, I’m not grandstanding. Catch 22, Brian V and Notty all asked for the same thing. I’m not trying to embarrass you, we just want someone in authority, someone on the board, to stand up and take a stand for what is right. Why is this so difficult for you? Do you or do you not agree with the policy of shutting the mic off, thereby eliminating the publics right to hear, and know what is happening? If you agree with the policy, so be it. If you don’t, then be a man and stand up for what is right.

posted by: working(too hard) mom on February 10, 2010  5:28pm

I agree with Nope,Catch 22, Brian V and Notty…. Streever-why can’t you provide an answer to a simple, pertinent question?  Do you agree with shutting off the mic or not?  You lose ALOT of credibility by not taking a stand, one way or another.

posted by: streever on February 10, 2010  5:32pm

Nope: why not telephone the other board members, or ask them? I made a decision—for my own personal sanity—not to express an opinion either way on these boards about it.

If I were to express an opinion, I can guarantee you I’d have half a dozen people who are anonymous criticizing me either way.

If you honestly are curious about my personal opinion, why not simply speak with me in person? If you are curious about the boards workings, I’d encourage you to get in touch with the other board members/the chair/etc.

The reality is that if you choose to answer people on this site, you open yourself up to a lot of headaches. I think that’s probably why you see so few people commenting here on their own identity on anything even vaguely controversial.

posted by: notty on February 10, 2010  5:36pm

Ok streever…. This administration is not transparent, as we saw by the budget they the commissioners just passed for the Board of Education. Again no public input. I will say this, I got on a board for the same reason many on this blog is commenting about, to be fair regarding the process to the public and to hold whatever department I am commissioner over accountable to the residents of the City of New Haven…

posted by: EastRocker on February 10, 2010  5:46pm

Streever -

sounds like you talk the talk but can’t walk the walk….

posted by: streever on February 10, 2010  6:22pm

Eastrocker:

Sounds like you anonymously bait people & badger them because they are the only ones who are willing to expose themselves to your ridicule. I’d rather you picked on me then a dog or child though, so go right ahead.

Again, if anyone ever wants to discuss this issue, instead of attacking me or accusing me, you are welcome to get in touch with me & I’ll be happy to sit down with you.

posted by: Nope on February 10, 2010  6:23pm

Streever:

I still don’t understand, but I’ll leave it alone. You take stands on this site all the time, and sometimes get criticized for it. You never seemed to be afraid to express yourself at those times. In those situations, you are not in a position to make a difference. In this one, you are. Clearly, there is somethin here that we are not privy to, so I’ll leave it alone (for now).

posted by: working(too hard) mom on February 10, 2010  6:32pm

Streever-You comment and opine on more than 80% of the stories on this board.  Why now can’t you express your stance on this issue? Afraid of pissing off the Administration or the citizens of New Haven? So what! If you truly believe what you state is correct, you have nothing to be stressed about.  It’s called courage. You would gain respect even from those that do not agree with you. 
My name is Liz Vitale. I choose to use a pseudonym as it gives a more accurate desciption of where I am coming from when I share my opinions.
As my momma used to say…‘if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

posted by: streever on February 10, 2010  7:20pm

working(too hard) mom:
I’m happy to lose credibility with anonymous internet commentators who can’t even do me the courtesy of talking to me face to face. Why don’t you criticize the 80 people who came to the meeting, the City Plan staff, or the board members who actually sat in on this vote? As I said, I sat out, as a member of the audience, something which the reporter can vouch for.

I lose a lot of credibility? at least I’m willing to speak with you in person on this. I’m not willing to be the target for the misplaced anger & fury however, which is what you’re asking me to do.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on February 10, 2010  7:33pm

This is part of the problem when some people post anonymously and others don’t-this awkward situation is created.
Perhaps this is just one of the downsides to choosing to post with a real name-you’re actually held accountable. Unfortunately, you’re being held accountable to people with no names or faces. If Streever just ignores this (probably the most logical thing to do) its definitely a huge duck, but like he said, just ask him in person if you actually care and prove that you’re not just somebody who wants to publicly embarrass someone else.

