This is the planned new location for the New Britain Police Department, a plan which will be further scrutinized by the City’s sub-committee of the Common Council at its meeting Tuesday July 7th. at 7PM.
Also on the agenda for that meeting are two other proposals: The pinnacle heights property sale, and the controversial proposal for Hospital of Central Connecticut to terminate the city’s lease two years earlier than agreed upon by the city’s council twenty five years ago. This particular project became controversial with Alderman Phil Sherwood’s comment “We have the Power” (The Herald, 6/25/09) apparently implying that the city can take over the ownership of the garage whenever it wants in spite of the twenty five year old common council agreement made with the then named New Britain General Hospital.
I strongly suggest that our residents to attend this council sub-committee meeting to cite any frustrations of the council’s leadership actions.
it is common knowledge who the head agitator is
ReplyDeleteIf the Council Dems screw up this proposal everyone will know for certain what their aim is, i.e., to hell with NB forward with the election. All our state legislators are working to have Stewart fail so why not the Council? Maybe they can get Marzi to make some more senseless statements.
ReplyDeletehave you ever seen such arrogance?
ReplyDelete"We have the Power"
someone is full of himself, isn't he??????????????????????????????
Frank:
ReplyDeleteYou should ask the Herald reporter to poll every Council member to get their reactions to Sherwood's comments, especialy Trueworthy, Bielinski, Hermanowski, Gerrantana and Catanzaro. Can't wait to hear their comments.
some power, all the hospital has to do is sit back and wait 2 years and the property automatically reverts to them free and clear.
ReplyDeletesounds like someone is delirious!
We have the power!! Does Sherwood work for Progressive now? LOL
ReplyDeleteOne would be wise to ask where the wisdom in some of these desires of the mayor is.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the incentive to sell out to the hospital? If we are certain to get more cash in the long run...wisdom would say to wait and not rush for less money now.
As for the police station, it is clear there is no wisdom in the mayor's plan to sell the land just to lease it back. Wisdom would have us build our own police station on our own land and own it outright.
Lastly, who knows what the mayor’s plan is for the old pinnacle heights property. It must be some big secret because as usual the mayor’s silence is deafening. I guess the only communication the mayor is good for is running at the mouth swearing and cussing obscenities at people or about people. Grow up for God’s sake!
What is the incentive to sell out to the hospital? If we are certain to get more cash in the long run...wisdom would say to wait and not rush for less money now.
ReplyDeleteHOW CAN YOU GET MORE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN, WHEN IT IS A 25 YEAR LEASE THAT REVERTS TO THE HOSPITAL IN 2 YEARS FOR NOTHING???
YOU CAN EITHER SELL IT NOW TO GET SOME MONEY, OR WAIT 2 YEARS FOR THEM TO GET IT FOR FREE, SO HOW CAN YOU CLAIM YOU WILL GET MORE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN?
must be more Democratic math!
ReplyDeleteI don't understand, the building is already under construction, but the council is saying that they never approved it? What kind of childish games are they up to now?
ReplyDelete“HOW CAN YOU GET MORE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN, WHEN IT IS A 25 YEAR LEASE THAT REVERTS TO THE HOSPITAL IN 2 YEARS FOR NOTHING???
ReplyDeleteYOU CAN EITHER SELL IT NOW TO GET SOME MONEY, OR WAIT 2 YEARS FOR THEM TO GET IT FOR FREE, SO HOW CAN YOU CLAIM YOU WILL GET MORE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN?”
Mark Twain once said “Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.”
Fact- At the last Common Council meeting we were told by Corporation Council that the lease didn’t end till 2013. Last I checked its 2009 now. That would make it 4 years, not 2 years as you said.
We were also told that the city currently receives approximately $600,000.00 a year. Multiply $600,000.00 by 4 and you will get $2,400,000.00 by the end of the lease.
According to the testimony I heard at the Common Council meeting, what the mayor would like to do is enter into an agreement to end the lease early and receive a meager $1,500,000.00.
