Category Archives: Op-Eds

Op-Ed: Support Sound View’s Historic District Designation With its Numerous Benefits; Ignore Inaccuracies Being Circulated

Posted on by
27
The author of this op-ed submits that there is strong evidence that Sound View is one of the oldest public beaches in the country. The image above shows the beach circa 1920.

The author of this op-ed, Michaelle Pearson, states that there is strong evidence that Sound View is the oldest public beach in the country. The image above shows the beach circa 1920.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE ARE NOW CLOSED: Sound View residents have been receiving letters from Heidi DiNino-Fields of Hartford Avenue urging them to register their opposition to the Sound View Historic District designation. These letters are filled with incorrect information, designed to confuse and frighten residents into opposition. Among the more blatant lies are that owners would not be able to paint or maintain their property; that it would negatively affect insurance, taxes and marketability; that it would impede upgrading to FEMA standards, and that the property “will essentially be frozen in as-is condition.” Each of these is completely false.

The National Historic Register is simply an Honorary designation to recognize neighborhoods that have a unique character and history. There are absolutely no restrictions on owners’ ability to renovate or develop their properties. This designation is different from the Town Historic District, on Lyme Street, which is overseen by the Historic District Commission, and has nothing to do with Sound View, or this type of designation.

Having a property within the Sound View Historic District actually conveys many benefits on owners, including better rates on insurance, better marketability, and assistance with waivers to FEMA requirements, building and zoning. The designation’s purpose is to make it easier for owners to renovate and develop their properties, if that is their choice. If an owner wants to renovate their property in a non-historic manner, or not at all, that is their choice. There is no government entity that can or will tell them what they can or can’t do.

IF an owner chooses to renovate in a historic manner, they become eligible for grant programs and tax abatements up to $30,000. If the owner wants the tax credit, that particular work will be subject to review, but only to ensure that the money is going toward a historic renovation. If an owner doesn’t take the cash, they can do whatever they like. No review or oversight whatsoever. Historic District designation has no impact on property taxes.

Sound View’s rich history has been obscured for too long by its rowdy reputation from the 1950s-1990s. As an intact pre-1938 beach community, Sound View is a unique and rare coastal resource. It was developed in the early 1890s, and there is very good evidence that it is the nation’s oldest public beach. Many of the cottages have been passed down for generations within the same families, and are maintained with pride to this day. The Historic District designation honors this tradition, and will help to preserve the neighborhood and public beach for future generations. This is a valuable opportunity for our town. Let’s not let one uninformed naysayer scare people into opting out of this positive opportunity.

For the true story, actual facts, and some very interesting historic details, I urge concerned residents to read the official application which will be posted on the Old Lyme Town website early next week at http://www.oldlyme-ct.gov/Pages/OldLymeCT_projects/currentprojects

Op-Ed: Malloy in the Middle

Posted on by
Reply
Susan Bigelow

Susan Bigelow

Last week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders tried to force the Democratic National Convention into a shape more to his liking by demanding that Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, a supporter of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, be booted from a high-profile chairmanship. He failed, but the fact that he tried says something about both Malloy and the dangerous state of our politics today.

Sanders’ argument is that Malloy and fellow co-chair former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., were unreasonably hostile to Sanders, and that they were “aggressive attack surrogates” for Clinton. As evidence, Sanders pointed to interviews the two men had given slamming Sanders, suggesting that Frank and Malloy would be “unsympathetic” to the views of Bernie voters.

Oh boy.

An eye-rolling DNC rejected …

Continue reading Susan Bigelow’s column published June 3 on CTNewsJunkie.com by clicking here.

Editor’s Note: Along with Shoreline Web News LLC, publisher of LymeLine.com and ValleyNewsNow.com, CTNewsJunkie.com is a member of the Independent News Network (INN). Members publish links to other member’s articles when we choose to do so in our reader’s interests

Op-Ed: Carney Says Proposed State Education Budget Cuts Will Seriously Impact Region 18

Posted on by
2
State Representative Devin Carney (R-23rd)

State Representative Devin Carney (R-23rd)

Does Governor Malloy have a problem with communities that succeed? This is a question we need to ask ourselves. Year after year, the schools of the 23rd District work diligently to provide quality education to our youth. Our teachers and administrators add to the success of our state by instilling the proper foundation to produce the industrial, business, and community leaders of tomorrow. Many of our best and the brightest students chose to continue their education in Connecticut – something of which the governor should be incredibly proud. Just last year the valedictorians from Region 18 (Lyme and Old Lyme) and Westbrook as well as the salutatorian from Old Saybrook chose UConn.

