Archive
Refreshments will be served. Call the library at 426-4533 for details.
Published: Apr 20, 2007 12:00 am
Refreshments will be served. Call the library at 426-4533 for details.
I have to say, I don’t understand how this project could be considered “morally wrong.” That kind of language feels more like obstruction than constructive dialogue. What is morally wrong is leaving seniors in our community without enough housing options. Right now, Newtown does not have adequate senior housing, and the few developments that exist, like Naunawag Meadows, already have waiting lists.
As for the comment that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” that simply isn’t accurate. The system is broken when residents who’ve lived here their whole lives cannot find an affordable and appropriate place to age in town. Responsible development that balances environmental concerns, safety improvements (such as traffic calming measures and sidewalks), and the needs of our seniors is exactly the kind of planning Newtown should be doing.
This isn’t about wanting or not wanting something in one’s backyard—it’s about building a community that takes care of its people. Please don't get scared away by the nimby mob.
It seems a lot of the discussion around the flagpole focuses on vilifying drivers who pass on the right, but the real issue is being overlooked. If Chapter 248 Section 14-251 were enforced, we wouldn’t see this problem to begin with. That statute prohibits stopping in the middle of a roadway to yield to cross traffic—as so often happens with cars waiting to turn from Church Hill.
When vehicles stop illegally in the travel lane, they effectively create a blockage. Other drivers then either sit through unnecessary delays or carefully pass around them on the right, which is fully permitted when the vehicle ahead is “illegally parked” in the roadway.
Instead of punishing drivers reacting to the obstruction, enforcement should focus on the cause: vehicles unlawfully stopping and backing up traffic in the first place. If that behavior were addressed, the need to “go around” would largely disappear.
John, you raise an important point — these situations are tragic, complicated, and often far less clear-cut than the headlines make them seem. In the Fredericksburg case, the full facts still aren’t publicly known, and like so many of these stories, there’s conflicting information. It was apparently the back door at 3 a.m. — was it justified to use deadly force? We don’t know yet. What we do know is that the homeowner has been charged, and as you rightly noted, that is very serious.
But this is also where perspective matters. These cases are quickly sensationalized in the news and on social media, yet when the dust settles, the outcomes are rarely publicized. People forget that in our system, you are innocent until proven guilty. Try to find much coverage of the convication in the case of the Fairfield Realtor vehicle homicide, or updates on the woman who shot her husband a couple of Christmases ago, or even the pedestrian death in Sandy Hook a year or so back. The follow-through simply isn’t there, and public opinion is often shaped only by the first round of headlines.
At the end of the day, these situations remind us how split-second decisions in the middle of the night can change lives forever — which is exactly why the right to protect one’s property, home and family is so fiercely debated, and lucky constitutionally protected.
First the low hanging fruit. Dave; it was a joke, please get over it. You are the only person in Newtown that thought I really wanted to build a stadium on 6 Commence Rd.
Now on to Alex. You might not appreciate my writing style or my selection of words, but let's not loose sight of the fact that by responding to my letter in the manner that you did, you have removed any doubt whatsoever that you have no idea of the quantifiable benefits you are dismissing not only for the town, but also for protesters. Either you stopped listening at the word "ordinance" or you never started.. Your constitutional rights to assemble were never in question and would actually be strengthened and there would be literally no impediments. We could even title it "The Alex Villamil Ordinance" if you want. It could be your legacy and actually show Newtown your willingness to work in a bipartisan way for the betterment of the town. Businesses would be protected. Traffic wouldn't be interrupted. The town would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in police overtime. And maybe most importantly, the town could prevent another tragedy while mitigating legal risk in the event something terrible happens at a protest. Nothing bad could never happen in Newtown right? All that could be accomplished by a simple, non-intrusive ordinance unless all the detriments to our town are intentional in order to bring more attention to your cause. Alex, this was not me throwing a temper tantrum. Believe me, you will know it if that happens. I am just putting Newtown first. From that perspective, if you think critically, the regulation is necessary. It makes sense logically, rationally, and is reasonable. There is absolutely no down side. None. I would be willing to sit down with you to see if we could come to some type of compromise if you want. Let me know. You would be amazed how much you can accomplish when there is dialogue amongst neighbors.
A popular prank circulating on TikTok is “ding-dong-ditch” where a group of young people violently bang or kick someone’s door late at night and then “ditch” or run. On May 3 three high schoolers here in Fredericksburg Va. were participating in such a prank. One homeowner assumed, as in this case, an attempted break in and also took measures to defend his family and property. As the youths were running away he fired, striking an 18 year old graduating senior in the back killing him and seriously injuring a second youth. A wasted life, a family shattered, and the homeowner charged with murder.