That would give $900,000.00 to the hospital that the city needs and should receive.
Is the mayor so hard up to make money that he is willing to leave $900.000.00 on the table?
“must be more Democratic math!” No, I am a conservative republican that doesn’t like to be promised things and then never see them come to fruition.
The resolution called for the City to continue receiving the regular lease payments until DECEMBER 31, 2011.
ReplyDeleteThat means there would be TWO YEARS remaining on the lease not four.
This action does not preclude the Mayor from negotiating an arrangement for the hospital to take over the garage earlier than December 31, 2011 for more money.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI don't understand, the building is already under construction, but the council is saying that they never approved it? What kind of childish games are they up to now?
June 29, 2009 12:36 AM
WHAT BUILDING IS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION? PLEASE LET ALL OF KNOW WHERE IS THIS BUILDING!!
AS FAR AS THE HOSPITAL PARKING GARAGE, REMEMBER, THAT GARAGE IS NOT CITY PROPERTY - NEVER HAS BEEN! SOME OF THE PEOPLE COMMENTING HERE MUST BE GETTING THEIR INFO FROM SHERWOOD.
AS FAR AS THE CITY BUILDING A NEW POLICE STATION, DOES THE COMMENTER KNOW HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO BUILD IT??
ALL COMMENTERS HERE NEED TO GET MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION BEFORE SPEWING NONSENSE!! REALLY!!
This action does not preclude the Mayor from negotiating an arrangement for the hospital to take over the garage earlier than December 31, 2011 for more money.
ReplyDeleteThat is what the mayor is trying to do, sell the garage to the hospital now while he can get the city some extra money for it, but the Dumbocrats on the council are up to their usual tricks, throwing monkey wrenches into anything that benefits the city, so they can turn around and accuse the mayor of failing when it was them that blocked it all the time.
Why not? It is only YOUR money they are playing with, so why should they care?
Hey Mark Twain- I mean "Phil" -
ReplyDelete'The contract, however, expires in 2013 and requires the city to vacate the parking garage Dec. 31 of that year.
According to Stewart, the resolution before the Common Council would allow the hospital to terminate the lease Dec. 31, 2011 with a consideration equaling two years of revenue paid to the city.
The vote was not to terminate the lease now (as your 4 year example states) BUT to terminate it in 2011. Math leeson here 2013-2011 = 2. 2 years x $600k = $1.2M. Last time I checked $1.5M was more than $1.2.....Kinda pathetic you dont even know the what you are shooting down....
".....Kinda pathetic you dont even know the what you are shooting down...."
ReplyDeleteKinda pathetic you don't even know it didn't get shot down. It was voted to be sent to committee according to the Herald.
he uses Democratic math=we pay, and pay, and they give it all away.
ReplyDelete"The vote was not to terminate the lease now (as your 4 year example states) BUT to terminate it in 2011. Math leeson here 2013-2011 = 2. 2 years x $600k = $1.2M. Last time I checked $1.5M was more than $1.2.....Kinda pathetic you dont even know the what you are shooting down...."
ReplyDeleteFirst- Before you give me a math lesson, perhaps you would like to learn how to spell or at least learn how to use the spell checker. My 8 yr old daughter can spell better than you and she wouldn’t even have to try. Talk about “pathetic”!!!
Second- I am not your buddy Phil!
Lastly- Wouldn't it be wise to have an open government? That way people know what to expect and can make informative decisions rather than keep guessing what the mayor is up too? His “iron curtain politics” doesn’t help the city one bit! He needs to start serving the people like he ought and not his own ego. Get over yourself, mayor, your not that special!
“'The contract, however, expires in 2013 and requires the city to vacate the parking garage Dec. 31 of that year.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Stewart, the resolution before the Common Council would allow the hospital to terminate the lease Dec. 31, 2011 with a consideration equaling two years of revenue paid to the city.”
Please forgive me; I’m really trying to understand this.
