.

Hamden Residents Were "Discourteous, Boisterous and Rowdy"

One Hamden resident apologizes to the New Haven officials who attended Wednesday's meeting on the removal of the Woodin Street fence.

 

Editor's note: Hamden resident Robert Kissel wrote this letter to Housing Authority of New Haven Executive Director Karen DuBois-Walton, who attended Wednesday's meeting on the Woodin Street fence.


Dear Dr. DuBois-Walton,

I should like to articulate an apology to you, and to the other invitees from the Housing Authority of New Haven, and the City of New Haven, for the discourteous, boisterous and rowdy behavior which was displayed last night by my frightened neighbors.

I am sure that Mayor Jackson also expressed this for the Town itself, and am also quite certain that you understand the underlying fears and anxieties which
are its only excuse, but I felt, this morning, that it still needed to be said by one of the frightened residents of the area closest to the proposed New Haven street connection to Woodin(g) Street in Hamden.

One of the last people to take the floor (if there was any floor-taking at that meeting at all!) chided me for rebuking the crowd for their misbehavior; however, a number of residents, total strangers to me, made a point, after the meeting, of coming up to me to THANK me for expressing, angrily and loudly, the annoyance and chagrin that THEY felt at the rude and uncouth behavior displayed by many attendees. One woman said to me, indignantly, "I was ASHAMED of us."

Although Mayor Jackson chose to take on much of the blame for this, for not organizing the meeting a bit more formally, I cannot allow this. It was a shocking display of bad manners and a revolting lack of restraint and self-control on the part of the attendees that caused the meeting to deteriorate, so early on, into the unpleasant and pointless venting of already-recognized anxieties and fears.

Naturally, the unruly portion of the crowd made those of us who came, not only to EXPRESS but to LISTEN as well, invisible and inaudible, but I am certain that I am speaking, not only for myself but for at least HALF of the attendees in tendering deep regret for this indecorum.

I hope I may rely upon you to convey these sentiments, on my behalf, and on the behalf of my other neighbors who--while we may still resist your building proposals, want you and other visitors to Hamden treated with respect and welcome--to Mayor DeStefano and to the other representatives who came to address us. I hope that, once the injuries we did you and our other guests have healed, you will continue to communicate with us and seek a peaceful resolution of the issues which now seem so insurmountable.

Very truly yours,
Robert S. Kissel
Hamden, CT

Robert Kissel September 01, 2012 at 04:00 AM
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/LCI/HousingDevelopments/ReadMore.asp?ID=%7BD46EB608-6CE2-4723-8215-EAB76A07B841%7D "433 newly constructed dwelling units . . . Total project costs are currently estimated to be $175,000,000, including infrastructure costs." $175,000,000 ÷ 433 = $404,157.04 per dwelling unit. A lot more than I paid for my house, including infrastructure costs, I can tell you that! (Although I suppose that includes demolition of the former "city of the future" which looked just as lovely when it was brand new.)
cheryl September 04, 2012 at 12:30 PM
This picture plan is bigger than that fence bike path traffic calming retro fiting buildings with smart meters smart codes new environmental standards This is about a global action plan which THE sovereign citizens of the United States will lose property rights & our sovereignty This is a United Nations mandate which Hamden has signed on to It was Henrici in 2003 and our legislative council Look it up only fools think its about a fence This is an from UN International ICLEI instead of all of you bickering about decorum & fences you should be researching this Agenda 21-sustainable development we must resist this at all cost. http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/a21-04.htm WILL SOMEONE TAKE THE TIME AND EDUCATED YOURSELVES http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/local-agenda-21.pdf http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/hab2.html Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice if unchecked it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable
Patricia Laudano September 04, 2012 at 12:43 PM
I think it should be noted that Mayor Jackson did not to my knowledge arrange this meeting. It was district 7 representative Mike Colaiacovo and Councilman Jack Kennelly who arranged this meeting. But, after speaking with Mike I have found out that it was not him who invited the Mayor of New Haven or the builder and representative from the Housing Authority to attend the meeting. My understanding of this meeting was for Hamden Residents ONLY to attend this meeting and discuss the matter of the taking down of the fence. Somewhere along the line someone (like I can't imagine who) thought it was a good idea to invite the representatives from New Haven to attend. I was not there however to see their proposal. Apparently others weren't either. If you were so interested in seeing their proposal you should have gone to their open house to view it. Maybe the New Haven representatives never left you a notice of the open house because you live so close to the fence. I don't know. I did receive a notice and I chose not to attend the open house because I really didn't care to see what they were building there and did not appreciate them wasting my time viewing their proposal. I was there to discuss with my neighbors and representative why I did not want the fence down. If this meeting had not been opened with their proposal and had the representatives from New Haven not been invited to attend the meeting, things probably would have gone alot different. Poor choice on someones part.
cheryl September 04, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Recommendation D.1 (a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered. (b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation. (d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements... FROM AGENDA 21 DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THIS AGENDA 21- SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS REALLY BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY AND WE MUST RESIST IT AT ALL COST. FIRE ALL LEGISTLATORS WHO SUPPORT THIS UNITED NATIONS MANDATE; WE ARE A SOVEREIGN NATION WE DON'T NEED TO ANSWER TO THE UNITED NATIONS. WE HAVE OUR OWN LAWS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO NOW ARE TAKING DIRECTION FROM ICLEI- THE UNITED NATIONS? ARE YOU SERIOUS? DO NOT ELECT THESE PEOPLE AGAIN- THEY ARE TRAITOR TO OUR FREEDOMS.
cheryl September 04, 2012 at 12:56 PM
AND BY THE WAY - OUR PROPERTY TAXES ARE GOING TO THE UNITED NATIONS? WHAT? YES ITS TRUE FOR THIS INVASION OF OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE LOSS OF OUR SOVEREIGHTY. WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO OUR DEMISE. WAKE UP.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »