A Place for Women to Build a Stronger Center
Private
Training
and Classes
Mat, Strength Training, Yamuna Body Rolling
Painting Co.
Call NOW for
a FREE estimate
203-241-8922
For ALL of your painting and wallpapering needs.
Mention WestportNow & SAVE 10%!
Boland Bros. Painting
News
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Two Westport Teens Escape Serious Injury in Exit 41 Crash
Two Westport teenagers escaped serious injury tonight when their car collided with another at the Exit 41 ramp of the Merritt Parkway at Sunny Lane. The male and female 17-year-olds were returning from a school event, according to one of their mothers. They refused medical treatment, but a Shelton woman driving the other car was transported by Westport EMS to Norwalk Hospital. The teens were in the Subaru on the right. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
Comments: Comment Policy
Precisely at this site is where the YMCA intends to bring even more traffic to Exit 41 of the Merritt for their new regional recreation center at Camp Mahackeno. Westport needs more traffic at Exit 41 and along Rt. 33 like it needs a hole in the head!
When the Y’s hearings at P&Z;start up in (probably) February, Westporters have got to come out and tell P&Z;we already have ENOUGH traffic problems in this town, and they’re getting worse all the time.
The Y’s plan is going to make Exit 41 and the traffic situation an even bigger nightmare than it already is. And their “traffic mitigation plan” is a joke.
Further, if Mr. Joseloff is truly committed to public safety, the last thing he should be doing is sanctioning the Y’s proposal at Mahackeno. He’s made it quite clear that he wants the Y at Mahackeno - and we are guaranteed to see more Exit 41 and Rt. 33 traffic backups, delays and accidents like this one as a result.
Ladies and gentleman of Westport, the time is upon us to say NO to Mahackeno! Make your voice heard.
Amy Ancel
RTM District 3
Amy, as a resident of Westport (and District 3 in particular), I appreciate your leadership on this issue. The fact is, large commercial facilities have no place in residential, and rural, parts of town; traffic issues are but one of the serious problems that come about when zoning rules are ignored and overridden.
If we want the entire Town of Wetport to resemble the Post Road corridor, then let’s just agree to throw the zoning map away right here and now, and let anybody build anything, anywhere.
Ms. Ancel,
I would have hoped that your election to the RTM would have meant you have learned to gather facts before you make statements and refrain from misrepresenting the positions of others. Apparently not.
You know fully well that I have never “made clear” that I want the Y at Mahackeno or that I have “sanctioned” the Y’s proposal.
Being an RTM member brings with it a special responsibility for being truthful, including not misrepresenting someone else’s position.
Under Robert’s Rules, essentially you can disagree with someone’s position, explain why, and state your own. You may not engage in personal attacks nor question the motives of others.
Even though these rules pertain to formal debate in the body, traditionally RTM members have followed these guidelines in making public comments elsewhere. It is a tradition that has served the members and the town well for many years.
Gordon Joseloff
First Selectman
Westport
Mr. Joseloff:
Well, as a mere citizen of Westport, I might point out that it is common knowledge that you are supportive of the Y’s plan to relocate its downtown facility to Mahackeno, and against consideration of suitable alternative downtown sites, such as Winslow. I recognize that such a “common knowledge” characterization is not unlike hearsay, so let me support that with some quotes and reference material:
From the Westport Minuteman, Nov. 6, 2007:
“Joseloff spoke about a letter received in mid-July from the Department of Environmental Protection which said that state funding for the Town of Westport might be in jeopardy, should the town allow the YMCA to have a sewer at
Mahackeno. Joseloff dismissed it as a form letter . . “
From Westport Magazine, Feb 2006:
“Joseloff: My grandfather Robert Joseloff built the Fine Arts Theaters in 1916. At one time there were three of them. Our family still owns the building that used to house two of them, where Restoration Hardware is now. I’m the managing member.