The hospital, if they don’t negotiate with the city on the term of this contract with the city (mayor) then on Dec. 31st 2013 they own the garage out right for approximately $2,400.00.00 paid to the city over the next few years (3.5 years).
However if they do renegotiate with the city, they pay the city $1,200,000 over the next 1.5 years and at the end of that time (12/31/2011) they pay the city another $1,500,000.00 (2,700.000.00 total)?
What would the incentive be for the hospital to do such a foolish thing?
As far as I can see, the only incentive would be that they wouldn’t have to deal with a fowl-mouthed drunken bigot anymore.
I'm confused. Which Alderman is he referring to as a fowl mouthed drunken bigot?
ReplyDeleteSo much name calling, so much misinformation, so much guessing! Why don't all of you who have all this information, come to the public hearing on the issue on July 7,2009. Ask your questions and get your answers. Only your questions involving the potential takeover of the hospital garage operation deserve any attention . As a matter of fact, it is questionable that even those questions deserve any answers. GET IT STRAIGHT! THE CITY DOES NOT OWN THE GARAGE, THE HOSPITAL DOES - WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT THE HOSPITAL'S DESIRE TO TERMINATE A MANAGEMENT LEASE EARLY IS IMMATERIAL - MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! THIS IS NOT A "BACK ROOM DEAL." IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE HOSPITAL DOES BUSINESS, DON'T USE IT, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. IS THE CITY OF NEW BRITAIN GIVING UP ANYTHING HERE? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! THE DEMOCRATS JUST DON'T WANT THE CITY TO GET THE MONEY THIS YEAR, THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT. CASE CLOSED!! IF THE DEMS DON'T LIKE IT THEY CAN LUMP IT. SO THEY VOTE AGAINST IT - SO WHAT?
ReplyDeleteCALL EVA M., ROY C., SHIRLEY B., SYLVIA C., ADAM P., LAURIE R., PAUL C.,TONI LINN C., SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY! THE OTHER FIVE HAVE ALREADY BEEN COUNTED.
SURE, USE THE POWER OF THE STATE LEGISLATORS; THEN WHAT AND TO WHAT END??
CALL THE MAYOR NAMES COUNCIL, AND USE YOUR LACKEYS TO DO IT. OOPS, I CALLED SOMEBODY A NAME. MY BAD!! REMEMBER 7/7/09!
I don't understand all the hostility towards Tim Stewart. I have always known him to be a fine and decent man.
ReplyDeleteAononymous said:
ReplyDeleteGET IT STRAIGHT! THE CITY DOES NOT OWN THE GARAGE, THE HOSPITAL DOES - WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT THE HOSPITAL'S DESIRE TO TERMINATE A MANAGEMENT LEASE EARLY IS IMMATERIAL - MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! THIS IS NOT A "BACK ROOM DEAL." IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE HOSPITAL DOES BUSINESS, DON'T USE IT, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. IS THE CITY OF NEW BRITAIN GIVING UP ANYTHING HERE? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! THE DEMOCRATS JUST DON'T WANT THE CITY TO GET THE MONEY THIS YEAR, THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT. CASE CLOSED!! IF THE DEMS DON'T LIKE IT THEY CAN LUMP IT. SO THEY VOTE AGAINST IT - SO WHAT?
The Democrats probably don't want the city to get the money this year because it would make the mayor look good. They couldn't care less about what is good for the city. All they care about is pushing their liberal agenda, no matter what the cost to the taxpayers.
This is shameful, childish conduct.
Typical New Britain politics, Politicians sabotage ideas and continue to serve their local political town committees instead of their constituents, Dreams and visions thrown out the window so someone can stroke their own ego. All parties concerned are guilty. Have any of you read the oath you took? Are you all that morally bankrupt? Thousands of us are unaffiliated voters.
ReplyDelete----------------------------------
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day.
-- Theodore Roosevelt
"When they call roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "present" or "not guilty".
