THE LINES ARE DRAWN IN WALLINGFORD — AND SO ARE THE SIGNS

As published in the Recrod Journal, Tuesday October 18, 2011

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff

rcyr@record-journal.com 

(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD — As a referendum to overturn a Town Council decision draws near, signs are literally pointing to more businesses supporting a controversial deal the town has made to spruce up a downtown parking lot in return for 30 years of free parking.

In August, the council agreed to enter into a lease agreement with the property owners of four downtown buildings at Simpson Court, along North Main Street, to spend up to a half million dollars to repave and refurbish the lot in return for free public parking.
A day after the council’s decision, a petition drive was started by resident Robert Gross, who collected enough signatures to force a referendum, which is scheduled for Nov. 14. Two political action committees formed — one supporting and one against the plan — and the opposing signs have quickly become ubiquitous throughout town.

“People are starting to understand how this is going to benefit the town of Wallingford,” said Christopher Diorio, head of the “Support Our Downtown” committee.

Diorio, also vice chairman of the Republican Town Committee, said 18 signs have gone up in the windows of local businesses, out of the 290 signs he’s given out. The vast majority have gone to residents for posting on their lawns. The signs are paid for by donations to the political action committee, although businesses have also made donations, he said.

“At least a dozen businesses approached us, but we approached some, too,” he said.

One business owner, however, has stood apart from the otherwise heavy support among downtown businesses for the parking deal. Christian Rao, owner of Cafe Ra at 350 Center St., is close enough to the parking lot to reap the benefits of pedestrian traffic but said he has to explain to countless customers why he is against the town’s investing money in private property.

Signs that urge a “Yes” vote ask to overturn the lease, while a “No” vote keeps it in place.

“A lot of them don’t understand the situation because it’s confusing with the ‘yes’ and the ‘no’,” Rao said. “I stress to them it’s not that I don’t want parking downtown, I just don’t think it’s the best solution. I have an issue with restrictions and I have an issue with our businesses not contributing.”

The lease stipulates that business owners will be able to give out up to 90 parking passes to their employees to use any of the planned 130 parking spaces for more than four hours. Public parking will be restricted to four hours.

Varying configurations of property owners have been in a year-to-year lease agreement with the town since 1961 to provide free parking in return for lot maintenance. Owner disillusionment with the quality of maintenance, however, led to the current lease agreement. Annual revenue from the Wallingford Electric Division will pay for upgrades to the lot, with plans for trees and lighting.

Christine Rinere, owner of The Dressing Room at 3 N. Main St., said she does not live in town but looked into the issue more closely when her customers had more and more questions about signs at other businesses. After researching, Rinere said she was in favor of the lease and put up her sign.

“I thought it was good for downtown; it was not costing anyone anything, it was not taking anything away from anybody and that to me sounded like a win-win,” she said.

Business owners along Simpson Court with signs supporting the lease, including the Half Moon Cafe and Body and Soul Day Spa, were not available for comment Monday.

Geno Zandri, chairman of the PAC “Citizens Against Private Parking Deal,” said that while only one downtown business was with the opposition, hundreds of residents have asked to put “Yes: Repeal the Lease” signs on their lawns. Business owners would clearly support the lease, he said.

“They’re hoping that if that lot gets fixed, they’re next in line to get theirs fixed,” he said. “And wouldn’t that be a sweetheart deal?”

Letters to the Editor regarding Simpson Court Parking

These are the letters to the editor of the Record Journal regarding the Simpson Court Parking issue as published on Tuesday October 18, 2011

Equal Investment

Editor: Steven Knight wrote regarding the Simpson Court parking lot issue that it will be “Thirty years before any investment the town makes would convey to them” (private property owners). If the town spends $500,000 in tax money that improves the value of the property, the owners could market and sell (with the lease restrictions) for more than it is worth presently because repairs and upgrades will have been done with the tax dollars. If this is such a great deal, Wallingford and the property owners both should make an equal investment.

Visit 500kparkingdeal.com. Get the facts and vote November 14.
JASON ZANDRI, WALLINGFORD  

Bad decision

Editor: Concerning the owners of the land and buildings on Simpson Court in Wallingford: All the owners have been charging and taking in lease/rent money from their tenants for years if not decades: restaurants, real estate companies, spas, retail stores, etc. — that is their right. Their privately-owned land behind their privately-owned buildings has been in need of repairs and maintenance for a long time. These owners have had and still have the responsibility to address needed repairs, and pay for them. A safe, well lit, pothole-free parking area is a necessity. The owners have failed all parties, except themselves — and for what reasons? (More profits, no responsibility?) And they want us to pick up the tab.

