I agree with your point, Tom.
However, the sheer volume of Trump's false statements and claims -- vs. anyone else -- is astonishing and noteworthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
President Biden, too, has claimed “inflation was 0%,” when in fact prices remained elevated. He told us his Afghanistan withdrawal was a “success,” even though Americans and allies were left behind and 13 service members lost their lives. He promised not to build another foot of border wall, but later quietly restarted construction. These examples matter just as much as Trump’s because they show that political dishonesty isn’t unique to one side.
The point is not to excuse Trump or Biden—it’s to recognize that truth matters, and voters deserve accountability from all leaders. Singling out one politician while giving others a free pass only fuels division.
It’s important to put the 8-30g application into context. The reason developers in our town resort to Connecticut’s 8-30g affordable housing statute is precisely because obstructionist voices, led by Mr. Ackert, have repeatedly opposed reasonable housing proposals through local zoning channels. When projects are delayed or denied outright under the guise of “protecting character,” developers have little choice but to pursue the state-level remedy.
Mr. Ackert portrays 8-30g as a loophole being abused, when in fact it exists because communities that resist creating diverse housing options need accountability. If our town had a stronger record of working collaboratively to meet housing needs, developers wouldn’t feel compelled to bypass local boards in the first place.
Regarding wetlands and Inland Wetlands Commission review, it’s worth remembering that these processes are not ignored or hidden from the public. Applications that impact wetlands must comply with environmental regulations, and developers are subject to oversight. Suggesting otherwise unfairly discredits both the staff and the commission, who follow established procedures.
The public certainly deserves transparency, but it is misleading to imply that this project was pushed through in secret. The broader issue is that continued “Not In My Back Yard” obstructionism drives applicants to use 8-30g, ensuring that local zoning boards lose the very control residents claim to want preserved.
If we truly want more local say in how projects are shaped, then we need to stop reflexively opposing housing and start working constructively with applicants. Mr. Ackert’s campaign of resistance has only created the exact conditions he now complains about.
It's certainly good news that a temporary patch to rationed water in Newtown is in effect. But taking a year to come up with a patch is concerning. Where is the sense of urgency to get this permanently fixed?