Bottom line though, the microphone cannot be turned off to purposely disallow the public to hear. The recording is SUPPLEMENTAL not an alternative, its for people who can’t make meetings, for reviewing, etc. The situation is indefensible.

posted by: Brian V on February 10, 2010  7:37pm

Streever:
I may be paranoid and crazy but, at least I have alot of company -huh?
Get ready Ward 10 Dems! Your new “leader” is here!
Good Luck.

posted by: Anon on February 10, 2010  9:26pm

I am shocked that the question of whether public meetings should take place in public is so controversial, such a hot potato that Steever is refraining from saying, yes they should be public or no, I am against public meetings.

Bizarre.

Did MacMillan make this out to be something it wasn’t? Is that what is holding you back?

I mean, if the core issue was keeping the mic on even for mundane stuff, MacMillan couldn’t have botched it too much. It’s still a no-brainer. every board member of every NH board should unqualifiedly say yes, without controversy.

This is wierd.

posted by: Doyens on February 11, 2010  8:27am

The disdain for taxpayers, the public and the press is stunning as exhibited in this story and the school board’s budget report. Chairwoman Cathy Weber’s dismissive behavior is emblematic unfortunately, of how we are treated over and again. Thee is no core belief in the City of New Haven from the mayor on down, that the public’s right to know, that the public’s active participation and open, robust debate on matters that directly affect us is a right and not a privilege to be doled out by the elitists in power. Government is supposed to be about us, the public.

Not one BZA board member spoke out against going off mic regardless of where they were sitting, or whether they were to vote on the matter at hand or not. The group silence is as deafening as Weber’s actions are wrong. We’re told we can go to City Plan and pull the tape and listen to it. The point is, we shouldn’t have to. It’s hard to imagine what nuanced version of this latest travesty would mitigate this report. 

Streever:
You have become increasingly shrill on the subject of screen vs real names and are now requiring face to face meetings as if that somehow validates our opinions. You are as wrong on this subject as your silence is on this story. I’m having breakfast at Clark’s today around 10. Come by and have a cup of coffee or I’d be happy to meet some other time if that’s more convenient.

posted by: streever on February 11, 2010  9:50am

Look folks, the nature of this commentary is clearly a witch hunt.

Why do I have to hold an opinion on this matter, when it is not something I have power over or any say in?

If you want my honest opinion, like I said, it’s nuanced. I can already see the angry flood of responses that your about to unleash.

Cathy didn’t intentionally do anything wrong with this. It’s a mountain out of a molehill. She announced what they’d be voting on—over the mic—the room continued to be loud & no one was paying attention because they were—literally—all there for the church in Fair Haven & on Greenwich Avenue.

Their was ample notice that they’d be voting on the two issues, but the room was loud & would not quiet down, so she stopped using the amplification.

Do I think the public should have had a chance to hear? Yes. Do I think that Cathy deliberately hid it? No. If you had been there—if you had talked to anyone at all about it who had been there—you’d probably have the same opinion.

I already know the responses to this. “He’s covering for the mayor” “He’s covering for Cathy”. No. I just had the misfortune to be present at something that you’ve seized on like a pack of hungry wolves.

Doyens, get a grip. I’m not “demanding” face to face meetings. I’m making it clear that the commentators don’t present themselves as reasonable people, but instead, as participants in a tea party rally, and that I know from previous experience that they’re just going to jump me & tear me apart if I say anything of substance.

Enjoy the back and forth—if you do wish to engage on this subject, and actually have a conversation, then you can get in touch with me directly.

Unfortunately I work 9-5 Doyens, so I’ll have to pass on your offer. E-mail me if you actually want to sit down and talk.

posted by: streever on February 11, 2010  9:59am

This is the last comment I’ll make on this—or any other controversial issue—on the NHI.