Town money used for this project, whether it be taken from the Electric, Water/Sewer Division or any department, is taxpayers’ money, not money to be used for private property enhancement.

The town can still lease a strip of the area going from Center Street across to Church Street, maintain it properly and continue to allow public use. Have any of the building and land owners come forth with a plan to pool some of their “profits” and have their property repaired? I doubt it.

It’s really so simple: they own, they should pay, as we taxpayers pay for our home improvements. If they haven’t come forth and will not come forth, then vote “yes” to repeal this very bad decision made by our mayor and council.

KATHY AVERY, WALLINGFORD

Knows better?

Editor: With regard to the letter from a Wallingford council person (R-J, 10-8), I would like to make one small point: Not one — not one — of the people involved in the current referendum, nor the referendum concerning the Wooding-Caplan property, was in any way, shape or form, involved in the referendum on the location of the Park and Recreation facility — an effort so poorly organized, and orchestrated that not even then members of the Park and Rec Commission, nor members of the then Council, can even remember it. Had any of the people currently active in exercising their civil rights (and duties) been involved, we can all be assured that Park and Rec would never have been located on the outskirts of Wallingford (where many of those most in need of it can’t easily get to it), but rather in town (old Simpson School property?) where it belonged.

While government almost always thinks it knows better than the people, it very often doesn’t.
ROXANNE MCINTYRE, WALLINGFORD

 

One-sided terms

Editor: Like Alfred E. Neuman, the supporters of the Simpson Court parking scheme would have the public say, “What, me worry?” about the funds that are being spent to improve and make safe the rear Simpson Court lot.

“Don’t worry,” they say, “these are electric division funds!” Not true. These funds were paid to the town by the electric division, in lieu of their paying taxes, and these are town funds to be used on capital projects of the town. “The assessed values of the properties will go up, and therefore we will get more tax dollars!” Not true, either. There has never been a report to the Town Council that the assessed values will go up, and the mayor himself has questioned that representation. “But, with the lease, it is not really private property.” Not really true, either. There are 130 parking spaces planned to be in the lot and, under the lease, the four property owners are being given 90 parking passes for people of their choosing (instead of the town monitoring to whom the passes are given). “The property owners can’t afford to pay anything to light or to help make their property safe!” Since when is it the role of our local government to pay to make other people’s property safe? When and where does this slippery slope ever end?

Isn’t this just like the bailouts of GM and AIG? Why isn’t this money being used to add additional parking (at least temporarily) or possibly even lighting, to the town-owned Wooding-Caplan property? Why couldn’t we use a portion of these funds to rehabilitate the American Legion building, (which is also owned by the town)? Please don’t be fooled by the misrepresentations. The terms of this deal are so one-sided and unfair! RHONDA B. FISHBEIN, WALLINGFORD

 

Public money

Editor: Our mayor and town council have once again shown their disdain for the taxpayers of Wallingford by essentially giving 500K in public money to the private investors that own Simpson Court buildings so that they may improve their property while getting nothing in return. The leasing arrangement that dates back over 40 years has always been a bad deal, and now it is even worse. The town gets to maintain the parking lot area (repairs, snow removal, etc.) for the next 30 years, all in exchange for calling 30 spaces “municipal parking.“ It has never been demonstrated that these parking spaces are usually used by anyone other than customers of Simpson Court businesses. Additionally, it sets a poor precedent that will permit the mayor to implement his stated goal of replicating this deal with other building owners who have parking lots in need of improvement in the uptown/downtown area. Add this $500K to the other $10 million in off-budget spending planned this year, and the “good times keep rolling” in Wallingford. This must stop! PAUL CIARDULLO SR., WALLINGFORD

 

Bunk

Editor: Don’t be fooled by a lot of double-talk and “save our town” bunk! Simply put: the town council voted (9/13) to spend one-half million dollars of your hard-earned taxpayer money to upgrade the parking lot behind Simpson Court between the bank and the Masonicowned building — money coming from the Electric Division. Question: your electric rate go up recently? This property is privately owned! This decision could possibly open up Pandora’s Box. What’s to prevent any other private enterprise in Wallingford from “demanding” to have their lot upgraded, as well?

A number of taxpayers have already asked me the same question: How ‘bout fixing up my lot? Come on, get in line for a great deal — the town’s picking up the tab.

My understanding, based on what I’m told, is that three of four properties in question may be up for sale; but if that happens to be so, I’m sure they’ll hold off, awaiting the free taxpayer-funded upgrade in order to get an enhanced price for their property. Vote a resounding Y-E-S to prevent this nightmare from happening! It’s your money. Talk about “facts! The above facts are worth pondering.

