Category Archives: Letters

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: So Many Unanwered Questions on Sewers, OLWPCA Member Urges Community to Get Involved

Posted on by

To the Editor:

I recently volunteered to join the OLWPCA [Old Lyme Water Pollution Control Authority] because I wanted to serve my community and the town.

 I was hoping that I could help decipher for my neighbors and friends the ambiguity regarding 10-year-old testing, affordable alternatives and ever-increasing project costs. I wanted to learn all I can, but it seems the more we hear, the less we understand. The issues are huge!

 Sewers have become the hot topic on the beach, at the coffee shops and all over town.

 As a WPCA member and a resident of Old Lyme I would like to provide my neighbors with answers to their questions. I cannot! My neighbors and I read the local news and listen to meetings and do our best to stay informed. But there seems to be so much that we still don’t know.

We know Miami Beach bids will be in early to mid August, but Old Lyme Shores has not even set a date yet to go out to bid. They both are supposedly going to be a part of the project. What if they don’t join in? Who pays for their potentially applicable shares of this project? I understand that the OLWPCA Chair is proposing town meetings and referendums for late August and early September, I wonder why, since significant financial factors to the Town may not be clarified by then.

We hear there is still uncertainty regarding the Cost Sharing Agreement [CSA}. The OLWPCA Chair tells us that the WPCA’s are reviewing and discussing the CSA.

I cannot do what I hoped to do as a member of the OLWPCA. I cannot help my community understand the why, the when or how much this project will cost them. I cannot tell them if it is ‘affordable’. Clearly there is a goal to make this project sound affordable in order to meet the state’s 2% income guideline. My concern is that this ambitious goal will result in many expenses that should beconsidered part of the build and incorporated therefore also in the ‘EDU’ value, will be pushed under the blanket of usage and maintenance. If included as part of the build costs, the entire project could ultimately be construed as UN-affordable! As residents of the beach communities under the gun to get sewers, un-affordability (which many of us already think it is) is very true. We are potentially looking at tens of thousands of dollars in costs! I don’t have that kind of money … do you?

Contractual fees to New London and East Lyme, are not usage. The estimated $700,000 that I think we may owe for bridge work, is not usage. The $100,000 in easements, is not usage. Change orders already identified (before a shovel even goes into the ground), are not usage. Whatever has already been spent in legal fees, consultants, etc., by the OLWPCA and or by Old Colony in regard to the Shared infrastructure, are not usage. Frankly I cannot see how any project expense incurred at this point can be categorized as usage since there has been no usage!  That changes the affordability of the project.

My opinion and that of many is that the Town should take the lead and demand an audit of what the OLWPCA, both past and present and Old Colony with respect to the “Shared group” have spent to date, how much is owed and how much is projected to be owed. My opinion and that of others is that the Town should not move forward without that information.

Come to WPCA and Selectmen’s meetings and speak up, please.

Sincerely,

Brian Cornell,
Old Lyme.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: LymeLine Editor Criticized for Publishing Gencarella Letter Accusing Zelek of Plagiarism

Posted on by

To the Editor:

I write this letter to express my disappointment that you chose to publish the letter from Professor Gencarella accusing Ms. Zelec of plagiarism.

I preface my comments with the acknowledgement that I don’t have a dog in this fight.  I’m not a resident of Lyme and I don’t know either of the candidates or their views.

But this type of baseless name calling is what gives small-town politics a bad name.  Worse than that, it borders on slander – plagiarism is a serious accusation.   And in my mind, does nothing for the reputation of your fine publication.

Ms. Zelec’s statement is not plagiarism.  And Professor Gencarella knows it is not plagiarism!  

Her comments have been the mantra of every small-town politician for the last century.  It is no more plagiarism than the president ending a speech with “God Bless America”.  It is what you say!  It is what you are expected to say!  If the wording is the same as her political colleagues, that’s called “messaging”.

Equally troubling to me is Professor Gencarella’s pompous self-aggrandizement in an attempt to lend credence to an accusation he knows to be frivolous.  It trivializes the growing prevalence of true plagiarism and cheapens the idea of academic integrity.

I realize that every editor has to walk a fine line between free speech and editorial discretion.  I respectively submit that you came down on the wrong side of that line in this case.    

Sincerely,

Tom Beyer,
Old Lyme

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Plagiarism is No Way to Start a Campaign

Posted on by

To the Editor:

I have been a professor for nearly a quarter of a century, and I have seen truly remarkable attempts at cheating from people who opted to be unethical rather than to do their own work. But I have never seen a novice politician cheat on their introductory statement until now.

In her first public remarks—her announcement to run for First Selectwoman of Lyme—Democratic-endorsed candidate Christy Zelek pledged: “I’m running for office because I love this town. My priorities will include keeping our town the beautiful, historic place it is.” (LymeLine, July 24)

This is straight, ugly plagiarism. And it’s not even a close call. Witness the evidence from Lyme Matters, the newsletter of the Lyme DTC:

  1. “He’s running because he loves Lyme and wants to help ensure it stays the beautiful gem of a town that it is.” (John Kiker, Fall 2017, page 2)
  2. “We know people love our town and want Lyme to stay the way it is – beautiful, historic and sparsely developed.” (John Kiker and Steven Mattson, Fall 2017, page 3)
  3. “They want Lyme to stay the beautiful, historic place that it is.” (John Kiker, Fall 2019, page 1)
  4. “Our candidates love Lyme, value the importance of open space and want our Town to stay the beautiful, historic place that it is.” (John Kiker, Fall 2021, page 1)
  5. “They want Lyme to stay the beautiful, historic place that it is.” (John Kiker, Fall 2021, page 3)

I think there are few things that should immediately disqualify a candidate to lead a town, but the absurdity of plagiarizing why they want to do so seems a reasonable cause for concern. If a candidate is willing to cheat on a statement of their own beliefs, what would they not cheat on?

