Comments for Armed Forces Reserve Center: Middletown, CT http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com "Building Strong" Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:09:36 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Mile Lane removed from list by we already knew that, so why do you keep wasting our time http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/sitesnotrank/#comment-153 we already knew that, so why do you keep wasting our time Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:09:36 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?p=267#comment-153 Colonel Landry: Why, in the middle of two wars, did you take all those army employees away from their jobs to come up to Middletown to tell us nothing? Why, in the middle of unemployment, bankruptcy, and foreclosure, did you take our congresswoman, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Mayor, and representatives of our Governor and Senators away from their jobs to hear you tell them nothing? Why? Puzzled in Middletown. Colonel Landry:
Why, in the middle of two wars, did you take all those army employees away from their jobs to come up to Middletown to tell us nothing?
Why, in the middle of unemployment, bankruptcy, and foreclosure, did you take our congresswoman, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Mayor, and representatives of our Governor and Senators away from their jobs to hear you tell them nothing?
Why?
Puzzled in Middletown.

]]> Comment on Mile Lane by Shelley R. http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/archives/comments-on-suggested-sites/mile-lane/#comment-152 Shelley R. Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:28:18 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?page_id=105#comment-152 As a neighbor in the Mile Lane area of Westfield I recently became aware that the old Army Reserve Center on Mile Lane was placed on the list of possible sites for the new regional Army Reserve Training Base. This was done on September 17, just before the long process of selecting potential sites had ended, and just before the period for public feedback closed on September 30. It was not well publicized. Even news coverage the day of last week’s hearing only spoke of the other 3 sites being considered, not mentioning Mile Lane. When I went to the official Army Reserve web site I was distressed to find on the comments on suggested sites that the comments were consistently negative on the Ken Dooley Drive/Boardman Lane and Bysiewicz Industrial site while our Middletown neighbors have organized and decided to “throw us under the bus”, since one comment after another spoke positively on the choice of Mile Lane as the new site. Since there weren’t any comments from the residents in this area, it seems we were not given time to participate in the process. What the comments don’t address is: 1) The Mile Lane site is the smallest of the sites being considered, leaving no buffer for the neighborhood 2) The Mile Lane area is the most densely populated where neighborhood children bicycle and play, as well as many people walking and running on the roads. This includes students from local schools in the Mile Lane area. 3) The houses in the Mile Lane area are built near the road which is already narrow, and parked cars on Mile Lane further narrow the street. 4) The Mile Lane area has already been taxed by the traffic coming and going to several schools including the new High School. 5) The Mile Lane area is an area of beauty with open space and working farms, including the oldest dairy farm in Middlesex County. It is as deserving of preservation as the other sites in Middletown being considered for the Army Reserve site. While I respect neighbors’ rights to protest and oppose the Army Reserve Base being built in their neighborhoods, the fact that they have somehow organized behind the idea of shifting it over to us is shameful. As a neighbor in the Mile Lane area of Westfield I recently became aware that the old Army Reserve Center on Mile Lane was placed on the list of possible sites for the new regional Army Reserve Training Base. This was done on September 17, just before the long process of selecting potential sites had ended, and just before the period for public feedback closed on September 30. It was not well publicized. Even news coverage the day of last week’s hearing only spoke of the other 3 sites being considered, not mentioning Mile Lane. When I went to the official Army Reserve web site I was distressed to find on the comments on suggested sites that the comments were consistently negative on the Ken Dooley Drive/Boardman Lane and Bysiewicz Industrial site while our Middletown neighbors have organized and decided to “throw us under the bus”, since one comment after another spoke positively on the choice of Mile Lane as the new site. Since there weren’t any comments from the residents in this area, it seems we were not given time to participate in the process.
What the comments don’t address is:
1) The Mile Lane site is the smallest of the sites being considered, leaving no buffer for the neighborhood
2) The Mile Lane area is the most densely populated where neighborhood children bicycle and play, as well as many people walking and running on the roads. This includes students from local schools in the Mile Lane area.
3) The houses in the Mile Lane area are built near the road which is already narrow, and parked cars on Mile Lane further narrow the street.
4) The Mile Lane area has already been taxed by the traffic coming and going to several schools including the new High School.
5) The Mile Lane area is an area of beauty with open space and working farms, including the oldest dairy farm in Middlesex County. It is as deserving of preservation as the other sites in Middletown being considered for the Army Reserve site.

While I respect neighbors’ rights to protest and oppose the Army Reserve Base being built in their neighborhoods, the fact that they have somehow organized behind the idea of shifting it over to us is shameful.

