Remember in November.

Anyone who reads this article and then posts a comment, must really care about the author. Indeed, bloggers are superior beings! Especially the ones who are accurate in their observations.

Dick Blumenthal IS a nitwit. He is 100th in a club of 100. He is a legend in his own mind.

No Blumen Way!! /sarc.

Wherever it ends up, I hope I’ll still be able to see it.

I hate to waste tax dollars just like you. However, you need to educate yourself a bit more on this issue. How many lives and how much money did that “blocking engine” save? Think about that! The cost of the injured firefighters/police/ems and citizens would have been exponentially larger than the cost of the truck. Also, the firefighters use the “blocking engine” to get to the scene. If it were another type of vehicle the same transportation and tools that the engine provide would not be available. Using state or local dump truck would not provide the same response time or capabilities as the engine.

This is just an necessary evil that we have to deal with out there. There is no cheap or easy answer. This procedure is the best compromise we have. If you ask any State Trooper up on the highway by themselves, I”m sure they wouldn’t mind having a firetruck helping them out.

- C.O.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200337.html

The Town can exclude residents, but if it creates a “park” use, that park is open to all. What part of all did you not get, as in “All men are created equal.”

It can charge an entry fee, and that fee can vary for non-resident entry, use, parking etc. But only in relation to the costs already paid by Town taxpayers.

My first comment showed (unlike the original report) how fees compare to costs, and provided a plan to combine service to the two island parks, eliminating one of the ferry boats, and bringing costs into line with current revenues.

Or we could raise fees 50% and just buy more grills.

Hot dogs you still have to bring on your own.

Actually you redacted my point #3, which used an ethnic slur to describe an out-of-town group living to your west that you propose to proscribe from use of the public grills in our parks.

This was the same term used by a recent political candidate for Tax Collector on the front page of the newspaper for which you blog to describe the same group in the same venue.

So if you felt the need to redact my comment (made with full irony of the above facts), you might have been polite enough to so indicate it.

You hope people will chime in? Wish granted.

Now the meat: How does a grill help someone exercise their free speech? John – take the hotdog out of your mouth and listen.

1. You’re using your electronic blog to discuss a “print only” frontpage revelation about who pays and who doesn’t pay to use parks. Is Greenwich Time trying to hide this issue from other papers and bloggers? Afraid the N Y Times will make fun of us again?

2. Will the “rangers” request to see “Resident Beach Cards” from each grill user? Will guest fees apply to entrance, but not grill use?

4. Given the advances in back-pack cooking and camping systems, why is limitation to park fixture grills using only charcoal necessary? Isn’t carrying starter fluids and flame devices (on the Ferry even) also a hazard to consider, as opposed to permitting camping sized propane canisters.

Answer these questions and you will learn how a grill helps someone to exercise free-speech. That and a $20 parking fee.

Bonus answer: Dredge or lengthen the Captain’s Island dock to deeper water (similar to the Island Beach Pier), and the Ferry can make a simple triangular route, vastly increasing the available park island space and facilities for all, and with one less ferry.

If the GT reporter had bothered to multiply his data of users times dollars, he could have reported that Ferry users paid $200,000 in fees for a park service that cost $ 300,000 to taxpayers. Not to belabor the point, but doesn’t that suggest a 50% markup in fees should be considered by the Selectmen?

Stamford doesn’t have these restrictive policies anymore. Anyone can go to the park, and that’s great. Not quite so in Greenwich.

Stamford residents are not organizing to make it harder for non-residents to use the parks. Greenwich residents are.

In Stamford you have to pay to get in, but we don’t make you enjoy a segregated line. Greenwich makes you drive at least 2.8 miles away from the ferry dock (on a weekend, that is) to buy a day pass for the Island Beach. Oh, that is AFTER you pay your $20 parking fee.

And really, the fees are not the issue here. The obvious attitude is.

This is so obviously aimed at preventing non-residents from visiting the island. The hostility is clearly there. I am afraid my family and friends will be re-evaluating the amount of money we spend in Greenwich as we are obviously not welcome there.

Haven’t been to Oakland lately, but I can say it used to be a mess, way worse than anything seen at Island Beach, and I blame that on their lax access policies.

So I wonder if we considered the fact that we were drastically lowering our rates at the same time Oakland raised there’s from $10 to $25/person. (parking + per person fee).

I have to say, however, that unless you watched someone or some group use a guest pass or passes at the dock and then followed them onto the Island and observed them personally, you should not be blaming nonresidents for the antisocial behavoir. We can all agree that anyone causing problems should be ejected.