. . . Some say the downtown will lose its vibrancy when it loses the Y. But when you replace the Y, it may be replaced with an arts center, with a mini-theater in the pool area. That might draw a lot of people.”
From WestportNow, May 10, 2007:
“Michael Rea, RTM District 8, and Jonathan Steinberg, RTM District 8, also both spoke out against Joseloff’s notion to move the “blue line.”
Joseloff said today it’s something that should be considered if the Family Y’s officials receive all of their approvals for the new facility.
Earlier this week, Joseloff said it would only be an exception for the Family Y and not a move of the entire “blue line.” “
From WestportNow, June 11, 2007:
“Westport First Selectman Gordon Joseloff faced off with RTM Long-Range Planning Committee members tonight over his desires to not locate the Westport Weston Family Y at Baron’s South or Winslow Park.”
From WestportNow, May 10, 2007:
“Westport First Selectman Gordon Joseloff said today he does not wish to see the Westport Weston Family Y located at Winslow Park . . . Joseloff was speaking before the Y’s Men of Westport Weston.”
Your June 11, 2007 words at an RTM Long Range Planning Committee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhD9eOLAYKU
Mr. Joseloff, this is not meant to be an attack of any sort; if you have changed your position and in fact do NOT support locating the new 100,000 sf regional YMCA facility at the Maheckeno site, then please make use of your excellent site and clear this up (as you know this comments section has become a valuable forum for local issues). I must point out that claiming to be in support of keeping the Y downtown, while rejecting every possible downtown location for a new YMCA facility, is perhaps more than just a bit transparent to your Westport residents.
Respectfully,
I first voted in Westport in 1978 and since that election I have seen local politics become more vitriolic, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by Ms. Ancel’s remarks. Nonetheless, I am very disheartened that Ms. Ancel is using her position on the RTM to make ad hominem criticisms of the Westport Weston Family Y’s proposed facility at Mahackeno.
I am dismayed that Ms. Ancel is directing her ad hominem attack at our First Selectman. There is no reason why Gordon Joseloff should be a stand-in for the directors and trustees of the Family Y. But then there really is no reason why we should be slandered either.
Exactly a year ago, I wrote in the “Westport News,” “the controversy surrounding the Westport Weston Family Y’s attempt to build a new facility on its Mahackeno campsite is just about the most divisive I have ever seen in this town. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised given the tenor of national politics these days, but it is beginning to feel like we are living through a local version of the 2004 Swift Boat Controversy.”
I ended my letter last year by saying, “as we turn on the holiday lights this weekend, can we please turn down the heat?”
One year later, I ask the same.
Ronald Wimer
Director
Westport Weston Family Y
Mr. Whittle,
You have made my case. Nothing you have quoted says I support, sanction, or endorse the Y going to Mahackeno. Reread what you have quoted.
My position on the matter has not changed from two years ago before the election: I have said the Y has the right to apply to use their property as they desire, just as any other property owner has a similar right; I have said I prefer a downtown location for the Y (and continue to work towards that solution); I have said I do not favor Baron’s South or Winslow Park as these properties ought to be reserved for municipal needs (I have not said this about Jesup Green or the Imperial Avenue lot); and lately I have said if Y gets approved at Mahackeno, it makes more environmental sense to put them on a sewer.
Gordon Joseloff
Mr. Joseloff:
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments; while we may not agree, your prompt reply is certainly appreciated, as is this forum.
Respectfully,
What’s clear from this thread is that we all must choose our words wisely for we may have them fed back to us within minutes or months. But either way the subtext gets through and we know what people really mean.
Back to the issue - The Accident.
What is clear is that more cars added to what is already an over crowded situation is unreasonable. The YMCA’s proposed mitigation, claimed to be worth $1 Million, doesn’t cut it. The Y ignores every other road which will carry traffic never meant to deal with such volume.
This is a safety issue, a quality of life issue and an infrastructure issue. It is NOT smart growth to bring such a facility and such a use to this residential part of town.
