I agree that the flyer was in poor taste. It also failed to identify the author or who had paid for the propaganda.
I found it interesting that the Republicans seemed to be complaining about the new subdivision regulations?? These new regulations have helped to bring needed controls to Woodstock development- and the initiative behind the new regulations was to promote Woodstock’s rural character and open space. SO- ONE CAN ONLY ASSUME THE REPUBLICANS DO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SPACE AND OUR RURAL CHARACTER- BECAUSE WITHOUT STRICT, CLEAR REGULATIONS- POOR DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR!
I would also like to make a comment regarding Joe Breen. He has been criticized for poor behavior, poor choices regarding educational initiatives, blamed for initiating a law suit between PZC & Zoning Board of Appeals-I don’t have direct first hand knowledge of all these issues, but certainly have found different versions of same events- which makes me wonder exactly what the truth is? It seems to me that the Republicans and CPS are attempting to use “Breen” as a lightning rod- and blame all the town’s evils on him (I also see people attempting to do the same to “CPS”) – and focused on trying to make it a center point of there campaign.
I listened to the Democrats yesterday discussing PZC- and in particular Joe Breen’s comments. Honestly- I don’t care if he is a “bully, somewhat hot-headed, or anything in between”-none of which I have ever directly witnessed. But what I care about is his knowledge and ability to add value to PZC- and keep Woodstock’s rural character in place- and on that front- Breen truly DOES SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST in Woodstock. I don’t want a “push-over, nice guy”- letting developers walk all over the PZC board.
The Democratic candidates for PZC were ALL outstanding and highly qualified- that was obvious. We do NOT want to return to the “laissez faire” , loose rules, anything goes, “good ole’ boy” Republican platform. Vote DEMOCRATIC PZC-BARTOLOMEI, SWALE & BREEN Alt- Dr. DAY and since we must let some Republicans serve- my recommendations are DR. GORDON, D. YOUNG & Alt. S. SPAULDING.
Let’s keep Woodstock moving forward!
Yes! While I have disagreed with many issues here on this website, I am willing to put the differences behind me and vote for what I feel is right. Clearly, I believe that the democrat candidates for P&Z have the best interests for THE WHOLE TOWN and not just a few major land holders.
I loved Breen’s analogy to repairing and re-repairing the old car… sooner or later its time to buy a new one. I believe it was also Breen who said, more or less, that individual property rights are great until its your neighbor who becomes offensive. So true. Breen may have quite the reputation here in town, deserved or not, but putting all that aside, he made Dorothy Durst look like a whiny old patronizing school teacher. No wonder he loses his temper with her. Hey, and what about that Anastasei guy…sounds like he was quite involved in Sutton’s town government, Hmmm, but had to leave because of what Sutton became (under his watch?). Gee, just the guy I want on P&Z.
Just to make the record clear, I am not a “good ole boy” Republican or someone with hidden interests for building up Woodstock, clearing down our farm land, and plopping in heavy commercial or industrial buildings. I have no conflicts of interest. I did serve for a while as an Alternate to the PZC in 2005. I have been serving as an Alternate these past 5 years to the Northeast District Dept of Public Health, which does interact with building and development concerns. My statements and responses to questions at both of the debates are my own (good or bad) and not what anyone tells me. I am not criticizing anything that others have said. I am an independent thinker. I’m also a team player. If I am elected to the PZC, I will work with the members there and with the public because that is what I should do, irregardless of what political party we belong to. We all live in the same town. My record for such as Chair of the Finance Advisory Task Force is clear.
Again, I am not saying anything bad about the Dem or Repub candidates for PZC. All that I am saying is that I think for myself and I will do what I think is best for the people of Woodstock and for the town we live. I think that’s what we all are trying to do and should do. Whatever I do if elected, I will not try to hide from what I say or how I vote. Ultimately, I will be accountable to the people of our town.
And, I have not said I don’t support clear regulations. I do support a good review of what we have now and how best to update them. I haev time and time said that I do support efforts to guide growth in a way that doesn’t change Woodstock. There are a number of philosophies that look to do that, including that of Randall Arendt whom is often cited by the current PZC members. I have read several of his books and heard him speak. I would like to contribute to the current efforts to bring about commonsense, reasonable, responsible, easy to read and easy to understand regulations so that there is flexibility in makeing them evolve over time and so that applicants, the PZC, the Town Planner, other boards and commissions that dovetail their work with the PZC (e.g.- Open Space & Land Acquisition, Inland & Wetlands, Conservation, and Eco Development), adn the public know know what’s up before we enact them. And, I do practice what I preach, kepping as much of my hous elot not developed and securing open space next to my house so it wouldn’t be developed and can be use (and is actually being used) for Matt Peckham to use it for agricultural purposes (free of charge since he’s doing me a favor of helping to maintain that parcel of land).
I hope that people take an informed look at each candidate.
I enjoyed talking with you, Ken, after last evening’s debate.
Jeff
Anastasi (?Anastasia?) builds shopping malls
Jeff, By the very fact that you are the only Republican to come to this site with full disclosure tells us all you are willing to cross party lines, work for the common good, and are an independent thinker. Kudos to you and best of luck on election day.
A Cafe Cronie: what are you talking about? This is not a Democratic Party site! John and Becki just happen to be registered democrats, with a but thats as far as it goes.
Chuckles,
Whatever you say Chuckles. I guess I did forget Frank Corden though. Regardless, we have not heard from any other of the Republican candidates for this year’s election.
Just looking at the 2nd edition of the Woodstock Voter newsletter put out by the DTC. Well done. If any of the candidates for P&Z care to answer these questions I would be obliged. Outside of perhaps the 171 cooridor, where else would there be potential commercial developments that would be modeled off your diagrams? It seems like many of the other major roads are residential.
Second, on pg. 3 P&Z, lower box marked “subdivisions”, could you elaborate on the Land Use section a bit? It seems to be here where perhaps the farmer’s have some concern. Thank you.
The basic commercial development we will get in Woodstock is retail, gradually growing along the Route 171 corridor and at high visiblity locations; i.e., major intersections. Just think of where it already is – Route 171; South Woodstock center; Route 169; the Routes 171/198 and Route 197/198 intersections; East Woodstock Village and maybe North Woodstock Village. The heaviest development will be on Route 171; South Woostock will gradually get more dense, etc. This will happen over time.
What we are showing with the renderings is that we can shape what it will look like so the town can have a gradually emerging commercial base and maintain its character. Doug Porter planned to develop a “Village Green” district by the Beeches but the town’s sewer district really fell down in meeting his needs for a sewer connection – a real lost opportunity.