Editor’s Note: Click here for the first installment of our newly revived Property Transactions section published Aug. 14.
8/29: 108-1 Hamburg Road, Adam J. Brevoort of Lyme to Christa L. Allen, $675,000.
8/25: 0 Norwich Salem Road, Jonathan Kenyon of Brooklyn, NY, to Thomas Chilton of East Haddam, $250,000.
8/8: 3 Avenue B, Ryan Brouwer and Anna Marie Brouwer of East Lyme to Timothy Michael Freitas Jr. and Sara Miller Halsey, $690,000.
To The Editor:
I am writing to inform the residents of Lyme of the recent dismaying development in the election campaigns for our town offices.
For the past month, I and the Republican Town Committee (RTC) have been planning to participate in a Lyme candidates’ debate, suggested in an email on Thursday, August 14 from olwenonline.com/ reporter Ms. Elizabeth Regan to the chairs of the Democrat Town Committee (DTC) and RTC. That same day, the RTC agreed to Ms. Regan’s suggestion and further proposed a split debate event that would include a First Selectman candidate forum followed by a Board of Selectmen forum. No DTC response was received.
After a morning town meeting Friday, September 5, while leaving the Center School building, I was approached by Mr. John Kiker, DTC Chair, who declared emphatically that his Democratic slate of candidates would NOT agree to meet in any public debate or voter question forum. I replied by suggesting multiple options to address Mr. Kiker’s numerous (and I believe unfounded) concerns about having his candidates face questions from all Lyme voters. Mr. Kiker threw up roadblocks to each, including a “Meet the Candidates” forum hosted by non-partisan reporters; Mr. Kiker just wouldn’t budge.
Notably, Ms. Christine Zelek, the DTC-supported First Selectman candidate, was present throughout this discussion yet failed to utter a single word, wholly deferring to Mr. Kiker. The DTC Chair’s troubling and puzzling refusal to permit his slate of candidates (especially his top candidate, Ms. Zelek) to be engaged by Lyme’s voters in an open forum is antithetical to the foundations of our democratic electoral process.
On Wednesday, September 10, I, Ms. Zelek, Mr. Kiker, Ms. Kristina White, and Dr. Mary Powell-St. Louis received a follow up email from Ms. Regan proposing a Candidate’s Forum sponsored by the Old Saybrook Chamber of Commerce, OPEN TO ALL SELECTMAN CANDIDATES AND VOTERS. A response was requested from each of us by Friday, September 12. As with the August email exchange, the RTC response was quick and supportive of participation in such a forum.
This afternoon Ms. Regan expressed her sincere disappointment to me in a phone call that the Candidate Forum would not move forward because Mr. Kiker stated that Ms. Zelek and his DTC candidates for Selectmen will NOT participate in olwenonline.com/’s proposed open candidates’ forum to inform and benefit all Lyme voters.
I believe voters deserve to hear directly from their candidates on issues including: 1) what skills and experience does each candidate possess and how will they use their skills to execute the role, 2) how does each candidate’s record of public and/or organizational service demonstrate their commitment to sustain performance in the role, 3) the “why”…what motivation brings 1) and 2) together for this candidate at this time for this particular role, 4) what does the candidate view as the most pressing issues facing Lyme, and 5) what actions does the candidate believe Lyme should take to address these issues?
Fellow residents, I believe we are fortunate to finally have choices this November for important contested town board and commission roles. It’s crucial that everyone be fully and transparently informed about each candidate, their position on issues, and what is at stake. I encourage us all as voters to have open conversations about the experience and motivation of the candidates that we will elect to our important municipal boards and commissions: for you, for your family, and for Lyme.
I sincerely hope Mr. Kiker will have a change of heart (very soon) and permit his DTC slate to join us in a Candidates Forum to speak to Lyme’s voters directly.
Respectfully,
Thomas St. Louis
Editor’s Note: i) The author is the Republican candidate for Lyme First Selectman.
ii) Here is a reminder of our Policy on Letters to the Editor and our Policy on Comments.
Editor’s Note: This op-ed was submitted to us by Maryam Elahi, President & CEO of the Community Foundation of Eastern Connecticut
At this moment, when all eyes are on the impact of federal budget cuts on our communities, it is important to highlight one of the most successful accomplishments of this last legislative session here in CT – the Early Childhood Education Endowment. We thank Governor Lamont for listening to advocates and residents who testified, and for demonstrating leadership, compassion and wisdom.
This was no small feat. Our state is now a national model. By supporting the Endowment Fund, our elected leaders put their arms around our youngest residents and their families. Working families won’t have to make a Hobson’s Choice between caring for their children (and not making a living wage) or working to earn a living (just to spend it all on childcare).
This is the role of responsible and responsive government – to use resources and revenue wisely, ensuring all residents can thrive and contribute back to their communities. Those of us in philanthropy have traditionally played a partnering role by providing grants and other support to the nonprofits that are the backbones of our communities. We are prepared to step up today, as we did during the pandemic. We aspire to do our best in these times to ensure that every one of our residents is supported.