Matthew Mandell
RTM D1
The issue of traffic is specifically NOT the purview of the developer of a piece of property, it is the decision of the town that determines the suitability of a use for a particular site.
IOW, if the town deems it suitable to site the new Y at Mahackeno, it is the TOWN’S responsiblity to deal with the traffic. A developer is NOT the responsible party for what might be traffic problems down the line, it is the Town that is responsible for allowing what will be, and dealing with traffic is a consideration that can only be solved by the town.
The Y can’t be held responsible for what will happen to Merritt Parkway traffic or Route 33 traffic because of its presence. It is utterly impractical to look at this any other way. Should the town decide it is satisfied with the traffic as it is or as it may be, the threshold on that one issue (one of several others) has been met. That’s truly what any responsible P&Z;board will have to decide. Does the town have the resources or solutions to take the responsibility for easing the added traffic (if any) their decision will create? Because it WILL be the town that will be pressed to create the solutions should they be needed.
Winthrop Baum
Westport/Weston Y Rescue Group
Well, Emerson noted that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so I’m not surprised to see that the anti-Mahackeno crew continues to see everything that happens in Westport as confirmation that a new Y at Mahackeno will lead to the apocalypse.
Never mind that a logical argument could be made that the accident occurred due to excessive speed, which would be less likely if there were more traffic (see, the lunacy of the Mahackeno = Fish Kill… signs is rubbing off). Never mind that there is nothing in the article, or the accident, that is actually relevant to the Mahackeno issue. Ms Ancel and Mr Mandell will turn anything into an opportunity to argue against the Y.
Accidents happen. Cars crashed, but it is not a sign or an omen. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Adrian Bowles
Does anyone think that the accident by Exit 41 on the Merritt Parkway caused the back-up on Route 95 today..............the Post Road was having one of its usual ‘jam’ sessions, with cars, coming though our town today. But, those ‘jam’ sessions happen quite frequently. Do you think having the “Y” down town causes them?
Obviously Mr. Bowles is touchy since the accident occured at the exact intersection where the YMCA wants to put a new light and clearly brings our attention to it. Timing is everything, sorry if it ruffles some feathers. And please don’t link me to the Fish Kill signs, even indirectly, you know better.
As to Mr. Baum. If the Town doens’t feel they can handle the traffic generated, then under the special permit the YMCA is to be denied. That’s the point, it is not just the impact at the epicenter that has to be weighed, but globally, planningwise. It is not an “as of right” application, there is a difference.
I’m only touchy because you and Ms Ancel are making something out of nothing, which I have come to expect. This accident had NOTHING to do with the Y or Mahackeno but because it happened nearby, you are opportunistically using it to further your very narrow agenda.
I didn’t link you to the signs, I linked my response to the signs - perhaps a course in logic would be appropriate. I have linked you to calculated misrepresentations about your residency in the past (which was proved in open session before the RTM), to extreme NIMBY politics, and to an ugly scene in which you made unpleasant, unwarranted, and factually false attacks on the Y and its leadership in front of my children in a restaurant while we were trying to enjoy our dinner.
I’ll stop responding here, because as my Dad once advised, it is futile to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. So, taunt away, and distort with abandon to those who refuse to see you for what you are. I’m done for now.
Before I was elected to the RTM, my opposition to the Y’s new 102,000 sf facility at Camp Mahackeno was crystal clear and public knowledge. In fact, it was primarily because of that opposition, as well as my longstanding reputation for fighting overdevelopment and protecting the environment, that I was elected to the RTM.
The people of my district know very well where I stand and that I am doing all I can to protect THEIR quality of life, THEIR neighborhoods and THEIR property values in District 3. I am continually cheered on in those efforts by my constituents and do not need to defend my position or outspokenness.
So yes, I am using my RTM position to represent the people of District 3 and their interests. Isn’t that what being an RTM is all about?