—-

You’re all so self-righteous! So knowledgeable about events you weren’t at, so thirsty for blood.

Answer me this.

If everyone who does anything with the city is “evil” or “wrong” or “disdainful” to the taxpayers, why are they still there?

Why haven’t you gotten a new candidate for mayor?

The reality is that sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes it’s intentional and they get away with it. Sometimes they don’t. More often then not, it’s an honest oversight or simple mistake.

By being an unreasonable, unthinking mob, the only thing you do is guarantee that this space will be void of any substance. No signals: only noise.

Enjoy your slime-infested pit, you angry and unreliable people. You’ve effectively turned away anyone and everyone who would want to work with you.

posted by: Nope on February 11, 2010  11:13am

Streever:

Finally, a straight answer which sounds very reasonable. Thank you. That is what I, and pobably others, expect from you. We may not agree all the time, but at least we know that we will hear what you really think on an issue. I don’t think we formed a blood thirsty mob, we were all very confused by your lack of comment, that’a all. Don’t leave us, I look forward to your commentary.

I won’t even respond to your question about why folks are still in positions of powe, we’ll leave that to another day.

posted by: BZA on February 11, 2010  11:28am

Use to be on the BZA, Streever for good reason you sound nervous and very defensive.  New Haven residents are not a “mob”, however they correctly seek democracy.  Indeed resign.

posted by: notty on February 11, 2010  1:03pm

Streever why would you resign when the public has a right to know what goes on in a PUBLIC HEARING. I am not jumping down your throat, but come on, I sit on a board and it is my responsibility to answer to the constiuents, especially in a public hearing. Thanks for not remaining on neutral ground though.

posted by: Bob Solomon on February 11, 2010  2:01pm

It’s a little ironic seeing so many anonymous comments accusing Streever of being defensive, but then being even more defensive about being called a mob.  Well, all of the anonymous attacks are sort of mob-like.  Streever is being directly attacked by name(I think the tone of the comments is stronger than criticism) by people he does not know, and who toss out things like, “I’m on a board,” or “I was on a board,” which stakes out a position of knowledge and is an attempt to gain credibility, but still hiding behind the veil that leaves Streever at an unfair advantage.  So, Streever, whatever your reasons, I’m with you (which means someone will criticize (attack?) me in a minite or two, but that’s part of what this site has become, unfortunately for all.

posted by: Anon on February 11, 2010  3:08pm

Streever, pardon me a moment while I address Bob Solomon, solely.

C’mon Bob, you don’t have to be nameless to form a mob, as the comments on the Higgonet story AMPLY demonstrate, there were named and unnamed people mobbing her. And you’re still sore that you were described as among them.

Let me tell you something about those who put down anonymity as categorically inferior. Anonymity can be used badly or well, just like named posts can and ARE.

Anonymity has its integrity, its place and its good reasons.

Thomas Paine wrote anonymously.

The most famous and first legal case in America involving a newspaper, involved a newspaper publishing stories by anonymous authors. And guess who the publication’s lawyer was? None other than Alexander Hamilton. And guess what? He won.

Commenters haven’t been quite so sycophantic towards you lately and the comments were anonymous and I think that’s got you sore. But those comments, at least the ones I am thinking of, can be judged on the merit of their content alone.

As if named comments on this board are always more responsible or even in their content as anonymous ones. Not true.

If you are so determined to know who these people are are, slap Paul Bass with a lawsuit and subpoena all the IDs.

If you are trying to pressure Bass to not allow anonymous comments anymore, well, guess whose side your on in American History?

Ask yourself what has you so convinced that in New Haven in 2010 there does not exist a single legitimate reason for someone to post anonymously. I am talking in general and not responding to a single post on this particular story. You talked about the whole site, I am responding.

