|
|
Proponents said the funds would help the town jump start economic development while opponents raised many concerns, including a lack of specific proposals.
Lee Kuckro, chairman of the redevelopment agency was very disappointed with the results and said he was appalled at the tactics of some of the opposition, who brought up concerns like eminent domain.
"I wish we had more time to make our case," he said.
Kuckro said the bonding permission would have given the town the tools to look at projects, redevelop commercial corridors and work on giving developers faith in the town.
"This would have been a way to show we're serious and give us some tools," he said.
Kuckro said he was "appalled" at the "scare tactics" of the opposition.
The most vocal opposition came from WIN PAC, a political action committee formed to defeat the referendum. The group alleged before Election Day that the town's redevelopment agency's plans were secret, that the town does not belong in the risky, private real estate business and its long-term debt is already too high. They also said the plans left open the possibility that the town could use eminent domain to seize private property, a charge the redevelopment agency and most officials said was way off base.
Leigh Standish, who is not an officer of WIN PAC but strongly opposed the referendum was pleased at the results.
"The citizens of Wethersfield had a resounding victory," he said. "We made it clear that it's the electorate that runs this town and not those in political power."
Standish said that he disagrees that the opposition went too far. WIth eminent domain, for example, he alleges that it has been discussed at the redevelopment agency meetings and remained a possibility, especially among businesses.
WIN-PAC member Shelia Wells, who held a "vote no" sign at polling places during the day, said her biggest issue with the referendum is that there were no specifics.
"Before we're going to spend the money, we should be given the details of the plan," she said.
One voter, Marge Bushnell, said Tuesday she was flatly opposed to spending the money. "It's too much money," she said, and politicians have already asked too much of voters.
Bushnell doesn't buy it, but proponents of the referendum said the burden on taxpayers is the very reason to support it.
Mayor Andrew Adil said the whole idea was to jump-start economic development and make things easier on residents, who shoulder 87 percent of the tax burden. Adil said the money would not go to one project, but give the council a three-year authorization to spend up to $10 million in bonds for redevelopment in as many as 13 different parcels.
"It's certainly a very well-calculated risk," he said.
Adil said he is also disappointed in the opposition. He said some of their allegations - such as the possibility of the town seizing private property - are simply false.
As far as specifics, referendum advocates say there are plenty of past economic studies, from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, to draw from.
"We've actually been studying it to death" Adil said.
While the redevelopment agency and supporters of the bonding say identifying the projects would take away the town's bargaining power, many said they would still like to see more specific proposals to see how and where the funds would be used.
Richard P. Roberts, the Republican Committee chairman who made a council bid, said that although incumbent Republicans voted to let the voters decide on the referendum, they did not support asking for a "blank check."
He said he feels the Democrats full support of the referendum a has damaged the chances of further economic development projects.
The "blank check" concern certainly did show up among many at the polls.
John J. Console, a Republican vying for his first council seat, also had concerns. He conceded the opposition went too far in some of their arguments, saying, for example, that no one is going to lose their home over this. Console, however, also wants to give people a more specific plan.
"We should have a more sound plan in place," he said.
Kuckro said the specifics would have come after the funding was approved and the agency and town officials could come up with a plan and further study the pros and cons and cost/benefit analysis of potential projects.
Kuckro said it would also be extremely difficult to get developers to commit to a project and spend their time and money to invest in something when voters may well turn it down.
Some voters were torn on the referendum.
"I think it's good for the Silas Deane, but it's a lot of money," Beth Letoile said. "It's hard to decide."
WIN-PAC chairwoman Carol Szymanski thinks the opposition has raised some valid issues.
"Either way the Town Council will get a message," she said.
John Fitts can be reached(860) 236-3571, ext. 153.
