Comments (4)

By Kerri Provost, July 19, 2010 7:51 am

A public hearing will be held tomorrow, July 20th, at 5:30 pm in the West Hartford Town Hall Auditorium. This is a chance for members of the community to speak out regarding the possible closure of the MDC properties (West Hartford reservoirs) to recreational use.

The West Hartford Reservoir on Route 4 is a way for Hartford residents to conveniently get our fix of nature. From Downtown, it takes about 15 minutes to drive there and maybe half an hour to bike. You can even take the bus there without much fuss at all. The MDC website describes the five reservoirs in West Hartford and Bloomfield as offering:

3,000 acres of beautiful forestland; there are more than 30 miles of paved and gravel roads for joggers and bicyclists, hiking trails [...], wheelchair-accessible picnic groves, cross-country skiing and snow shoeing.

There are also areas offering scenic views. Having a well-maintained recreational area is important for Hartford residents, most of whom have no (or small) yards because they rent rather than own. This site is a convenient, free, and fun mini-vacation spot for people who can not afford to (or choose not to) live in the surrounding expensive suburbs where green space is more plentiful.

Recently, a frivolous lawsuit filed against the MDC ended in a poor legal decision, which not only makes a mockery of the legal system, it has pressured the MDC to consider making poor decisions of their own. There is talk of them threatening to close the reservoirs to public recreational use.

For complete background, check out the numerous articles by Rick Green or the Save the MDC website. In a nutshell, what happened was that a cyclist was riding in the wrong direction on the paved trails and had been riding with her head down; as a result of this, she did not see a gigantic yellow gate, rode right into it, and wrecked herself. She damaged her vertebrae, but has since recovered and from several accounts, is still riding. A recent letter sent to the Courant by John Craggs says it best:

Maribeth Blonski’s lawyer stated that all the Metropolitan District Commission had to do was post a sign on the trail showing that there was a gate ahead. Yet, if Ms. Blonski did not see the gate, how would she have seen a smaller sign?

It’s difficult to see how the MDC could possibly be at fault on this one. Anyone who has been to the reservoir and has the ability to see has no doubt taken notice of the many signs (too many in my opinion) dotting the area. If someone abides by the site policies and walks or bikes in the correct direction, then she is given more than enough fair warning. Besides, one knows that there is a certain degree of risk involved in athletic activities. In this case, the gate used to keep motorized vehicles off the trails (making the area infinitely safer) only posed a risk to someone who was not riding right; by painting it yellow, rather than camouflage, the MDC had acted responsibly.

Now, since the MDC had to pay an outrageous lawsuit ($2.9 million) once, the concern is that future asinine lawsuits will continue to hurt them financially. While this concern is understandable, closing the reservoirs is not the answer!

A press release on the MDC website says:

The Water Bureau of the Metropolitan District (MDC) will conduct an informational
meeting relating to the recreational use of its reservoir land on Tuesday, July 20, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. in the
West Hartford Town Hall Auditorium, 50 South Main Street, West Hartford, Connecticut. The purpose of this
meeting is to receive public input on the issue. The Water Bureau will not take any formal action on this issue
at the meeting.

Under the MDC Charter, the Water Bureau is charged with making periodic recommendations to the District
Board regarding the uses permitted on and within MDC reservoir property. For example, in 1998, the District
Board, upon recommendation of the Water Bureau, adopted ordinances requiring bicyclists, skateboarders and
roller skaters using MDC property to wear certain protective equipment.

In response to a recent Superior Court decision in the case of Blonski v. Metropolitan District, the Water
Bureau, through its chairman, Commissioner Timothy Curtis of Windsor, has decided to reevaluate the MDC’s
policy in this area. “As a public entity funded by rate payer money, we have an obligation to assess our risks,
particularly in light of recent events. We intend to proceed in an open and deliberate manner as we review our
policies. In the meantime, the public should not assume that the Water Bureau has made, or will recommend,
any changes to the District’s recreational use policy,” said Commissioner Curtis.

On behalf of the District Board, and in response to a good deal of misinformation on the issue, Chairman
William DiBella stated, “Let me be perfectly clear. No decisions to change our current policies have been
made, specifically in regard to closing the reservoir property to the public. Any statements to the contrary
should be disregarded. The District Board has yet to take any formal action, and individual statements or
conclusions do not reflect Board policy. I commend Chairman Curtis for his leadership on this issue in
conducting an open and constructive dialogue.”

The meeting will include a brief presentation by MDC staff on its recreational facilities with public comments to
follow. Those attending the meeting who wish to speak will be asked to sign in for the record, and all speakers
will be limited to 3 minutes in duration. Organizations are welcome to choose a representative to speak on their
behalf.

They say that no formal decision has been made yet, but even an informal discussion of closing this area is cause for concern. If you share this concern but can not attend the meeting, you can email your thoughts on the matter to kshaw@themdc.com.

