es, Councilman Pisani used strong words—but let’s not pretend there isn’t real frustration behind them. When a serious and measured question about protecting public safety, reducing taxpayer costs, and improving traffic control is met with performative outrage and political theater, frustration is more than justified. It’s earned.
I too will continue to vote for those who will fight for everyone's rights. Newtown deserves leadership that's not afraid to speak the truth and to suggest positive change.
Speaking of SMH, Ackert’s comment is the perfect example of why Newtown’s public discourse has become so toxic. He accuses Councilman Pisani of ignoring the will of “26 out of 30” people—as if 30 people in a room define the will of an entire town. That’s not how representative government works, and it's certainly not how thoughtful policymaking should be conducted.
Ackert runs a Facebook group that has made a habit of weaponizing process. At nearly every turn, he threatens lawsuits over minor procedural points, creating unnecessary hurdles and sowing fear. This isn't civic engagement—it's obstruction, dressed up as activism. And it comes at a cost to taxpayers, town staff, and the very businesses that help keep Newtown vibrant.
Councilman Pisani raised a valid question about whether it’s worth exploring an ordinance that could both protect protestors and save the town $225,000 in police overtime. He didn’t propose banning protests. He didn’t even draft an ordinance. He asked whether we should consider one. For that, he’s met with mockery and personal attacks. It’s telling that his critics can’t engage with the substance—they just yell “stupid” louder and hope no one notices.
If Mr. Ackert is so sure of his position, perhaps he should stop threatening lawsuits and start presenting ideas that balance safety, fiscal responsibility, and smart development. Until then, spare us the righteous indignation.
I’ll gladly stop referring to the group as a “mob” when they stop behaving like one at public hearings. Expressing a different point of view is one thing—drowning out speakers, jeering at volunteers, and weaponizing misinformation is another. That kind of conduct deserves to be called out plainly.
As for the projects you referenced, I agree—repurposing existing structures such as the Taunton Press and redeveloping long-blighted properties are welcome improvements. But those projects weren't met with the same level of opposition because they built on what already existed. When development touches vacant land—even when owned privately—this same group regularly mounts loud, emotional campaigns that ignore property rights and long-term planning needs.
Newtown is a wonderful place to live, largely due to thoughtful planning and strong leadership. That includes the courage to say yes when it's easier to say no. I appreciate respectful disagreement. What I don’t accept is a pattern of obstruction disguised as community concern.
Let’s all raise the level of discourse—but that also means calling out tactics that are meant to intimidate or mislead.
Sorry Lynn, not letting you get away with this. Yes, we all have the constitutional right to demonstrate peacefully but NO, no one ever said anything about taking that right away. You just made it up.
A small Newtown business lost important revenue because of the protest. Traffic was disrupted causing a safety concern. Newtown taxpayers paid for police OT because the PD had to react to the protest rather than be prepared in advance. God forbid, if there was loss of life or property, Newtown could be liable legally for negligence. Your comment sounds like Liberal Woke thinking and apparently you are more sympathetic to protestors than to Newtown. Non-issue? In Kerrville TX the legislative body had the chance to vote for a flash flood siren warning system. They thought it was a non-issue. Now, over 200 people are dead and families are destroyed. No way does the town not get expensively buried in court should it be foolish enough to NOT go down this path.