Also, voting day for the referendum is the 14th of November. Mark your calendar. Voting places have also been changed. You should receive notification in the mail. ROBERT HOGAN, WALLINGFORD

Parking lot move gets PAC support

As published in the Record Journal, Tuesday September 27, 2011

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD — A political action committee has been formed to support the Town Council’s Simpson Court decision, which voters will be asked to decide on in a referendum Nov. 14.

The group, “Support Our Downtown,” was started by Republican Town Committee Vice Chairman Christopher Diorio to draw support for the council’s decision to enter a 30-year lease agreement with local property owners to repair and maintain a parking lot in return for free public parking.

Diorio, a 40-year-old father of three, said the deal is good for downtown businesses and the community.

Opponents say it is inappropriate to invest town money in private land. Last month a group opposing the lease agreement, headed by Robert Gross, collected enough signatures to force a referendum.

Diorio, who works in the Hartford public affairs office of the state Senate Republicans, said people from both parties support the lease agreement.

“I’m not trying to make this into a political football here,” he said. “Without an agreement, the owners may very well decide to restrict access to the property. Where can you go in the state of Connecticut where the property owners have a parking lot and are willing to go into a business merger with municipal government? It’s the town, not the owners, who will control the parking lot. Thirty years is a long time.”

Both Republican and Democratic councilors voted in favor of the lease agreement. Republican Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. is also a supporter.

One property owner, John McGuire, has said that if the referendum fails he will pull out of the current annual lease agreement with the town and restrict access, possibly charging for parking. It is not the first time Diorio has been involved in a referendum. A political action committee he started, Save Our Charter, made more than 5,000 phone calls to local residents in 2009, urging them to vote against seven proposed amendments, one of which would have reduced the number of council votes needed to override a mayoral veto. Each proposed amendment was voted down by a margin of more than 1,500 votes.

Diorio’s committee faces the group against the lease, Citizens Against Private Parking Deal. Gross, who headed the petition drive to hold the referendum, is the PAC treasurer and has also successfully campaigned against council decisions in the past. He helped defeat a referendum five years ago that kept the town from selling its Wooding-Caplan property to a local developer.

Gross, a Democrat, said Monday that he had not heard of Diorio’s PAC and was busy collecting money and creating flyers and signs.
“This is not a party issue, this is about the town spending funds on private property,” he said. “We have no political affiliation with either party.”

The lease allows the town to spend up to $500,000 for capital improvements and mandates that the town repave the 130-space lot, install lighting and make other repairs as needed.

The town and some building owners along Simpson Court, off North Main Street, have been in a year-to-year lease agreement since 1961 for free parking in return for lot maintenance. Decades later, at least one property owner tried to make a longer arrangement and said the town wasn’t properly maintaining the lot.

Under the lease, private property owners will be given 90 passes for unlimited parking and 40 parking spaces will be available to the public with a four-hour limit.

Additional Thoughts on the Wallingford Charter Revision

There was an article in the Record Journal this morning written by Dave Moran titled Dickinson had big financial role in PAC opposing charter change which is cross posted over on my other blog.

After reading this some thoughts come to mind regarding the recent election in addition to some others that I have shared before:

• I supported some of the proposals - I voted YES on those
• Others I didn’t and I voted NO
• There was plenty of information available regarding the proposed changes
• There was ample time and opportunity to get the facts
• Some of the people that turned out to vote made choices based based on their knowledge of the subject matter (whatever level that may be)
• Some voted the way they were told to vote
• Some were scared into voting a certain way
• The majority of registered voters - 64.4% - simply didn’t show up
• The majority of the 35.6% of the voters that showed up wanted no changes made.

So I make a lot of different things of these facts but the bottom line is – the people that wanted to have a say had their say and they said “let’s keep things the way they are.”

There is no arguing around that and there is no point – that is why the process is set up the way that it is. It is set up this way so that everyone has an equal say in their vote – all they need to do is exercise that right.

There has been some additional discussion around who donated what, where, and how much. There is a reason all of this information is recorded and why the paperwork is filed locally and with the state. It gets a review and some additional scrutiny when someone questions something but generally things that are in plain sight are on the up and up which is why I am such a proponent of making sure that what is public information gets put out more broadly and openly.

It would seem to me that Mayor Dickinson is well within his rights to contribute to a PAC.

At the same time, it seems that it is within legal boundaries for PACs to donate up to $2,000 a year to other PACs so when the Com­munity Initiative PAC made the donation to the Save Our Charter PAC it was above board.

Additionally when the Mayor’s campaign committees paid their surpluses into the Com­munity Initiative PAC, it is also allowed under Connecticut election laws.

So these are my thoughts – tell us, what are yours?

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,PAC,Election