Continue reading 'Because Some of Us Do Not Like to Exercise in Gyms'»

Comments (14)

By Kerri Provost, May 27, 2010 8:03 am

This has been the question posed, but the definition of caring is one that I reject. The Courant has framed the issue as follows: Hartford residents do or do not care about the city based on political corruption and/or low voter turnout.

As if those were the only indicators of caring!

Don’t Blame Me for Perez
I have voted in every election. Because I am not able to see the world through rose-colored glasses, I know that people can be corrupt, evil, or just plain stupid, regardless of party affiliation; thus, I do not vote along any party line. Although I do not despise him as many do, I have never voted for Perez. And guess what? Many others in Hartford did not vote for him either. Citing as proof that Hartford residents do not care because Mayor Perez was reelected is like saying Americans did not care because GWB was elected twice. I do not understand why some would cast their votes in favor of certain candidates, but they do.

Low voter turnout is a problem, but it is not a problem unique to Hartford. Even in presidential elections, Americans do not take part as they could. Do we blame voters for not participating in a system that they view as broken or unable to be affected by the people? I don’t. I’ll admit to not always believing that my vote matters, but I do it anyway…in the same way that I wear a seatbelt or a bike helmet. It might be futile, but then, it might not, and it does not hurt me to do so.

Instead of framing the outcome of an election as a sign that Hartford residents do not care, why do we not ask instead why better candidates are not running for political office?

I do not care about Perez
Sure, I care about him as a human being. He’s never been unpleasant in my very few interactions with him. But I do not care about his trial. There. I said it.

The media cares about the Perez trial because it is scandalous (low grade scandal is what I would call it) and scandal sells papers, gets viewers, and allows “reporters” to sit in a court room tweeting inane, irrelevant observations, passing that off as news.

It’s not that I am a supporter of corruption. If the Mayor did in fact do something illegal, he should be punished appropriately for it. But — here’s a shocker — his fancy counter tops do not affect my everyday life. They are not the first thing I think of in the morning and the last thing before I go to sleep. No, the last thing I think about when going to bed is how the “noise ordinance with teeth” is more like one with dentures, in that when residents call for enforcement, the teeth have been removed. I care about the need for stronger enforcement of leash laws. There are people who let their pit bulls roam, which causes problems when they tangle with other dogs; there are some in my neighborhood who are afraid they will be bitten. Another thing I care about is how lackadaisical traffic law enforcement is. The police only need to park themselves at the corner of Broad and Capitol to meet any ticket quotas they might have. Every single time I am at this intersection I see people running red lights, speeding through the intersection, and doing other amazingly idiotic things, like texting while turning. Sit by the highway on and off ramps. I would feel safer standing in the middle of a driving school parking lot. I care about low literacy, bullying in schools, and the lack of employment for residents. I care that in certain neighborhoods where there are high rates of diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure, I see prominent billboards advertising alcohol and fast food. I care about the way downtown landlords price out low income residents or new small businesses, how the city demolishes buildings they own rather than maintain them so that they can be used, how the parks are not maintained as they should be, and how a minority of violent thugs make life unbearable in small sections of the city.

When I do not have so many other things to care about, then maybe I will have room in my brain for caring about a rather minor accusation made of a politician, who, by the way, has not gotten us into a war (or two), permitted torture, or wrecked the economy. Let’s prioritize our outrage. If Perez acted illegally, then he should be punished, but there is no need to sensationalize the trial, as this is not worthy of sensationalism.

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, February 16, 2009 5:17 pm

Today Mayor Perez announced that he would be stepping down (or not running for re-election or resigning or however you’d like to spin it) from chairing the Board of Education and the School Building Committee. This act has been the smartest political move he has made in awhile, as it eliminates some obvious conflicts of interest and helps residents to think about restoring their trust in him as a leader.

Perez cites Hartford’s budget mess as the reason for relinquishing these positions. I don’t doubt that’s part of the reason, but people never have a singular reason for doing anything. Still, making a fuss about precisely what his reasons were seems like a fruitless exercise in self-righteousness.

The Mayor’s move can allow the Charter Revision Commission to more fairly examine certain policies without their own feelings toward the mayor getting in the way. It frees the Board of Education and School Building Committee from possible ethical quandaries. And yes, it frees up the mayor to focus more on Hartford’s budget. As someone who pays obnoxiously high car tax already, my daily concerns have more to do with what I have to take out of my wallet, than what someone else pays (or doesn’t) for kitchen remodeling.

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, February 4, 2009 6:49 am

The job of the City Council is to vote.
Yesterday, Veronica Airey-Wilson failed to do her job.