We have seen two budget proposals over the past two weeks that would do damage to the schools in the 23rd District. The Democrat-controlled Appropriations Committee released an incomplete budget that would cut Education Cost Sharing (“ECS”) funding to the towns in our district by 33 – 56%. This was bad enough. But, under the governor’s updated proposal, the four towns in the 23rd went from receiving a recommended amount of $1,831,496 in ECS funding to $0 for FY 2017 (July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017). A total of 28 towns were zeroed-out, while many cities, like the governor’s hometown of Stamford, were held harmless. Talk about a shared sacrifice.

These proposed cuts – made at a time when most local Boards of Finance are crafting their own fiscal year budgets – are unfair. The clear lack of respect and care on the governor’s part is alarming. All four towns in the 23rd District will now have funding gaps and may require local property tax increases to offset them. This would add an even greater burden to Connecticut’s taxpayers and Connecticut simply cannot afford to lose additional wealth at this time. However, that’s where these indirect tax hikes would be directed – all 28 communities being zeroed-out are considered ‘wealthy’.

Although these cuts are debilitating to small towns like ours – which already receive far less back from the state than we put in – we must keep in mind that this is only a proposal.

I remain committed to finding a solution with other members of the legislature to address this inequitable cut to our towns and to solving our $930 million deficit. The state wants people to move to Connecticut and one of our best selling points is our top-tier education. While we are faced with many serious and pressing economic issues, predominantly the ongoing budget crisis, great public education is one area on which we can pride ourselves.

I have written a letter to the governor urging him not to turn his back on the children and the taxpayers of the 23rd District and to request that he amend his updated budget and eliminate these cuts. The taxpayers of Lyme, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook, and Westbrook provide a great deal to this state and the deficits would be much, much higher without us. If either the legislature’s or the governor’s cuts are enacted, then it would be only fair that some of the approximately 380 unfunded state educational mandates be eliminated.

Instead of education, the governor and the legislature must look to balance the budget through real structural changes in the way state government is run. Changes could include pension and benefit reform, re-negotiating of union contracts, a moratorium on unnecessary government projects, serious spending and bonding caps, and tighter controls on overtime. When I last checked, many don’t live in Connecticut for bloated government overtime, but they do for our great schools. In fact, it may just be the only thing keeping them here.

To read my letter to Governor Malloy: click here

To see how Connecticut towns fare under the Appropriations budget: click here

To see how Connecticut towns fare under the governor’s budget: click here

To read the governor’s budget proposal: click here

To see the approximately 380 unfunded educational mandates: click here

Op-Ed: Hains Park Boathouse Options Could Save Funds While Also Supporting Rowing Program Needs

Posted on by
2

As an engineer and rower, I frequently look at form and function and have provided several suggestions to the Hains Park Boathouse Improvement Committee (HPBIC).  When developing a project, each feature should be considered for its benefit and its cost. The newest Boathouse plan for Hains Park in Old Lyme favors form over function, and is less sensitive to disruptions and cost.  What is not known by those missing the Boathouse Committee meetings is that less expensive proposals have been raised that were able to meet the rowing program “needs” that did not “tear down” the existing, structurally sound Boathouse, which has one 28 ft. wide bay and one 16 ft. wide bay. 

However, these proposals were dismissed by the majority of the Committee because they said the rowers need three 22 ft. wide bays with an associated increase in aisle width between boat storage racks from the existing 4-5 ft. to 10 ft. (although an 8 ft. minimum is recommended by the US Rowing Association.)  Creative proposals to rearrange the boat storage layout recommended as a no-cost option by the boat rack supplier to achieve wider aisles with the existing 28 ft. and 16 ft. bays  – with use of a single line of “rolling racks” in the larger bay (see photo below) – plus the addition of a third 22 ft. wide bay, were summarily dismissed.   

The author suggests that rolling boat racks similar to those shown in this photo would offer a cost-effective alternative in relation to the Hains Park Boathouse construction.

This image shows an example of the boat racks suggested by a supplier as a cost-effective alternative in the design of the Hains Park Boathouse. Photo submitted.

For example, all of the boat storage needs and 10 ft. wide aisles can be accommodated by placing one line of rolling racks and two rows of fixed racks in the 28 ft. bay, and one row of fixed racks in the 16 ft. bay, plus two new sets of fixed racks in an “addition” (attached or detached) to the existing Boathouse.  In the lowest cost option I proposed, a new boat shed (22 ft. x 84 ft.) would be built next to the existing Boathouse.  Given that it is pre-engineered by a company specializing in storage structures, it can be constructed very quickly with limited disruption to the existing facilities, with an estimated cost of  less than $200,000 – including ties to the existing structure.   

The primary reason given for dismissing all of the more cost-effective “addition” options was that they would be 6-8 ft. wider than the new Boathouse proposal (at 66 ft.) and so they would not allow the replacement basketball court to remain next to the Boathouse.  However, the committee now proposes moving the basketball court to a different area of the park both because of the Boathouse’s larger footprint and to save one maple tree.  Thus, moving the basketball court is no longer a reason to reject consideration of any of the more cost-effective “addition” options.   