]]> Comment on Ken Dooley Dr./Boardman Ln Site by Sandi F. http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/archives/comments-on-suggested-sites/dooleyboardman/#comment-141 Sandi F. Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:53:07 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?page_id=102#comment-141 I appreciate the ACE keeping the website open for one additional day. I think I heard something about Governor Rell's letter of Sept 24th being included with the comments, but since it is such an important document, I wouldn’t want it to get lost in the paper shuffle and want others to get a chance to read it. Thus I am including the last 3 paragraphs, and urge you to post it in it’s entirety on the site. I agree with everything stated in this letter and urge you to remove Boardman lane and continue with the assessement of the other three sites, rather than putting us through this needless stress for two more months. The last 3 paragraphs of Governor Rell’s letter of September 24, 2008 states: “While it is true that the Boardman Lane site meets the basic criteria, it is known to have some fundamental flaws, including its proximity to residential areas, potential impact on wetlands and the high likelihood that Connecticut-listed species of special concern, such as the Eastern box turtle, are present on the site. There has been much local opposition to this site based upon these issues as well as the uncertain impact that the siting of the Reserve Center on Boardman Lane would have on the local economy. I would strongly encourage you, therefore, to remove Boardman Lane from the short list. In addition, the other sites on the short list appear to offer greater potential for the Reserve Center for both the Army and the community. Building the Reserve Center on one of these sites would be consistent with the State’s responsible growth principles. Each of these sites is near transportation routes and necessary infrastructure such as electric power, water and sewers. Furthermore, the use of one of these sites would allow us to preserve potential open space and “greenfields” through their productive re-use. Again, I thank you for enhancing public participation in this very important project. As I stated earlier, I strongly encourage you to remove Boardman lane from the list as it is currently constituted. Very legitimate concerns remain as to the viability of this site for the Reserve Center. I ask that you move forward with your in-depth analyses of the three remaining sites – Cucia Park, Mile Lane and Bysiwiecz Industrial Park.” I appreciate the ACE keeping the website open for one additional day. I think I heard something about Governor Rell’s letter of Sept 24th being included with the comments, but since it is such an important document, I wouldn’t want it to get lost in the paper shuffle and want others to get a chance to read it. Thus I am including the last 3 paragraphs, and urge you to post it in it’s entirety on the site. I agree with everything stated in this letter and urge you to remove Boardman lane and continue with the assessement of the other three sites, rather than putting us through this needless stress for two more months.

The last 3 paragraphs of Governor Rell’s letter of September 24, 2008 states:
“While it is true that the Boardman Lane site meets the basic criteria, it is known to have some fundamental flaws, including its proximity to residential areas, potential impact on wetlands and the high likelihood that Connecticut-listed species of special concern, such as the Eastern box turtle, are present on the site. There has been much local opposition to this site based upon these issues as well as the uncertain impact that the siting of the Reserve Center on Boardman Lane would have on the local economy. I would strongly encourage you, therefore, to remove Boardman Lane from the short list.

In addition, the other sites on the short list appear to offer greater potential for the Reserve Center for both the Army and the community. Building the Reserve Center on one of these sites would be consistent with the State’s responsible growth principles. Each of these sites is near transportation routes and necessary infrastructure such as electric power, water and sewers. Furthermore, the use of one of these sites would allow us to preserve potential open space and “greenfields” through their productive re-use.

Again, I thank you for enhancing public participation in this very important project. As I stated earlier, I strongly encourage you to remove Boardman lane from the list as it is currently constituted. Very legitimate concerns remain as to the viability of this site for the Reserve Center. I ask that you move forward with your in-depth analyses of the three remaining sites – Cucia Park, Mile Lane and Bysiwiecz Industrial Park.”

]]> Comment on Cucia Park by Dave W http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/archives/comments-on-suggested-sites/cucia/#comment-140 Dave W Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:21:52 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?page_id=17#comment-140 As someone who walks the trails in Cucia Park on a weekly basis throughout the year I oppose the sale of this land to the Army. It is good exercise for me and I prefer to walk in the shade of the trees rather than hike a trail across or around an open space. To be honest I am having difficulties reconciling my experiences at the Park with many of the comments on this posting. To my knowledge I have never seen a prostitute there, nor have I seen any inappropriate behavior other than kids digging for worms to fish with. To be sure I keep to myself and use the main trail that leads away from the front pond and parking lot. I would also like to point out that there is very little dry flat land on the site. A large section of the park is the wooded slope that shields the view of I91. Most of the flat land below the slope is waterlogged 80% of the year. These problems can be resolved by the Army, but there would likely be a major change in the landscape. It would not surprise me if the slope needed to be clear cut and then bulldozed flat before any construction started. As someone who walks the trails in Cucia Park on a weekly basis throughout the year I oppose the sale of this land to the Army. It is good exercise for me and I prefer to walk in the shade of the trees rather than hike a trail across or around an open space. To be honest I am having difficulties reconciling my experiences at the Park with many of the comments on this posting. To my knowledge I have never seen a prostitute there, nor have I seen any inappropriate behavior other than kids digging for worms to fish with. To be sure I keep to myself and use the main trail that leads away from the front pond and parking lot. I would also like to point out that there is very little dry flat land on the site. A large section of the park is the wooded slope that shields the view of I91. Most of the flat land below the slope is waterlogged 80% of the year. These problems can be resolved by the Army, but there would likely be a major change in the landscape. It would not surprise me if the slope needed to be clear cut and then bulldozed flat before any construction started.