That would be a pretty false assumption.

posted by: Anon on February 11, 2010  3:20pm

Re the story - I was wondering if it was something like that - that it was not anything intentional and got a bit blown up.

just keep the mic on from now on, sheesh

posted by: alexey on February 11, 2010  5:37pm

bizarre.

posted by: Bob Solomon on February 11, 2010  6:07pm

Anon -

There is something intrinsically different between you starting your post with “Bob” and me starting my post with “Anon.”  That difference is heightened when you make personal attacks, as you do frequently.  I’m not “sore” about your earlier characterization of the mob, because I don’t know who you are and, to tell the truth, until now, I didn’t know you were including me with the others you attacked, and I thought your conspiracy theory about Yale and lawyers was sort of funny.  (was that you?) which is why I replied with my Roswell comment. As it happens, I did not comment at all in that thread until someone (you?) made what I thought were totally unsubstantiated guesses about the motives and characterizations of Ms. Brooks.  My suspicion is that it is you, even in your anonymity, who are “sore.” Anonymity can be brave, but it can also be cowardly.  For every Tom Paine, there are 100 people who send anonymous mean notes.  Which one are you?

I appreciate your comparing yourself to Thomas Paine.  You can add Ben Frankin, James Madison and others, but they had different reasons, sometimes to avoid being arrested for treason.  Thhe idea that I’m trying to influence Paul Bass shows you are into conspiracy mode on more than one issue.  I am quite confident that Paul has considered this issue more than any of us and he couldn’t care less what I might think, other than as a chance to debate, openly or in private.  Finally, the notion that I am unhappy that others criticize me shows that you must have missed a few comments, like the one that said I should leave town and not stop home to pick up my clothes.  Sorry to disappoint you, but being criticized in the anonymous posts of the NHI does not quite match up domestic violence litigation or trying to explain to an angry froup of

[Editor’s Note: I care a lot what Bob thinks, and other readers too. The anonymous posting question is a tricky one; we’ve decided to focus on results, what shows up on the site, what rules to enforce, regardless if a name is used. I do share those concerns, and we’re always looking to fine-tune what we do. We remove a lot of comments nad parts of comments that we feel get too nasty or off-point. Thanks for inspiring us, on all sides of this question, to try to make the debate better.]

posted by: EastRocker on February 11, 2010  9:42pm

Mr. Bob, Mr. Streever, don’t know you personally, sure you do fine work for the citizens of our fair city, but let’s toughen up the skin a little, eh.  Comments made on this particular thread are little league, absolutely sunday softball, compared to real big city politics.  If you’re holding a public office, then expect a little heat from anonymous peons like myself.  And if that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe public office isn’t your particular calling.

posted by: JB on February 12, 2010  12:16am

I, for one, wouldn’t post if it weren’t for anonymity.  I wouldn’t want my personal opinions to be associated with my work place and there’s no other way, other than being anonymous, to assure that seperation.

posted by: bob solomon on February 12, 2010  11:57am

EastRocker - I agree that with your point, but my point is different, and not addressed to most posters.  I think some people have good reasons to remain anonymous, some do not.  In my opinion, some people use anonymity to be cruder and nastier.  The Register site, which allows posting before review, has racist, sexist, and homophobic comments on a daily basis.  This site is monitored and the worst never reaches the reader, but there’s not much question that anonymity is liberating in a lot of ways, and one of those ways (for some people)is to toss civility aside.  When I commented on this thread, I did so because I felt Streever was being unfairly attacked, with one comment after another piling on.  So, i said what I said.  Predicably, Anon addressed his next comment to me, which is his right.  Anon brought up another thread, relating to Hooker School, in which I commented because I believed he wrote an inappropriate post, not directed to me.  As it happens, i do believe that Anon uses his anonymity to say things he would not have the courage to say in person.  That’s what I think, and I’ll keep thinking it until Anon does something to convince me otherwise.  As for me being too thin-skinned, anyone who wants can come to a Housing Authority meeting and criticize me in person.  I’ve sat there almost every month since July 1999, listened to a lot of criticism, and tried to treat people respectfully.  However, if you want to speak, it will be public and you will have to state your name for the record.  To me, the real issue is whether this forum is a meaningful dialogue.  In the consumer world, people vote with their feet, so I guess in the virtual world we vote with our fingers.  I’m sure there will be some issue in the future, maybe the near future, where I will not be able to resit commenting, but, at least for the moment, I’ll leave the NHI discussions to others.

