Please stop referring to your fellow Newtowners as the Mob. I was at the Legislative Council meeting where Mr. Pisani insulted the intelligence of a room full of Newtown voters; twice, and not in a satirical way.
Plenty of new projects have been given the green light - the repurposing of the Taunton Press property is a welcome addition to Town, a new retail center is under construction on Church Hill Rd there are ongoing plans for the existing Fairfield Hills campus.
Newtown is a wonderful place to live. Kudos to the Town officials who have managed to grow Newtown and maintain a small town feel, which may mean saying no to development more often than you would like.
There will always be two sides to any proposal - different points of view are welcome and essential - name calling adds nothing to the conversation.
Appreciate your perspective. Rather than litiate all of your opinions expressed here, here....I would like correct your opinion about the BOS having the final authority on road discontinuance decisions. State statute (CT GS 13a-49), requires the BOS' decision to be approvate by a majority vote at a regular or special town meeting (just like the one Newtown had a few years back to decide to spend the money to build an addition onto the High School). In towns that no longer have any town meetings, that responsibility would fall on the town's representaive government, or legislative body....in Newtown's case, our Legislative Council. Failure to follow this statutory process is but one of the reasons the town/the BOS is being sued.
There are many private roads in Newtown where they property owner owns right to the center line, for example this is often true in the lake communities. Many of these roads predate and do not conform to the Town's roads standard and therefore the Town never accepted them into the Town road system. Does the Town actually own this road?
It’s important to clarify the tone and context of Derek Pisani’s remarks, particularly the satirical line about suing Newtown for "Gross Stupidity." This was clearly a tongue-in-cheek jab at the exhausting culture of legal threats that’s become a staple on the local Facebook Group forums. It was a reflection of frustration over endless regulatory hurdles and obstructionism, and the desire to avoid common sense solutions not an insult aimed at residents.
Satire, is meant to provoke thought and highlight the absurdities. If we are unable to distinguish between satire and literal threats, perhaps the comment hit closer to the truth than we’d like to admit.
Rather than focusing on Pisanis style, we should be discussing the substance of what he’s pointing out: that Newtown’s progress is being routinely blocked by a small but vocal contingent who seem intent on saying “no” at every turn. They are saying no to any development, no to common sense solutions to crowd control, etc.
Newtown deserves leaders who are willing to call things as they see them, even if their language ruffles feathers. That doesn’t mean they lack respect for constituents—it means they care enough to challenge the Mob and push for solutions. Isn't that what we elect people to do?
I applaud Pisani's dedication, he certainly has earned my vote. Regardless, let’s not reduce conversation to tone-policing and outrage. Let’s focus on the issues that matter.
Thank you for pointing out the trail access provisions included in the BOS motion—it’s an important clarification that deserves more attention in this conversation.
If the development is, in fact, required to provide permanent free public access and commit to ongoing maintenance of this section of the Rochambeau Trail, that is a remarkably beneficial outcome for the town. oIt’s not every day that a private project shoulders the long-term burden of preserving and caring for a public historical corridor at no taxpayer cost—especially one that previously had no formal access, upkeep, or visibility.
Let’s be honest: the idea that the only way to protect history is by preventing any development nearby is a rigid and unworkable standard. What’s being proposed here appears to strike a rare balance—historic preservation, public access, and smart development all rolled into one. That’s not a loss its a win.
So rather than allowing a handful of voices to derail progress under the banner of “historic purity,” maybe it’s time to acknowledge the reality: this trail is better off with structured stewardship and visibility than remaining an overgrown ghost on old maps. Let’s move forward. Bring in the easement, bring in the public access—and yes, bring in the bulldozers!!!
Progress and preservation can coexist. Let’s not let the NIMBY use fear or nostalgia keep us stuck in the past.