As for Mr. Joseloff’s position on the Y’s proposal, his actions have spoken much louder than his words. Were it not for his committing Westport’s town resources to overseeing the Y’s onsite septic system at Mahackeno, the Conservation Commission would have denied their application. It was Mr. Joseloff’s eleventh hour pledge that pushed the ConCom’s approval through - a pledge that was made without public vetting or the other selectmen’s input on the WPCA.
Mr. Joseloff has also very cavalierly dismissed the serious traffic problems the new Y will generate in District 3 by saying to more than one person in this town, “Everyone else has to put up with traffic - it’s time they did too.” He should know that comments like these made during private conversations never stay private. Districts 2 and 3 already have enormous traffic problems and don’t need to have them compounded by a giant fitness center in the middle of a residential zone.
As for Mr. Wimer, you’re not kidding anyone.
Finally, since it is the 50 m. pool and the Water Rats Swim Team that are driving this development, it’s no surprise that Messrs. Wimer and Bowles, both Water Rat Parents, are constantly attacking the people who live in the neighborhoods the Y is about to destroy. (See Mahackeno Now and Politicus Machamux.) Your agendas are obvious.
But what really matters is this accident, plus ALL THE OTHERS that regularly and with ever- increasing frequency occur on Rt. 33, and the fact that adding more traffic to the on and off ramps of Exit 41 and to Wilton Rd merely to serve the Y’s playground is not by any stretch of the imagination prudent, in the interests of public safety or in the interests of the good people of northwest Westport.
RTM members should not have to be eternal living embodiments of Robert’s Rules of Order. Life is not a meeting. When an elected official speaks her mind to work for change, it’s not an abrogation of responsibility—some people even call it leadership. It’s an integral part what used to be called civic discourse. And when Mr. Joseloff reminds Ms. Ancel of the “special responsibility to be truthful,” he’s basically saying she’s lying. But her words sure resonated with me. I, too, have perceived the first selectman to favor the Mahackeno project. That’s not to say that uttering carefully parsed statements so watered down as to be almost meaningless constitute an actual endorsement. But the result is the same: Mahackeno will happen. Bottom line: Ms. Ancel has an actual, live opinion. And it’s oh, so refreshing after what typically passes for meaningful public debate in this town: Behind-the-scenes wrangling by those in charge, followed by careful guidance by a lawyer, followed by disgruntled whining by the rest of us, followed by constant reminders that we must must “be civil” (read: docile). Some of us believe this approach has not, in fact, served the town well. How wonderful it is to (finally!) have an elected official speaking out about what some of us perceive as absolute, pig-headed folly.
I wish we could have a referendum on Mahackeno. It would clarify a lot.
Ms Ancel, the Water Rats parents are certainly supporting the move to Mahackeno, with possible exceptions including the founder of Y-Downtown, whose family manages to benefit from our efforts while attempting to destroy our chances of having a Y in Westport.
I make no apology for my interest in providing a safe and modern facility for my three sons who swim on the WRATS. I have nothing to hide in my agenda. It’s not like I am trying to annex 20+ acres to my backyard in the name of conservation, or claim to support a Y-Downtown when my goal is simply to stop a Y in my backyard, or position myself for political office.
I don’t believe I have attacked the people in that neighborhood, and of course I disagree with your opinion that the Y will destroy it. I have held up to scrutiny the distortions, fear-mongering, and blatant misinformation that you and your colleagues have perpetuated, and I will continue to do so.
I simply want a Y to be part of Westport for my children and their children, and Mahackeno is the only place to put it. You are in denial if you think otherwise. If you understand this reality yet continue to perpetuate the myth of a Y downtown, you are being disingenuous. I’ve been taught not to assume malice when ignorance is a sufficient explanation, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. As an elected official, however, perhaps now you will feel the responsibility to listen, and not just selectively. Hope springs eternal.
I have a feeling that this thread could continue ad infinitum, and the handful of people who are following it will just talk among ourselves without any minds being changed. I suggest that we all cool off, and we can resume this discussion in the New Year in a more appropriate forum. I look forward to such an exchange.