-- Theodore Roosevelt
It is that the Democrats are jealous of how incredibly popular Mayor Stewart is and they have no one that even compares to his popularity in their entire party.
ReplyDeleteIt is similar to the vicious attacks they always launch on Sara Palin, but it is her state that has billions of dollars in surplus, and certainly not ours at the hands of the Democratic legislature.
HARTFORD JULY 4th TEA PARTY!
ReplyDeleteJuly 4th Tea Party & Candidates Forum
Saturday, July 4, 2009
12:00 - 3:00
Hartford - State Capitol
Hartford, CT
Contact Info: Dan Reale
realedealforcongress@yahoo.com
www.thehartfordteapartypatriots.com
To the hate mongers on this blog, get a life and take a look in the mirror. It's easy to criticize the mayor and name call when all you are trying to do is create negativity for him. Drunk, bigot last I checked it was Mayor Stewart that increased the minority rolls of employment especially in the Fire Department over 50x the previous administration. Check the records people. And so he has a drink from time to time, I'll bet you're a drunken bum by virtue of the language and attitudes you display in your writings. And guess what, he probably even kicks the cat from time to time. Grow up people and recognize we are lucky to be moving this city in a positive direction in spite of this economy! Kudos to the mayor, keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteTheodore Roosevelt said
ReplyDelete.......each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day......
-----------------------------------
Wisely: adverb; In a wise manner, prudently, judiciously; discreetly, with wisdom.
fearlessly: adverb; without fear, audacious, brave, dauntless, fearless, intrepid, unafraid, undaunted, unfearing, unflinching
-----------------------------------
These definitions hardly define politics in New Britain!
-----------------------------------
Our city charter states:
§5-1 The Authority of the Mayor.
(a) There shall be a Mayor of the City who shall be its Chief Executive and Administrative Officer and all such executive and administrative powers of the
City are vested in the Mayor, except as otherwise provided in this Charter or by law.
§5-3 Duties.
It shall be the duty of the Mayor to:
(a) cause laws and Ordinances to be executed and enforced and to
conserve the peace within the City and to be responsible for the good order of efficient government of the City.
(b) to sign all deeds and all written contracts of the City approved by the Common Council, except as otherwise provided in this Charter, or any department
or any office of the City in accordance with authority conferred upon them by this
Charter or by the Ordinances, or otherwise by law; provided, the facsimile signature, electronic authorization or other approved form of signature, as approved by the Common Council, of the Mayor or the Treasurer is authorized on
all bonds issued by the City.
§4-2 Powers of the Common Council.
(i) to approve the purchase, sale, or lease of real property.
Given the authority granted by the city charter I can not figure out what is so difficult.
Govern wisely and fearlessly then let the voters decide if they approve on election day.
Lastly, who knows what the mayor’s plan is for the old pinnacle heights property. It must be some big secret because as usual the mayor’s silence is deafening. I guess the only communication the mayor is good for is running at the mouth swearing and cussing obscenities at people or about people. Grow up for God’s sake!
ReplyDelete.....................................................
To: Whomver sent the comment printed above.
Sent this comment yesterday but it was never printed.
Pinnacle Heights (PH) was under the supervision of Don DeFronzo (8 yrs.) when he was Chair of The NB Housing Authority. It was a mess. Public hearings on the future use of that property stater in the late 1990s. Studies, (at least two consultants were hired also) were done. It wasn't until Stewart became Mayor in 2003 that any plans became real. Since then, the property has been acquired, abated, demolished and is in the final stages of cleanup. The propert has been designated by the state as HOUSING-FREE, none, nada, zero. It has been rezoned and a buyer has been selected. After the closing on the property, it will be parceled off to prospective clients, selected by the new owner. All businesses there will have to conform to this newly zoned property. THAT IS THE MAYOR'S AND THE COUNCIL'S PLAN. THERE IS NO OTHER SECRET PLAN. THE ONLY "DEAFENING" SOUND IS THE UNINTELLECTUAL BLAST OF HOT AIR COMING FROM WOULD BE OBSTRUCTIONISTS LIKE YOU.