posted by: Shaws being sold on February 12, 2010  4:06pm

Shaw’s Selling All Stores In Connecticut
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-shaws00213.artfeb13,0,1370494.story

posted by: Shaws being sold on February 12, 2010  5:02pm

So much for “saving” Shaws.  Something other than the Save-A-Lot has “put Shaw’s Supermarket in jeopardy.”  Let’s just hope the Whalley Avenue Special Services District emerges from this with “a” supermarket.

posted by: Anon on February 12, 2010  6:14pm

Arrgh, you keep confusing me with someone else on the Hooker School/Higonnet story.

I was the one who tried to do the same thing there that you are doing here—- There were two Higonnet stories, the first had 128 posts.

On that story I was surprised at the racial mobbing that I saw. It was breathtaking and included a slide show someone posted, a call for an anti-racist protest aimed at her non-existant racism. Even I got racially ridiculed by one poster for trying to slow it down a bit.

You may or may not agree, but that’s what I saw.

Comments from three lawyers on the stories were in accord with those assuming her guilt, in that the posts either assumed her guilt at the very least. One of them was one of the strongest ones asserting her guilt. I was shocked at that coming from lawyers, especially, as I said on that story thread, the way public opinion can sway judges.

I tried to bring up the presumption of innocence and slow down the mobbing a bit. For that, in one post, you almost described me as some kind of crazy.

I was NOT the poster, who was using a different handle than mine (mine was “anon” on that site) who posited this longwinded apologist possible version of the events.

I think you get kind of personal. I don’t think I get that personal.

I was disgusted by the posts on that story, especially from the lawyers who I know know better than to whip up people to assume guilt of an arrestee, especially on a thread where so much racial hatred had alredy been posted.

You know, you say you were amused that I supposedly came up with some kind of conpspiracy theory involving the lawyers who posted, that they were somehow scheming together. Whatever, I just did’t think Higonnet is a piece of meat.

Agree or not on whether the posts on that story were too much or not, but please don’t misrepresent my posts on that story.

As for your feeling ambushed on this story, in this thread here, well, fair enough - maybe I could have been mellower.

But I am not as you assert one of these people who uses anonymity to wage nasty personal attacks. You also post here that I often do that, and in fact, I try never to do that. You’re wrong about that. Maybe you kbow that and are trying to raise a straw man, but whether you are honestly mistaken or not, it just isn’t true.

BTW, you were the one to lob the ‘Roswell’ ridicule, not I to you and so on. I mean, you can dish it out, so. I was mildly offended by it.

I was more offended at the poster who ridiculed me racially for criticizing the racial ridicule of Higonnet. But I didn’t care that it was done anonymously. I cared about the content, that someone has that in their heart or mind.

I stand by my posts on the second higonnet story, all posted as “anon” I didn’t check today to see if there was another “anon” posting on that story besides me, but I thought not anyway.
’

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on February 12, 2010  6:20pm