Good health to you and yours in this holiday season.
Adrian
Your personalization of this is shameful, debate the issues man. And stop using your children as part of your positions, it’s such poor form.
Back to the Accident - It happened at the intersection of Sunny Lane and Exit 41, (Read the blurb on the picture.) (Fact.) Exacty where the YMCA is proposing to install a light to deal with the increased traffic. (Fact.) The P&Z;weighs traffic accidents in there decision making process, (Fact) this one is just a glaring and timely example of things to come. (Prediction)
As for NIMBY. I didn’t realize that I live on Hiawatha, West End, Indian Hill, Cranbury, Riverside and Rices Lane. The RTM said my residency is on Ferry Lane East. And BTW the renovation is coming along nicely. I try to advocate for all neighbors where needed, if I can.
Now let’s stop this foolishness.
I want to thank Adrian Bowles for taking such a wonderfully intelligent approach to this string of comments. I am grateful for your wonderful quotes and I actually learned something from your writings. I hope you pursue other writings and if you have published any writings, please let me know. You are the best thing that has happened in this give-and-take. I am your new true fan. Your style of writing is quite a relief.
Secondly, our First Selectman is as decent and caring a person as anyone could ever hope to meet. We are lucky to have him in Westport.
Oh, Matthew. Some of those comments are too silly to address, but I just can’t let you get away with the accusation that I am using my children. To me, this is all about my children. I want what is best for them, and in my opinion that includes having a Y in Westport. Do you think I have any other agenda here? How am I using them?
Frankly, you got me into this and you involved my children when you attacked the credibility and character of people they look up to – the Y leadership – in that restaurant in front of them, despite my efforts to get you to stop. You didn’t listen then, and you don’t listen now. I have given you every opportunity to be more forthcoming, and yet you continue to obscure the truth. There is shame here, but it is certainly not mine.
Enjoy the New Year. I’m sure we can continue this in a more appropriate forum in 2008.
Rozeanne - thanks for the kind words. I write for a living, but usually on technology issues so the work tends to be somewhat dry (although I have managed to relate the running of the bulls in Pamplona and baseball rubbing mud to regulatory compliance, so I like to stretch). You can find a lot of my work by googling my name.
I’m going to stop on this forum for now (unless someone mentions my kids again), as the level of discouse is dropping, and I think we should save it for a political forum, not an article about a traffic accident which could just as easily have happened anywhere.
Dear Mr. Bowles - Since you “write for a living,” perhaps you are familiar with quoting one’s own words back to them - it was you who took the level of this discourse down, sir, and if you would like to be taken seriously on this or any other public forum, you should endeavor to avoid argument ad hominem tactics (and even worse, then crying out about how the level of discourse here is dropping).
Your first post here: “Ms Ancel and Mr Mandell will turn anything into an opportunity to argue against the Y.” Argue the facts, sir, rather than attack the speaker.
Your second post: “I’ll stop responding here, because as my Dad once advised, it is futile to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.” Wow, your skillful prose almost hid the fact the fact that you have again attacked someone, rather than the argument that was being presented. Sorry, but it has been my experience that those who claim to write for a living are often the most tiresome offenders of proper debate and discourse. And those who attack their opponents, rather than the argument they have put forth, are usually doing so because they have nothing on point to say in response.
Do you have anything to share on the wisdom of a 100,000 sf commercial facility being located in the area of this traffic accident? THAT sort of “prose”, even if in your insufferably pompous style, would be welcome here.
Let it be understood that if it comes to pass that the YMCA no longer exists in Westport, it is only because the Y’s leadership foolishly “sold” their downtown building out from under their members without having any guarantee of a new home. They chose to roll the dice and bank their entire existence on Mahackeno, and they may well lose. The Y’s Board of Directors and Trustees are solely responsible for that outcome, and no one else.