Even if one allotted another approximate $150,000 to extend the back of the existing Boathouse for added flex-space, changing areas, and small storage/office spaces, the “addition” options have the potential to save hundreds of thousands of dollars over tearing-down the existing Boathouse and re-constructing “new.” 

Currently, the majority of the committee is pushing to proceed with committing $670,000 on just Phase 1 of project (which includes the new Boathouse) before they have estimated a “total project cost” for the “total project plan”, which includes public toilet upgrades, pavilion, and the remaining site work.  Thus, there is a significant risk that the full project cost with the new Boathouse plan may not come in within the $883,000 budget (comprising the $478,000 STEAP grant and $405,000 from Old Lyme taxpayers.) 

At this point, seriously considering more innovative boat storage options that save the existing Boathouse is recommended.  The rolling racks that can save the existing boathouse and significantly reduce the need for Old Lyme tax dollars should also be seriously evaluated or investment should be made in features that expand the functions of this park for the benefit of all.

Editor’s Note: The author , Stephen P. Dix, is a Professional Engineer who has been working with the Town of Old Lyme in various capacities for over 25 years, primarily supporting their Sewer Avoidance Program.  More recently he teamed up with Lombardo and Associates to propose a more cost-effective solution that included  water reuse.  Previously, he served as Technical Director for Infiltrator Systems in Old Saybrook for 10 years following an appointment at West Virginia University as Director for the EPA’s National Small Flows Clearinghouse.  Dix is recognized for his research in the science of soil-based treatment systems with publications and patents in this area.  He currently runs his own consulting firm that helps environmental corporations develop new technology; the firm also trains engineers and professionals in this field.

Op-Ed: Lyme P & Z Needs to Separate “Agricultural” Activities Associated with Farms from “Commercial” Activities

Posted on by
1

Editor’s Note: Last week, Christopher Roosevelt of Lyme sent the letter below to the Lyme Planning & Zoning Commission on behalf of the Lyme Rural Protection Group. We are publishing it as an Op-Ed due its length.

‘I thought I would reiterate my recommendations regarding separating farm/agricultural pursuits from “commercial” activities of wine tastings and wine sales.

First, as a very fundamental proposition, the Connecticut farm winery act specifically anticipates and clearly leaves the authority to localities to separate the agricultural aspects of a farm winery (widely supported by many in the Town) from the “commercial” aspects such as wine tastings and wine sales.  I understand that this may impose very modest additional costs on a farm winery to resolve having space in an existing commercial district to conduct such tastings and sales, but it clearly goes a long way to support and maintain a town’s residential and rural character, something the vast majority of Lyme residents support.  I hope the Lyme P&Z Commission carefully considers that option and implements it with any new Code changes.  I know that quite a few residents, myself included, would personally and financially support the location of such “commercial” aspects of a farm winery in existing “commercial” districts with personal contributions until the commercial results help to support such activities.  Who is going to pay me back for the commercialization and loss of my rural, residential neighborhood?

Second, I have talked to many residents of the Town of Lyme representing both major political parties and there is clearly a major lack of knowledge and familiarity among the vast bipartisan majority, including a few party leaders, with regard to the proposed zoning code changes.  That, in and of itself, is not a good way to make policy or change regulations, unless, of course, your Commission does not want informed public participation.  I would suggest that you as Chairman and the Commissioners of the Lyme P&Z Commission carefully consider holding at least two or three “town meetings” in two or three areas of the Town to inform and educate the Town’s voters about what is being proposed and what the implications may be in a number of areas, but at least for definitions of “farms” in the Town and the possible tax revenue implications of residents claiming their properties are “farms” and asking for tax reductions.  I think there are many areas in the proposed changes where implications for the Town as a whole have not been carefully considered and may adversely impact the Town.  This should not be done in a hurry up manner or to simply adopt new code measures only to get one winery approved.  That is very bad policy and even worse practice.

Lastly, I would suggest that you and your fellow Town representatives remain aware that there is deeply felt (and quite wide spread) disappointment and criticism on the part of many in the Town for how all this has been handled by the Lyme P&Z Commission.  The words “old boy network” have been used frequently with me.  The possibility of a petition for a referendum on the subject has also been frequently mentioned.  You may have recently won election, but other elections will be happening and this may be a subject for discussion very soon.  That is the ultimate recourse of voters who may be told that the Lyme P&Z is doing all that is legally necessary but, in fact, is not looking out for the best interests of the Town and its voters.  I am a believer in informed, participatory democracy.  That is clearly not happening in this instance.

Thank you and your fellow Commissioners for considering this message.’