The Community Foundation of Eastern Connecticut has led a campaign to “End Child Poverty Now” in our state for the last two years, with about 120 partners ranging from universities and nonprofit organizations to think tanks and municipal partners. We embarked on this campaign believing that we could do so much better in our wealthy state. We believe that every child should have what they need to reach their utmost potential.
Providing childcare for families who can’t afford it is an essential step in creating strong communities. But we need to do more. All school children should be provided with healthy school meals. Best practices in the United States and other nations demonstrate that providing nutritious meals for children and youth, especially those in struggling households, enhances their performance and reduces stress on families and teachers. Investing in school meals is a smart investment in our future generation.
As our elected leaders head into the Special Session this Fall, we ask that they build on the success of the last session and invest in structures that can protect those who are vulnerable and promote the basic rights of all our residents. We know that the federal cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other programs will be devastating.
Difficult choices must be made. Strategic choices should be made.
Investing in school meals will ensure that children perform well in school. It will support families’ economic stability. No child should suffer from hunger and malnutrition on account of their parent’s economic status. After all, we are one of the wealthiest states in this nation. Let’s ensure that our children are well fed so that they and their families have the opportunity to thrive in this great state.
As if our roads weren’t dangerous enough already, there’s a new generation of “personal mobility vehicles” (PMV) silently swishing around our streets for us to worry about — electric scooters and skateboards.
The scooters (about $1400) can go 30 mph. The skateboards (about $700) top out at 32 mph. But following simple instructions on the web, the speed governor can be disabled allowing even faster speeds … up to 60 mph. That modification is illegal in Connecticut.
Many adults and kids use this new gear responsibly. Parents love them as it gives their kids mobility (meaning less chauffeuring.) But even at slower speeds these vehicles are dangerous, their riders unprotected in the event of a fall or collision.
In July, a 15-year-old in Trumbull was killed on his e-bike when he was hit by a car.
That’s why new laws are coming in Connecticut October 1 regulating these devices.
If your e-scooter has no pedals (so it’s not a moped) and a motor over 750 watts (allowing speeds over 30 mph), you’ll need a driver’s license.
E-bikes with motors over 3,500 watts (meaning speeds over 50 mph) must be registered and insured like a motorcycle, and a motorcycle endorsement is required on your license to ride them.
Unless the scooter is built for two seats, passengers are not allowed. And e-bikes of all types are not allowed on sidewalks.
It is illegal to operate any motorized vehicle with a seat lower than 26 inches on public roads. That includes many of the smaller scooters and mini-motorbikes that are often marketed toward children.
Everyone on an e-bike or skateboard under the age of 18 must wear a helmet.
E-skateboards are not allowed to drive faster than 20 mph. Riders must be at least 15 years old but the vehicles do not need to be registered if under that speed limit. Local laws may be stricter for safety. Best to ask your Police Department.
If all of these new regulations seem confusing or overly restrictive, read the recent Op-Ed by State Rep Tracy Marra which started with the eye-catching headline… “I saw your kid almost die today”.
Increased mobility is great. But safety must always come first.
If you’re a driver you already know how disconcerting it can be when these e-devices come hurtling along, almost silently and without notice. But you’re the one driving a ton of steel, so give them their space.
Can law enforcement keep up with all this? Should they be responsible?
As one First Selectman said the other day: “It’s not a good thing to have police chasing after ten, eleven and 12 year olds on bikes and ticketing them. I’m not anxious to take a police officer away from other enforcement operations.”
What’s the answer, if not enforcement? Education and parental responsibility.
There’s no way teens can afford these e-bikes on their allowance money. They’re obviously being purchased by parents, happy to get out of squiring them around from school to dance class to the Y. Those parents should be responsible for making sure their kids are safe … and legal.
We all love our kids, right?
Editor’s Notes: i) Jim Cameron is the founder of the Commuter Action Group and advocates for Connecticut rail riders. He writes a weekly column called ‘Talking Transportation,’ which is published by a number of publications in the state.
ii) ”Talking Transportation” recently won first place in the general column/commentary category in the Connecticut Society of Professional Journalists Excellence in Journalism Contest.
OLD LYME—On Friday, Sept. 12, the Old Lyme boys faced Westbrook and came away with a 3-0 victory.
Wildcat goals were scored by Colman Curtiss-Reardon, Rowan McCormick, and Evan Coffee with assists coming from John Morosky and Charlie McEwan.
Sam Edmed made two saves and Liam McCormick one in goal for the ‘Cats
Jameson McCarthy notched 11 saves for Westbrook.
Old Lyme are now 3-2-0 overall and 2-1-0 in the Shoreline Conference.
On Saturday, Sept. 13, the Old Lyme girls played Waterford in a non-conference game. The game was played at Old Lyme and resulted in a 1-1 draw.
Vivian Boller scored for the ‘Cats off an assist from Anna Bussman.
Grace Osborne made 10 saves for Old Lyme.
Old Lyme’s record is now 2-2-2.
Waterford’s lone goal was scored by Shae Tiven.
Trinity Flynn in the Waterford goal made 6 saves