Has anyone bothered to find out how the people are who were in the accident? The teens? The lady in the other car? How did this accident, as reported on WestportNow, devolve into yet another tiresome tirade against the Y? Will now every accident that occurs withing a reasonable radius of Mahackeno be fodder for the anti-Y’ers? Or maybe those of us who understand that the Y is a private business and doesn’t need the RTM to approve or disapprove will drive very slowly and safely in and around the Mahackeno area so as to prove that we are responsible and caring citizens of our community. Perhaps we can drive just as carefully on the Post Road because we wouldn’t want any accident to disparage the reputation of the Y downtown.
Thanks for your comments, Jack. Of course I could have ignored this altogether, or made dry comments without my personal observations about Ms Ancel and Mr Mandell, but what fun would that be?
Over the past year I have – along with many concerned citizens – listened politely while these two attacked the motives, intelligence and character of my friends and myself. And when one wanted to attack without attribution, there was the safety of an anonymous account.
I have suffered along with the others while they attempted to overwhelm our RTM and committees with an avalanche of paper that they hadn’t read or understood.
So, my position is that as long as they miss no opportunity to slam Mahackeno – and I think this thread is sufficient evidence of that – I will respond in my preferred style. If that offends you, please don’t read what I write. If you want to know what I think about the issues, look at my writings on forums where that is appropriate.
As for your little innuendo “those who claim”, it would have taken less than a minute to verify my claim, but instead you chose to attack. See? Wasn’t it more fun that way? Nice job. Pot? Kettle?
After looking at over 30 sites in the last 10 years and after repeatedly being told by the town that public land would not be sold or leased to a private organization, the Y leadership decided a few years ago that building at Mahackeno was the only option if it was going survive in the 21st century. The Y has been operating at a significant loss for years and the current 84-year-old building no longer offers Westporters what they need. The trustees and directors of the Y sold the Post Road property last year at the end of the real estate boom. In fact, they sold just weeks before the market slowed to a standstill. I salute the Y leadership for getting the most money they could. Many people overlook the fact that the trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to the trust that Edward T. Bedford created when he founded the Westport Weston YMCA.
I am constantly surprised that people don’t realize that if the Y no longer exists the trustees will be forced to liquidate the trust. That will mean selling off the Mahackeno property. After all, if there is no Westport Weston Family Y, who will manage the property? That sale will mean that a large tract of open land will be developed with at least 12 new homes being built along the river with their attendant pools, tennis courts and heavily fertilized lawns.
That is why I have never understood the logic of Y Downtown and its supporters when they argue that they are trying to save open space in Westport. Putting the Y out of business will not save Mahackeno for Westport. Just the opposite.
It’s interesting to see how the sides of this issue present themselves in this thread. One logically and rationally, the other....not so much.
Kudos to you and yours, Mr. Bowles.
Ahh, the declaration of a “winner” by a Y member, warms my heart to see that Mr. Kiker prefers the logic of attacks on Ms. Ancell and Mr. Mandell as opposed to the factual traffic issue they raised. I still would prefer spirited debate on the issues myself . . . and I too would think a good old fashioned referendum would be in order, as has been suggested.
Mr. Bowles, I enjoyed your last post, and you did catch me on the “those who claim” bit, kudos.
While we might disagree (with spririt!) on these issues, I still wish all here a very, Merry Christmas.
Mr Whittle, I don’t believe we’ve ever met, so I’m not sure how you think you know me well enough to know my background, my motivations, or my intent for my post.
I was simply making an observation, which I stand behind.
You are judged here by your words alone (as I am too), and yours speak for themselves; you are certainly free to post your thoughts. As for my observation that you are a [contributing] member of the W/W YMCA, that is simply a matter of 5 seconds of Googling, I trust you are comfortable with that fact being kown. I have been known to assist everyone in accessing publicy-available information, it tends to help explain the postion a person is taking.