I think Shaw’s will be bought and will continue to operate. However, the failure of the parent company happened much sooner than I ever anticipated.
I was hoping to warn the Whalley Ave community about the dnagers of relying on Supermarkets this past January in a presentation, but I could not find a projector nor finish all the drawings I was preparing.
Becoming dependent on massive stores like Shaw’s becomes extremely dangerous when there aren’t alternatives. It’s the same problem with public housing, with malls, and large regional/national chains. They have the appearance of being to big to fail, but that is an incorrect perception derived from our dependence being mistaken for security. We assume that because we’re dependent on something, it will automatically always be there: this simply isn’t the case.
We cannot become dependent on single entities.
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs046.snc3/13354_1173429571002_1085910074_30446190_2670505_n.jpg
Even when New Haven has hundreds of locally owned grocery stores, it would have been idiotic to depend on the individual businesses, because those close down and other open all the time.
THE ONLY THING PEOPLE CAN BE DEPENDENT UPON IS A NETWORK. A network of groceries, bakeries, pastry shops, ice cream parlors, and butcher shops that operate independently with locally based, separate owners are reliable, because one store closing doesn’t end the world, the entire network has to fail before the neighbors get into trouble. A slowly failing network can be saved, rejuvenated and reworked over time, while Supermarkets cannot because they are one single entity with many pieces. Same with malls, when a few stores close, the mall fails, because the cost to operate it-cool/heat the interior space, provide electricity, maintenance, etc-becomes too much without full or near full occupancy. That doesn’t happen with a Main Street because the cooling is done by street trees, the heating is done by leafless trees allowing the sun to reach the sidewalk in winter, and when one business fails, it is a lower impact on surrounding businesses because they are seperate entities. Same with public housing-when a hand full of residents are selling drugs, not maintaining vehicles, breaking windows, robbing people, etc then that attracts similar activity from outside with drug addicts, children, suburban buyers, etc and a project with mostly working class and working poor residents quickly becomes everrun and the whole thing has to be torn down, whereas a neighborhood of privately owned homes with affordable rental units on the ground floor or above stores, mixed with middle income people, the problems never get to that level because the community responds effectively and collaboratively.
Essentially, a new network of locally owned businesses needs to be created on Whalley, that offer all the services of Shaw’s, but spread out across the entire length of the street and repeated so that all residents are within walking distance of a bank, a grocery, a fruit stand, a butcher shop, a flower shop and a deli. That way, when Shaw’s does inevitably fail, there is a network that absorbs the impact, and this network can be maintained cheaply, and reworked when necessary over time, because networks do not fail quickly-meaning there is time to prevent severe damage and steps can be taken to do so.

posted by: Edward Mattison on February 12, 2010  6:59pm

I am the chair of the Planning Commission. I and my fellow commissioners are very aware of the importance of public confidence in what we do, so we never turn off the mikes and always have our discussions and votes in front of the audience.  Nevertheless, I am very sympathetic to Zoning chair.  She, like me, is always trying to get through an agenda and get home before everybody is exhausted.  All these folks are volunteers and we all owe them a thank you for trying to make sensible decisions for our city. I can’t help feeling upset when somebody tells me that I am just following King John’s instructions, especially since I have never heard from him about anything.  Ed

posted by: Anon on February 12, 2010  7:27pm

It was obvious to me after the first story about Supervalu (Shaw’s owner) proposing a sav-a-lot for staples that something was up.

it emerged that shaws in other urban conn. places shut while sav-a-lots opened or stayed in those same cities.

then there were the busienss articles about how supervalu was weathering, or not weathering, the recession as stop & shop was.

Anyway, there’s this not bad looking big building there now though,  (I mean for a big box store) and it looks like stop & shop and shoprite/price rite have scooped up all the closing shaws stores except manchester and new haven.

that’s a bummer because of the big chains, both companies were and are superior to shaws/sav-a-lot anyway. Either would have been good choices for the shaw’s store on whalley or the staples store in the case of price rite.

shoprite/pricerite actually is co-op owned I think. (?)

Well, jonathan, do you think tear down the staples store and attract street frontage there, while keeping the shaw’s building?