The only defense Zelek could offer is to admit she’s simply the mouthpiece for DTC Chair and Second Selectman John Kiker, which then begs a very serious question of who would actually run the town. I hope local journalists and others concerned with the potential dishonesty of public officials investigate.

The problem is made even worse given that Zelek has no substantial governmental or business executive experience. By the DTC’s account, she deserves this important public trust and authority because she “has held leadership positions in parent-teacher groups at the high school, middle school and elementary school level and in the local Boy Scouts organization.”

As an educator, I shudder to think what a message someone who is willing to plagiarize in such a way conveys to young people. But it may help explain the crisis of cheating I see among students.

I write these lines as a lifelong Democrat who is profoundly concerned about the health of democratic society. As I have noted on other occasions, I believe it is essential that we hold elected officials in our own parties to the highest standards of accountability and honesty.

No one whose first act as a candidate is blatant cheating should be entrusted with public money, civic responsibilities, or the welfare of others. And for the sake of our children and their future, I hope that’s a message to which we can all agree, regardless of political party.

Sincerely,

Stephen Olbrys Gencarella, Ph.D.
Lyme, CT.

Editor’s Note: Commenting is now closed. Comments are closed 48 hours after publication of an article or letter.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Frampton Says There is ‘No Dispute’ Over Ownership of Tantummaheag Landing

Posted on by

To the Editor:

I write to clarify a critical point in Elizabeth Regan’s article published today reporting the [Old Lyme] Republican Committee’s continued rejection of any amicable resolution over a “years-long dispute over the ownership of a spit of land bisecting a Tantummaheag Road property”, namely, Tantummaheag Landing (our back driveway), which we purchased in 2020.

To the contrary, there is no dispute between us and the Town about “ownership” since Tim Griswold’s Town Attorney publicly stated at a BOS meeting in August 2022 that his year-long investigation had found no evidence of ownership on the part of the Town. The Town and its counsel have since confirmed publicly and privately that they cannot and do not dispute that we own the Landing parcel in fee simple.

While the Griswold administration continued to claim there might have been a “public highway” along that spit of land based on a 1701 right of way, we discovered and published more than two years ago official Town records establishing that this right of way never went down what is now our back driveway, wasn’t even being used and indeed couldn’t be found in 1712, was replaced by another right of way in 1713 (which traces the current Tantummaheag Road and never  touched our property), and by contract with the then-landowner Richard Lord (who became First Selectman in 1720) the Town surrendered all rights to any and all Town rights-of-ways on his property in 1727.

Sincerely,

George T. Frampton, Jr.
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Sound View Property Owner Asks Old Lyme to ‘Play Fair’ in Sewer Installation Charges

Posted on by
2

To the Editor:

I am a newly appointed member of the OLWPCA (Old Lyme Water Pollution Control Authority) but am writing here not as a WPCA representative but as a property owner in Old Lyme.

My property in ‘Area B’ – near the railroad tracks – was recently appraised at $210,900. It consists of 712 square feet, 2 bedrooms, 1 bath. It is seasonal. 

Let’s assume for the moment that all current received bids hold without increases once they expire June 30th and let’s assume for the moment that Miami Beach receives a bid this fourth go-around and Old Lyme Shores receives an acceptable bid in its third go-around. 

My property is assigned 1 [one] Equivalent Dwelling Unit [EDU.] Based on the Chairman Cinami’s latest figures and after an assumed 50% reimbursement is applied, I will owe $38,000 for construction fees. In a written quote from B&L, I will owe an additional $8,700 to decommission my engineered septic system and run a new line to the curb. Then of course, there’s those additional town contractual fees of the project; 1.3 million owed to East Lyme and New London to connect,  plus maintenance, management, bookkeeping, bioxide, easements, legal, consulting fees and repairs, etc. These additional charges cannot be divided by 270 EDUS because the undeveloped lots (including the bus stop!) equate to 9 EDUs that must be subtracted from maintenance billing.

Furthermore, the Chairman has said that some properties will be granted variances to delay connecting so those properties as well, cannot be billed for maintenance until some later date. Hard to guess what all that extra maintenance and contractual fees will cost me then when I connect, but let’s say conservatively it totals another $600 a year, plus $400 a year for actual usage based on flow. In summary then, it’s $1000 a year in contractual and maintenance and usage fees for the next 20 years or $20,000 (we’ll set aside that these contracts have escalation clauses after year 1). I’m up to $66,700 for a sewer to replace my perfectly fine engineered system on my property that is appraised at $210,900. That’s 31.63% of the appraised value. I will be paying minimally $3,445 per year for the next 20 years for something I do not need.

You call that fair? 

There are 29 single family homes in Area B. Sixteen are appraised less than $255,000. They will all be charged just like me. Nadeau Associates stated that the value added to a residential property [after installation of a new sewer system] is 7% and the OLWPCA expert Christopher Kerin [of the real estate valuation and advisory firm Kerin & Fazio LLC] says it’s 10%. All of the 29 residential homes in Area B and the majority of the commercial properties, will fail that test. 

And given the following quote from Graham Stevens [of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection] in 2023 to OLSSPA [Old Lyme Shoreline Sewer Project Alliance] that, “Determination that project area user charges to finance the project in excess of 2% MHI [Median Household Income] are unaffordable” indicates that only the medium income of Area B/Sound View should be considered – not the town. I am betting that all of Area B, and Sound View will fail that 2% income affordability test if it is applied the right way. Just because our properties are located near the railroad tracks, does not give you the right to railroad us. Play fair Old Lyme!   

Sincerely,

Brian Cornell,
Old Lyme.