-As we approach the referendum date, April 27th, I thought I would take a moment to see exactly how high I could force my blood pressure by reading the "opinion" section of the "New Canaan Patch". I think there are a number of other descriptive words which could be used to replace the noun "Patch" in the title of this less than even-handed rag.
-The reporting and prominence of the "Yes" camp (as relates to the sidewalks/no sidewalks referendum) on the pages of the "Patch" give clear definition to the editorial stand, which is fine. It is fortunately not a subscription service, for if it was I would certainly not pick up a penny in an attempt to save for my daily access.
-That said, part of the problem, as I see it, is that the "No" camp, of which I am a member, has allowed the "Yes" camp to run roughshod over the airwaves with their half-truths and rabble rousing. They are permitted, largely unchecked, to direct false statements and vitriolic froth at the people, as represented by the "No" camp, who truly care about New Canaan (the fact that the referendum was worded so poorly as to make "Yes" a vote to send the current plan back for a redrawing is, well, baffling, but then most of current politics is) .
-The "Yes's" are lazy, ne'er-do-wells, who have been many of the same nitwits behind the rejection of the plans for a hockey rink as well as attempts to save a dilapidated red brick building at Mead Park under the guise of "historical preservation". These are the same people who contribute to our town only if it serves there direct purposes and needs. They do not understand the nature and necessity of rational discourse, preferring in their own deluded minds to steamroll all others in pursuit of their singularly narrow-minded and short-sighted goals.
-Should we be surprised? Well, hell yes. I though those folks lived in towns like Greenwich.
-Why don't we ask the real questions here? What is the "Yes" vote really all about? They want their street paved (the founders of the CRS are "Main Streeters" who aim to gain no matter what here, when their road is paved as is scheduled in the current plan). What they have not relayed to their lemming followers is that the elimination of the sidewalks in the current plan only gets one-half mile of additional road paved.
-More interestingly, as we question real motivation, why don't we also ask the "Yes" camp how many have fences and walls which would need to be moved as they are on town easement, should the sidewalks be approved?
-Seems to me that those who have so vociferously screamed at the moon here are truly among the lowest common denominator in our town. If we do not band together to hold the line, then we get what we deserve.
-Please read this anonymous (unless you give the individual credit for his/her penname: "NC Skeptic") posting on the "Patch":
This is the best the pro-sidewalk group can do? Lame.
We're supposed to delay re-paving Main Street and pay $600k for new sidewalks on lower Main (where there's little foot traffic) because some eight-year-old, "state-required" plan says they should go there?
Please. The argument for sidewalks is weaker than I thought.
In fact, this is a costly scheme cooked up by a handful of politically connected families who want all of us to pay for new sidewalks that will benefit them and only them. Vote YES on April 27.
-All I will conclude with here, is that classic quote attributed to Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".
Please. The argument for sidewalks is weaker than I thought.
In fact, this is a costly scheme cooked up by a handful of politically connected families who want all of us to pay for new sidewalks that will benefit them and only them. Vote YES on April 27.
-All I will conclude with here, is that classic quote attributed to Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".
No comments:
Post a Comment