Because tearing down the shaw’s building seems a little drastic.

all hypothetical of course because they are privately owned, but just theorizing here.

posted by: nutmeg on February 12, 2010  8:18pm

to paraphrase bill murray in ghostbusters, when somebody says ‘grocery store,’ you say yes!  now it seems, there’s a chance whalley will be left without any grocery store.  new haven is so under-retailed that i can’t believe anyone would really say no to a store, especially a grocery store. 

whatever ends up going into the shartenberg site aside, new haven needs more of the smaller c-town style groceries.  many of the grocers in this category are individually owned co-ops, meaning the stores can grow with the neighborhood.

posted by: Alison De Renzi on February 12, 2010  8:38pm

Does anyone really find this suprising? It’s just sad and typical of this city. Civil Service is dead in New Haven.

posted by: Maribel Aguilar on February 13, 2010  10:25am

According to Weber, voting sessions are “predominantly for the board and staff”.  Is this lady crazy?  I mean, really, who the heck does she think these votes are going to affect?  Only the board and staff?

DeStefano, you need to do another sweep of the BZA if this continues.  This is ridiculous to think that ANY voting should not be heard by the public. 

It seems that Ms. Weber doesn’t want to use the microphone because, God forbid, someone will ask her, for the record, how she would defend her vote if need be.

Residents rely on these meetings as a means to be informed of local issues regardless of whether there are comments allowed or not. 

Ms. Weber…turn on that microphone.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on February 13, 2010  4:32pm

Anon,
The vacant and underused land on Whalley, of which there’s a lot, should be developed first into a dense network of mostly mixed use buildings of 3-5 stories with some lower and some higher. These buildings should be designed to be flexible-meaning that the ground floors can be used for retail, as well as housing, which can be decided based on market trends and demand. Some buildings can have retail on the ground floor with offices above, or an office on the ground floor with residences above and many other combinations.
Once this network is continuous, then the big box stores should be either subdivided and rented out to many businesses or should be torn down and replaced with multi-purpose, flexible buildings.
One idea for Shaw’s could be to create a through street where the main parking lot entrance is now. It can be a continuation of Kensington Street (off-set a little, but there are examples of those types of street conditions elsewhere in the city). Then the section of the parking lot that faces Whalley and this new Kensington Street could be developed with various buildings, which would encourage much more walking in the area, thus reducing the need for so much parking, which would make the smaller parking lot still adequate.
That way Shaw’s, or whatever other grocery it likely will become (either Shop Rite or Stop & Shop), will be used for quite some time before it inevitably closes and needs to be demolished or subdivided.

posted by: Anon on February 15, 2010  11:18am

Jonathan, you specialize in planning or architecture, right? I wouldn’t be able to keep up with a discussion with you on it for long,but I like your idea of flexible use (residential/commercial)on the ground floor that could adapt to different economic times.

Running Kensington through the parking lot is a nice idea too and maybe would make it harder for kensington to maintain its outlaw reputation and activities. Kensington likes its guns.

Whalley itself is a huge challenge.  I would like to see lots of pedestrian crossing paint, pedestrian cones in the middle and maybe brick crosswalks, also, more crosswalks. Whalley has a horrible j-walking problem because of a lack of them. There is at least one crosswalk where there is no traffic light and it is useless. Cars won’t stop for pedestrians without a light or stop sign.

I would like a boulevard aesthetic created somehow, maybe with islands installed. It’s a major thoroughfare and partly state road so it’s hard.

Ocean Ave in Brooklyn is a good example of a multi-lane, heavily trafficked boulevard with a heavily developed pedestrian area on each side. But it is a residential rather than commercial street and they have more space to work with. They actailly have little streets running on either side parallel to the boulevard, so hard to reproduce here. They have major greenery, trees. It’s really as if there is a park running along each side of the street. It was a smart design.

There are frankly a lot of shabby shops on whalley. In one small food store, they gouge on prices for basic necessities such as milk—at $4 a gallon they charge more than the gas stations do for milk on whalley.

Aside from Shaws, Edge and Minores are the only grocers you wouldn’t classify as pricey convenience stores along the entire length of whalley.