A little searching on me would show that I live at 26 Calumet Lane, not in the immediate neighborhood of Mahackeno (I have no increased traffic issues on my neighborhood roads, nor is a 100,000 sf commercial facility going into my neighborhood, where I may have bought a house in reliance upon the AA zone) but I do live on Lees Pond, and would suffer the loss of “rural quietude” if the planned Y was built. More disclosure: I grew up as a member of the Y, and my family was, until this year, a member.
Adrian,
Wow, I didn’t realize a low key discussion about the Y moving or not, while eating a few slices of pizza, would create such ire.
You know as well as I no voices were raised, nor words exchanged. But rather, at the time, what I thought a simple discourse about the need or not for a 50 meter pool, the sale of the building and a downtown location. A conversation I have had with hundreds of people all over town.
Did I say I thought the Y board was manipulating the Town, I’m sure I did, they are in my opinion. I didn’t realize seeing their father and indirectly his friends being disagreed with was so earth shattering. All the kids, including mine, just kept munching away.
Adrian, I understand you are passionate about this subject and very close to the flame. But there is no reason to insult me or Ms. Ancel directly, indirectly or personally in such a public forum.
If your children were sensitive to the issue as I’m sure your whole household is, I’m sorry.
As to those who think there was a winner out here, there wasn’t. There can’t be when neighbors fight.
In response to Ms. Cooperman’s comments:
Just because Land Tech has drawn 12 or 13 plots for single family homes onto the footprint of Camp Mahackeno (see “Subdivision Feasiblity Plan” in the Y’s application at P&Z;,) it doesn’t mean that all of those homes would be approved or built. You present that argument as if it’s a foregone conclusion, which it is not.
And even if they were several homes built at Mahackeno, they would at least conform with the current AAA residential zoning and result in less deforestation, less pollution, fewer cars, fewer people and fewer adverse impacts on neighboring property values and the residents’ quality of life than if the new Y were built there. Since they would undoubtedly be multi-million dollar homes, they would, in fact, enhance neighboring property values - something which the new Y will not and cannot do.
There’s a huge difference between living next to some large and expensive houses, each on 2-acre parcels, and a 102,000-sf commercial recreation/fitness center plus a 4- acre parking lot, with all of its attendant noise, traffic, people, carbon monoxide, litter, lights and flooding. That one’s a no brainer.
I’m sure you could ask the last remaining homeowners on Sunny Lane their preference if you have any doubts. But of course the Y has never bothered to ask their Mahackeno neighbors. Ditto for the folks on Rice’s Lane, River Lane, Twin Falls Lane and Wilton Rd.
Finally, if it came down to the Y ultimately selling Mahackeno because they’ve put themselves out of business, who’s to say that the town, a land trust or a private benefactor wouldn’t buy the camp and preserve it as open space? Or offer up a public/private partnership to keep the camp running while preserving the land and making it open to the public, which it currently is not?
There are all sorts of possibilities that may arise in the “endgame.” But all of them are more benign to the immediate area and the town than the Y’s current proposal.
Your scare tactics and fallacious argument are taken right out of the Y’s latest script, chapter and verse. I know, because I’ve already read it at town hall.
The environmental scare tactics being used to characterize the Mahackeno development plan - which have been rejected by every group yet to pass judgement on them - are the poster children for fallacious arguments. And yet, you continue to propagate them.
Now, really, don’t you want to move this to a more appropriate forum so that more people can join in? Perhaps, as a new RTM member, you can arrange for such a forum?
Mr. Mandell,
Your recollection is at odds with mine and that of my family, and your behavior that night is what made me an advocate for the Y. I recount this here only because I don’t like the way you misrepresent that incident, just as you have misrepresented so much in recent years. It was no polite discussion, and it quickly became a lecture by you on the nefarious activities of the YMCA, despite efforts by myself and my wife to get you to stop. You just don’t listen.
There are plenty of people who could lecture me on civic discourse, but you sir, are not one of them. You play the victim so well – oh woe is me, they are attacking me personally – but you are happy to cast aspersions on good people who disagree with you, and you did absolutely nothing when members of the RTM ridiculed your neighbor for telling the truth about your residency. And, don’t you think accusing me of using my kids is a personal attack? You can’t have it both ways.