]]> Comment on Cucia Park by Sandi F. http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/archives/comments-on-suggested-sites/cucia/#comment-139 Sandi F. Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:01:38 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?page_id=17#comment-139 I wanted to address a few comments made at the meeting tonight regarding not wanting to lose Cucia park. I didn't have my notes with me at the meeting but re-read the common council resolution as soon as i got home and sure enough, here's what it says: "Be It Further Resolved: if the Park and Recreation Commission and the Conservation Commission determine that it is in the best interest of the city to maintain Cucia Park, with a small parking area and pond for public use that said desires will be seriously considered by the EDC during negotiations". I hope this drives home the point that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by selling Cucia park. I wanted to address a few comments made at the meeting tonight regarding not wanting to lose Cucia park. I didn’t have my notes with me at the meeting but re-read the common council resolution as soon as i got home and sure enough, here’s what it says:
“Be It Further Resolved: if the Park and Recreation Commission and the Conservation Commission determine that it is in the best interest of the city to maintain Cucia Park, with a small parking area and pond for public use that said desires will be seriously considered by the EDC during negotiations”.
I hope this drives home the point that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by selling Cucia park.

]]> Comment on Ken Dooley Dr./Boardman Ln Site by Westfield Resident http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/archives/comments-on-suggested-sites/dooleyboardman/#comment-138 Westfield Resident Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:09:32 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?page_id=102#comment-138 NO NO NO to Boardman Lane for all the reasons listed above. NO NO NO to Boardman Lane for all the reasons listed above.

]]> Comment on Cucia Park by Westfield Resident http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/archives/comments-on-suggested-sites/cucia/#comment-137 Westfield Resident Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:06:13 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?page_id=17#comment-137 Cucia Park is my choice--get rid of the riff/raff and put in the Military base there. Cucia Park is my choice–get rid of the riff/raff and put in the Military base there.

]]> Comment on Ken Dooley Dr./Boardman Ln Site by WESTFIELD RESIDENT http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/archives/comments-on-suggested-sites/dooleyboardman/#comment-136 WESTFIELD RESIDENT Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:44:37 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?page_id=102#comment-136 NO TO BOARDMAN LANE !! IT'S THAT SIMPLE !! NO TO BOARDMAN LANE !!

IT’S THAT SIMPLE !!

]]> Comment on Cucia Park by Westlaker http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/archives/comments-on-suggested-sites/cucia/#comment-135 Westlaker Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:35:30 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?page_id=17#comment-135 Westlake residents should use the eqaully neglected park on Westlake Drive, including a pond and the river, that the Westlake Homeowners Association owns. The bike path goes right through it and Westlake residents dont even cut the grass. Westlake is full of open spaces they dont need to go to the industrial zone and Cucia Park. Westlake residents should use the eqaully neglected park on Westlake Drive, including a pond and the river, that the Westlake Homeowners Association owns. The bike path goes right through it and Westlake residents dont even cut the grass. Westlake is full of open spaces they dont need to go to the industrial zone and Cucia Park.

]]> Comment on Ken Dooley Dr./Boardman Ln Site by Resident of Timber Ridge Road http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/archives/comments-on-suggested-sites/dooleyboardman/#comment-134 Resident of Timber Ridge Road Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:24:52 +0000 http://lrlcoepao.wordpress.com/?page_id=102#comment-134 Please DO NOT consider Ken Dooley/Boardman Lane as an ideal site. We already have enough traffic from the surrounding industrial area. My neighborhood is full of families with young children and the "extra" traffic will create more burden on everyone else. I strongly propose "NO" to using such site. Please DO NOT consider Ken Dooley/Boardman Lane as an ideal site. We already have enough traffic from the surrounding industrial area. My neighborhood is full of families with young children and the “extra” traffic will create more burden on everyone else. I strongly propose “NO” to using such site.

]]>