Readers’ Opinions, 4-1-2014

‘Expert’ opinions

Editor:

You can always find an expert to confirm your belief no matter how ridiculous. What is the possible difference among soil samples that would be taken from 49, 39, and 25 Hourigan Drive in Meriden? Mr. Young has repaired his septic system and has no problem with sewage entering his home. The health department inspected and approved the repair.

At 39 Hourigan Drive, the owners complained of sewage flow into their house at a PUC hearing. In my opinion, this is a violation of City Code 125-52. What is Meriden’s Corporation Counsel doing about that? In my opinion, there is inefficiency and mismanagement in the health and engineering departments.

In response to recent editorials: In 1999, Meriden had been given an easement in back of 8 Westfort Highlands, “to alleviate a known water condition that affected other properties on Hourigan Drive.” I was a Democrat for 47 years and helped get numerous Democrats elected. I served on The Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees under Mayor Joseph Marinan (D). In my opinion, JFK would be a Republican today. “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

Some elected officials see the various races in eternal conflict with one another. Mayor Manny Santos is no more a false Latino than Colin Powell is a false person of color. I have great respect for two Democratic lawmakers who aided me when I was a Democrat, and recently as a Republican. I believe you should help everyone, regardless of party affiliation.

“We can learn to work together as brothers or perish together as fools.” — MLK, 1963.

Thomas Fitzgibbons, Meriden

Distrusting wisdom

Editor:

Amongst the many misrepresentations in his latest column (R-J, 3-30), Steve Knight states: “The revision question in which the transfer of fire marshal authority was placed was rejected because the commission very unwisely coupled its adoption with a controversial one in which the PUC would have been increased from three to five members, a move the voters again properly saw as merely political.” I’m not sure how increasing the number of PUC commissioners from three to five is political; I would think this would only strengthen the PUC by expanding the diversity of backgrounds and insights available.

Basically, Knight is using his column to write revisionist history. The voters did not selectively decide which Charter changes were good versus bad based on their individual merit. Despite the fact that there were numerous worthwhile revisions proposed, the R-Team was paranoid about the one change they found most onerous: reducing the number of votes required to override a mayoral veto from seven to six.

But the Republicans have so little faith in the intelligence of the voters that they did not want to take the risk that the electorate would not be able to remember which changes to support and which ones to vote down. So the R-Team, including Knight, campaigned to have the entire package, regardless of merit, rejected by the voters, and were successful.

The vote is done, and the issue decided, and this is how it should be in a democracy; but please don’t insult our intelligence by telling us that people selectively rejected specific provisions based on the merit of each, when all the R-Team did was to demonstrate their distrust of the wisdom of the electorate and said electorate’s ability to differentiate meritorious ideas from those that the R-Team found abhorrent, by campaigning against the entire package.

Jim Krupp, Wallingford

Southington sewers

Editor:

As a follow-up to my letter to the Town Council on 3-5, I want to bring to the attention of private well-owners of Southington planned billing for the use the town sewers. As previously stated, the Republican Town Council has voted to increase (this proposal was rejected by all the Democratic council members) my present $260 annual sewer-use fee to a flat $400, regardless of the number of occupants in the home. At a recent meeting of the council , I was informed that, again, the Republican members are not willing to re-visit this issue to create a more equitable method of billing the private well-owner. They simply refused, basically saying “we” (that is, the Republican members) created this method, we voted on it, and it’s a done deal. Sounds like the Republican Council has a one-sided view. What do you think?

I was informed by the town sewer dept. that I (and every private well-owner) will receive, in April, my present day annual billing of $260. This fee covers the period of April 1, 2014 to April 1, 2015. However, come this July, the new flat rate will commence. I (and you) will then be billed an additional $100 for the July period. In October, another $100 for the last quarter and come January of 2015, yet another $100. Which, coincidently, takes me to April 1, 2015.

So, during this coming year, from April to April, I will be billed a total of $560. That’s an additional $160 more than the new $400 rate. In other words, it’s a 115 percent increase from what I am being billed today. My understanding is that anyone with a private well, regardless of the number of occupants, will face this additional charge. Sound confusing? Private well-owners, what do you think?

Mitch Mazur, Southington



Back to Letters || Back To Top

Latest Comments