I know you like to get in the last word, so I’ll let you have it. Unless, of course, you continue to misrepresent the facts. I just won’t stand for that.
That forum, Mr. Bowles, has already been arranged by the Y and coming soon to the Planning & Zoning Commission hearings. There is no more appropriate, important or far reaching forum than that one - at which every resident of Westport can weigh in on this critical special permit land use issue if they so choose.
The last word?
I was sure hoping that my explaining my side of the evening would have been enough to lay this silly thread to rest. Maybe both of us don’t listen. And my asking you to keep your children out of the arguement was not an attack, but a reasonable request, unheeded.
But now you attack the RTM as a whole as you have many times before. These are all fine volunteers for our community and truly went above the call of duty in the last session. And since when is it suddenly my responsibility to check other RTM members comments on an issue?
Adrian, we spoke after the 34-0-1 decision on my residency, an ugly witch hunt that ended as it should have, and you said you’d drop it. You haven’t. Thanks for keeping you word.
So why don’t you and I just agree to disagree on the Mahackeno issue and find something else to occupy our time.
Disclaimer: I do not live near Exit 41/Rte 33/Sunny Lane.
Having muddled through the thread I have just a few comments.
Selectman Joseloff, why on an internet forum are the Robert’s Rules of Order applicable (poor old Robert had no idea the internet was coming). And in a cheap shot department, I really miss having a movie theater or two in town. What a shame you divested Westport of wonderful part of downtown.
Mr. Bowles wrote:
>>> I have held up to scrutiny the distortions, fear-mongering, and blatant misinformation that you and your colleagues have perpetuated,<<<
Ironically, the proponents of the Y have resorted to “distortions, fear-mongering, and blatant misinformation.” The *perception* is the Y wants to ram this new facility down our throats regardless of public opinion. At least that’s the view I have from my end of town. It would be interesting to see this put to a real referendum and get the real majority opinion (and I thought the amount of political signs were bad. Careful as to what one wishes for).
For the past year and half, I have traveled from my company’s Wilton office. After the first few drives, I decided it was easier to do the backroads through Weston (Cedar to Norfield, to Rte 53/57) rather than face the traffic and back ups of Rte 33. I shudder to think what it would be like when all the Westport people and out-of-towners (Weston, Easton, Fairfield, etc.) start traveling via exit 41 to go to the new building.
FWIW, from a motorsports perspective (I am a licensed Safety Steward with the Sports Car Club of America), I was curious what model was the Subaru (hey, back to the story!), perhaps a WRX or STi (I can see the non-car people closing the window now). Instead it was a plain Jane Subaru Legacy wagon, so the impetus to go faster was not as strong as if it was a “performance” Subaru. Since there was no video of the actual accident, it does not have any relevance on how incident occurred. Heck, we’ve seen old Mercedes or Volvos “overcook” a turn. But more traffic will statistically generate more accidents.
I used to belong to the Weston YMCA, when they were located directly across from the school road, where Dr. Noonan’s office is. I remember when the YMCA was a good neighbor.
And, yes, peace to all, a Happy New Year, 2008 is just around the corner.
An accident can occur anywhere, especially this accident. The car driven by the teen lost control when they slipped on black ice. In addition this accident occurred late at night on a Thursday, are you trying to tell me there was a high volume of traffic. An accident is the single most frightening thing someone can go through and you are all trivializing it over a debate regarding the YMCA. The posts on this picture should be sending thoughts and prayers to the teens, their family, the other driver and her family, for they went through a traumatizing event so close to Christmas. I hope none of you ever have to go through what those teens and their families did.
Have a happy new year
Next entry: Crunch
Previous entry: Two-Car Collision Injures One
life issues.
Groups Psychotherapy
www.drannabram.com
Top
Driver,
the nation's premier driving school, is now in Westport at
830 Post Road East