The message that I got from her decision to abstain was this: Airey-Wilson wants to be everyone’s friend. Airey-Wilson wants to make no enemies. Airey-Wilson is unable to summon the courage to do her job, which, by the way, requires that tough decisions be made from time-to-time. In a time of economic meltdown, in a time when many people are losing their jobs, Airey-Wilson should show a little gratitude to at least have a job by performing one of the central tasks that she is being paid to do.

Much is being made of Cotto’s vote and remarks, some of which you can read on CT News Junkie. I have to wonder if anyone on the Council cared when he announced that he was “not down with the way this is happening.” Applause or lack of in the chambers is not what I’m referring to. Did anyone else voting (or in Airey-Wilson’s case, not voting) yesterday try on some empathy? Did anyone question the unethical and painful attempt to strip someone of power when he had not shown any wrongdoing other than having poor choice in friends?

Here is the full text of the statement given by the Working Families Party (Cotto and Deutsch) regarding the attempt to remove City Council President Torres from his position yesterday:

It is time for change in Hartford. Just as change has been needed at the national level and is now happening in Washington, it has also been needed for a while here in our city – and not just for the past week. We’ve been calling for change since the day we took office.

Throughout the past week, we’ve heard many people say they want to do what is best for the City. What’s best for the city is measured in terms of the quality of life of our residents. That’s the kind of change that we need and the kind of change that we in the Working Families Party are committed to.

What is our job in city government? It is to serve the people, honestly, directly, responsively.
Continue reading 'Calixto Torres Retains Position'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, February 3, 2009 5:22 pm

What could Ritter possibly have to say for a whole three pages on this subject, you’re wondering? Here it is, uncut:

I would like to welcome everyone and thank everyone for being here tonight. I am encouraged by the amount of feedback I have received regarding this matter, because it demonstrates that residents care about the critical issues we will be facing over the coming weeks. These are certainly the types of situations that test our resolve and force us to dig deep for the courage to do what is right, not what is easy; to do what is necessary, not what is politically appealing.

Continue reading 'Councilman Ritter’s Statement Regarding City Council President'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, January 27, 2009 5:44 pm

Heather Brandon has a thorough report about the arrest and Mayor Perez’s press conference this afternoon on her blog, Urban Compass. If you’re looking for information that’s not grossly hyperbolic or sensationalized, check out her article.

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, January 26, 2009 11:31 pm

The Courant reports that the mayor will be turning himself in tomorrow morning for bribery. Perez is quoted as saying:

At the end of the day, a lapse in judgment is not a crime.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate for him to say that a lapse in judgment does not always result in committing a crime.

That’s all that I need to say about that. If you want to witness lots of kicking while he’s down, reroute yourself to the Topix boards over at the Courant website. They may lock the ones for this article, but surely comments on the story will pop up on unrelated news items.

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, September 9, 2008 6:03 am

Maybe I don’t see the need to throw so much venom at Sarah Palin because Hartford has our very own Sarah Barr, Mayor Perez’s spokesperson. Today’s Hartford Courant reports yet another ethics violation associated with Perez, this one regarding his lack of transparency. Barr, using tremendously flawed reasoning, writes:

If this novel concept was adopted by the FOI Commission, no Governor, Mayor, or any public official could convene a group of volunteer advisors to receive advice and counsel on important issues in a private setting

Duh! That’s the point!

What is the problem of “receiv[ing] advice and counsel on important issues in a private setting” in this case? Continue reading 'but, like, then we would have to tell the truth, omg'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, August 27, 2008 3:51 pm

Councilperson Veronica Airey-Wilson had her home searched this morning as part of the ongoing Perez kitchen remodeling scandal investigation. She’s very cordial with the press, saying basically that people are welcome to drop by at all hours to rummage through her personal stuff. That is another reason why I could never be a politician. There are very few people–actually, only one–who have been given the go ahead to just show up on my doorstep at any time, day or night. It’s not that I have anything to hide, except for dirty laundry, general bad housekeeping skills, and a tendency toward crankiness when I might be sleeping.

Hopefully, this is a sign that the investigation is moving ahead. There must be some middle ground between a thorough investigation and an expeditious one.

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, August 13, 2008 6:00 am

Marie Kirkley-Bey is quoted in the Courant as speaking the above words to describe her victory in yesterday’s primary. She defeated opponent Abe Giles, best known for being that guy involved in a trash-hauling scandal.

Don’t assume that the slightly-more rational choices for candidates all won in the primary. Despite the Hartford Police Department’s release of documents showing a complaint had been filed against Hector Robles–a cop being accused of misusing his authority–voters of the Democrat persuasion selected him over Carmen Sierra for a General Assembly seat by a difference of 102* votes. Here’s to hoping that he is successfully challenged by a Republican or Third-Party candidate in November who is actually on the up-and-up.

The full list of primary results is here, and eventually will be here.

*A final tally was released after I posted this, changing the numbers slightly. To see those results, go here.