Meriden: Surely it's true that the city needs development. No one has ever denied that. But at the same time, as one contemplates the development of the Hall Farm and Cathole Mountain, and as the city eyes the state-owned Undercliff property as a lush development site, one somehow does not look forward to the transformation of forests and meadows into parking lots for Dunkin' Donuts and McDonalds, WalMarts and Targets.
Cheshire: Ordinance committee turned down a plan that would have imposed a waiting period befor the demolition of any building more than 75 years old. Property owners "want the right to do what they want with their property at any time." That's the traditional way; preservation of anything seems to be generally regarded as either waste or imposition.
Meriden: Dogs on leashes. Of course, this is the rule. The problem is there are dogs and dogs, just as there are children and children. Even though no one objects to a quiet, well-behaved dog, the only way to control the other rambunctious dogs is to insist that all be on leashes.
Area: It's always hard to see why affordable housing seems to strike so much fear into planning and zoning hearts. Given the price of so much housing, giving some leeway for the less affluent strikes one as an essentially fair idea.
State: self-insurance for Connecticut seems to have become a rabidly partisan decision. Given the economics of the situation, it's a little hard to see why.
Wallingford: "Somebody told me that somebody's interested" in running against Bill Dickinson this November. Wonder if it's the same somebody?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Meriden would bend over for any developer. In Meriden, preservation is a non-issue. No one cares about anything except how much taxes they pay.
I have to agree with that. Meriden is in for the short-term fix and not for the long-term solution.
Post a Comment