Why is it that when someone post some negative truth about the mayor it’s a crying shame, but when the mayor opens his big mouth and hurls his disgusting insults at others it’s funny and he is “just that kinda guy”?
ReplyDeleteWhen the mayor drinks and drives on our city streets and kills someone will you still think it’s no big deal and “kudos to the mayor”? Every time he attends a fund-raiser he drinks till he can barely stand then jumps behind the wheel and drives on our city streets putting our loved ones at risk. You think the liberals should be ashamed? I’m willing to bet that our mayor could drink more Johnny Walker Scotch than Senator Ted Kennedy ever dreamed he could. He could defiantly drink more than all the liberals on the CC…what a disgrace! But we sure are proud of him, aren’t we? Disgraceful!!!
Once again they try to blame the mayor for bad things that the council and only the council is authorized to approve under the city charter.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the public is onto their blame game and knows exactly which 13 elected officials are to blame for all of our problems.
They are jealous of the mayor's popularity, so they accuse him of swearing, as if the taxpayers could care less if he swears, so long as he does the best job he can for the city.
Come you 13 juvenile delinquents, you can do better than that.
Tim Stewart is our Sara Palin?
ReplyDeleteRedevelopment in New Britain: Pinnacle Heights; Downtown New Britain etc., have been the major subjects commented on on Frank Smith's blog. One might think our city politicians would be happy about all that is going on - it's all positive stuff for New Britain citizens. Except that is for those who would rather denigrate the Mayor, you know, the Council Democrats. They claim to be ethics minded but look the other way when Council Democrats don't pay their taxes or have other conflicts of interest. They even get others to come to Council meetings to spew untruths and point fingers. Oh and I guess that none of them ever takes a drink (of alcohol, that is).
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see, the only incentive would be that they wouldn’t have to deal with a fowl-mouthed drunken bigot anymore....
Is he referring to the 13 Democrats on the council?
Could he be implying that their lack of any serious candidate for mayor is driving them all to drink?
To date, all they have been able to come up with, is a guy that is thinking about it and exploring the possibility of running for months on end. A guy who can't even decide whether he will run, so what kind of quick decisions will he make as the C.E.O. of the city? Would we have to wait for months on end for him to decide what to do in an emergency?
Like him or not, Tim Stewart is a strong leader that has no problem making a decision when he needs to, and has done a remarkable job running the city when he gets ZERO backing from the council and nothing but efforts to sidetrack any positive measure he tries to implement.
The best thing we could do is re-elect Mayor Stewart and offer him 13 replacements for the dysfunctional agitators, previously known as the dirty baker's dozen.
Do you remember the movie. "Analyze This"? Well here's the "TING" _ I'm not sure if it's the 1st. Ting or the second Ting.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats don't like Stewart - he gets "Tings Done."; he's honest, he's young and he cares about New Britain. He curses and he drinks alcohol.
Which of you doesn't, at least once in awhile? He's not trying to make prior Mayors look bad. He's just doing his job trying to promote New Britain. Shouldn't we all be doing the same thing, I mean Ting?
The Democrats ask a very nice man, Alton Brooks to come to a Council meeting and ask questions that were answered ten years ago. They get Rich Marzi to came and throw darts. Give us all a break, Dems, speak for yourself. Stop the cowardice and the hypocricy.
anonymous said...They are jealous of the mayor's popularity, so they accuse him of swearing, as if the taxpayers could care less if he swears, so long as he does the best job he can for the city.
ReplyDeleteCome you 13 juvenile delinquents, you can do better than that.
JUVENILE DELINQUENTS IS TOO NICE FOR THESE 13 MISFITS
Democrats don't like anyone who can run the city responsibly. They are all about jacking up your taxes and giving your money away!
ReplyDeleteDemocrats don't like Stewart - he gets "Tings Done."; he's honest, he's young and he cares about New Britain. He curses and he drinks alcohol.