The problem is the Island is overcrowded due to far too many non-residents. Other beaches in the region charge typically between $15 and $30 per person on weekend, we charge $8, so guess where these lovely people choose to visit?

And I wouldn’t go assuming that a large number of Spanish-speaking park visitors are all, or even mostly, non-residents. 50% of Byram is Spanish-speaking and they don’t belong to clubs or summer in Nantucket; they are using our beaches.

Whoever is playing music too loud or littering our parks should be thrown out whether they’re from Greenwich, Port Chester or Mars.

I’d certainly like to see residents get preference in obtaining picknic tables, etc. at Island Beach. I see no reason why non-resident passes cannot be limited and why we can’t actually have “guest” passes again, meaning I as a resident get to bring a friend from out of town to the beach.

I really don’t want to be reading about this controversy on Sunday in the New York Times.

The Greenwich Time ran an Op-Ed about keeping race out of the discussion. This was nothing more than liberal pandering to keep all of us from focusing on the problem. Their goal is to keep things opaque and gauzey. As citizens, we want to know who and what is the problem. Then, we can solve it.

We also should not have voluntarily opened the islands up to non-residents. Anyone can visit the islands, but they have to get there on their own.

In the article in question, a passing comment was made about Mr. Marzullo’s proposal to allow the RTM to second controversial cuts made by the BET. THAT seems like a fair compromise to this question and yet there was nothing further on this point. I wonder if Mr. Vigdor even pursued additional questions about it to Mr. Marzullo.

As a modification to Mr. Marzullo’s idea, may I suggest perhaps before such a seconding motion ever makes it to the RTM a requirement that ALL members of the Board of Selectman agree to have the motion made. That should avoid the claim of politics since at least one member of that Board is from the minority party.

As to Mr. Walko’s various comments I have some questions – he claims that giving the Board of Selectman veto power “…violates the essence of our form of government.” Why, then, wouldn’t changing the makeup of the BET have the same affect? Could it be that because of the historic makeup of party registration in Greenwich Mr. Walko’s party is almost assured of control? Wouldn’t that also violate that essence he is so concerned about? And I ask these questions as a Republican.

And Mr. Walko’s remarks about how Mr. Marzullo came into office with something less than a mandate is just a bit too smarmy and he should have thought better about it. Evidently Greenwich voters wanted Mr. Marzullo and their choice should be respected.

The static IP from Cablevision no longer works in comment 1.

Your Byram cell tower and 24 others in Town are detailed with maps and photos at http://earthimage.net/Greenwich_Cell_Phone_Towers.htm

The other way this is handled is through zoning regulations. No one wants a movie theater next door to their residence, but every town and city knows they need supermarkets so they work out zones where it is appropriate to put them. That system has been working fine for years. It’s the same system that prevents your neighbor from building a 10-story apartment and office complex. Cell towers are exempt from that system, and that’s why it isn’t fair.

As for my cell tower, I-95 is 50 feed away, and there’s plenty of State land next to it. Same is true for the proposed new tower on the other side of I-95. Trust me, but for CT’s law exempting cell towers from zoning regulations, the towers would be alongside I-95 on State property.

And you don’t get wifi from cell towers, you get fairly crappy that barely supports my iPhone. Maybe if they did wifi the neighborhood so we could get rid of the ugly phone and cable TV wires, the poles would be more attractive.

I so feel your pain. Check out this article in today’s local paper in the community I live in Washington State and where your article was referenced

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/iss-s/news/87372037.html

BTW: I’m a long time CT resident and I know the area very well, it’s a shame how quick people sell out themselves and others for a buck.

-Alex

See http://96.56.48.67/cellphone_head.jpg for what it looks like in your kid’s head when the tower is at a greater distance and he holds his max power cell phone to his head.

Director: Samuel E. Deibler
Telephone: (203) 862-6710 (office)
Fax: (203) 862-6701
Location: Senior Center, 299 Greenwich Avenue
Office Hours: Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Administrative Clerical Assistant: Chicky Krois

Best of luck to you and thanks for your comment.

- John

These must be two of the more than 750 workers compensation claims that have been filed by Board of Ed. employees over the past five years! Where is the outrage when perhaps the cushiest jobs in Town are generating multimillion dollar payouts — on top of their already generous salaries? Who would have thought that teachers have more workers comp claims –by far — than workers in Public Works, Police Fire, etc.

Can our local media shed some light on this scandal/fraud please?

Take a look at auditoriums at wilton, North Haven, and elsewhere, and you will see that GHS’s facility stinks. Why is it that the wealthiest community of its size in the entire country can’t afford to build a decent auditorium that can handle the community’s gatherings and won’t damage the hearing of students and teachers?