Which of you doesn't, at least once in awhile? He's not trying to make prior Mayors look bad. He's just doing his job trying to promote New Britain. Shouldn't we all be doing the same thing, I mean Ting?
Could it be that the Mayor is being driven to drink by his unlucky number 13?
ReplyDeleteI know I had to deal with those misfits all the time, I would find the need to drink heavily!
I am totally disgusted with our elected officials that continue to tote the party line. Do what your bosses sent you there to do. Your bosses,in case you have forgotten, are the hard working people that elected you to represent them and pay for all your nonsense--not your own self interests.
ReplyDeleteNew Britain Connecticut
ReplyDeleteLEGAL NOTICE
The Common Council and the Committee on Planning, Zoning and Housing will hold a public hearing on Tuesday evening, July 7, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 27 West Main Street, New Britain, Connecticut for the following:
Resolution #30674 has been rescheduled to August 4, 2009.
Re: Sale of city owned property at 34 Marimac Road known as Pinnacle Heights with NB-BT2, LLC.
AGENDA July 7, 2009
Resolution #30675 - Re: Purchase and Sale of 121-131 Main Street, New Britain to Arete Development Group.
Resolution #30680 - Re: George A. Quigley Parking Garage adjacent to The Hospital of Central Connecticut Terminate the Ground Lease and Management Agreement effective December 31, 2011.
At this hearing interested persons may be heard and written communications may be received. Item #30675 and Item #30680 are available for public inspection during normal business hours in the Office of the Town and City Clerk, City Hall, 27 West Main Street, New Britain, Conn.
What dirty secret might the unlucky 13 be trying to hide regarding Pinnacle Heights that they suddenly postponed the hearing on that item???
ReplyDeleteIn a statement supporting the Democratic budget plan, Representative O’Brien said the following:
ReplyDelete"This budget makes the choice to be fair by asking the wealthiest people in the state - those with incomes over $500,000 a year - to contribute just a little more to be able to meet the important needs of our state."
This statement appears to once again create that all too familiar class warfare by giving the impression that they are only going to tax those damn rich people making over $500,000, but before deciding on this budget, please consider the following:
The Democratic budget contains a new tax on all business income that taxes all business profits at 25% and this does not only apply to income over $500,000, it applies to all business profits.
The Democratic budget increases the cigarette tax by 75 cents per pack, bringing the state tax on cigarettes to $2.75 per pack or $27.50 per carton.
The Democratic budget increases the fees for admission to state parks by an undisclosed amount.
The Democratic budget increases the license fees the state charges for all professional licenses and “other items” that have yet to be revealed to the public.
Governor Rell is correct in her statements that this budget would devastate Connecticut businesses and did the correct thing to veto it.
***DEMOCRATIC ALDERMEN TAKE NOTE:***
ReplyDeleteI am a Republican who is running for office in November, and I am sitting here right now righting a check payable to the tax collector for my car taxes because they are due tomorrow. I know there is a 30 day grace period before there is a late charge, but they are due tomorrow and shouldn't we, the elected officials, be setting an example for everyone else?
Perhaps you might consider following the example of this Republican, and pay yours when they are do for a change?
When will we have open debate? When will we have honest discussion?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the statements on file at the clerk’s office, Alderpersons Roy Centeno, Silvia Cruz, Greg Gerratana, Eva Magnuszewski and Shirley Black do not own property in New Britain.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this has a lot to do with why they don't seem to care how high our taxes go?
You would need to get drunk just to sit through all the theatrical productions at the council meetings.
ReplyDeleteIn opposing the deal with the Hospital of Central Connecticut Garage Alderman Phil Sherwood was quoted in the New Britain Herald saying “WE HAVE THE POWER.”
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteCould it be that the Mayor is being driven to drink by his unlucky number 13?
I agree!
The Council had nothig to do with delaying the PH hearing until August 4th. Call the Mayor's office.
ReplyDeleteNobody is hiding anything.