Franz, Listen Up

At first, I thought I would not reply to Franz Douskey's letter regarding my article about the visit by President Bill Clinton to Waterbury. The tone of Franz's letter was so belligerent, shrill and abusive, that I assumed he was still bitter about being passed over for the Hamden fire chief position. Heck, he didn't even spell my name correctly. (Editor's note: Apologies for not catching the misspelling. It has been fixed.)

However, when I reread Franz's letter, I realized that, unfortunately, he didn't read my article too carefully. No doubt he read the headline ("Bill Clinton Did Not Disappoint") and jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that I was writing to argue the case for Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election. I support Sen. Lieberman. That is true. However, the article was not about his re-election, but rather was what I think to be a relatively straightforward account of the Clinton visit. In fact, the reason I wrote the piece is because I was asked to do so, by the editor of this fine online newspaper. I didn't have a cause to promote, and I wasn't trying to shill for a candidate.

A few of Franz's points deserve a response. Franz writes, "What does Bill Clinton's charisma and polemics have to do with Joe Lieberman's ability as a senator? In a word, NOTHING!" He is right, but I don't think I ever tried to make that case.

Franz writes, "The next time you fill up at the gas pump, ask yourself what Sen. Joe has done to ease the pain." It is a fair question, which Franz doesn't get around to answering, so I will -- plenty. Just one example: In 2003, Sen. Lieberman proposed a complete overhaul of the CAFÉ (corporate auto fuel economy) standards, which would have encouraged Detroit to produce more fuel-efficient automobiles.

Franz writes, "When you heated your home last winter and had to pay double for natural gas and fuel oil, what did Joe Lieberman do for you?" In March 2006, Sen. Lieberman helped to broker an agreement that reduces by half the electricity rate increase that LICAP (Locational Installed Capacity) would have proposed. According to the Connecticut State Consumer Counsel, the settlement will save Connecticut ratepayers $800 million over four years when compared to LICAP. The head of the Consumer Counsel's office, Mary Healey, called the settlement "truly historic in the positive impact it will have."

Franz writes, "Next time you're at the drugstore and you have to deal with high prescription bills, ask yourself what Joe Lieberman has done to cut the profits of pharmaceutical companies and what he's done to make Medicare and Medicaid easier to use." In 2003, Sen. Lieberman opposed the Medicare Part D prescription plan, for exactly that reason, that it failed to rein in drug companies' profits. Sen. Lieberman said at the time, "This President and this Congress have … stuffed what was once a decent bill, the one that passed the Senate overwhelmingly earlier in the year, with irresponsible and hurtful ideas that, rather than strengthening Medicare, weakened it. And rather than offering -- just offering -- prescription drug benefits to millions of seniors who needed it, this legislation reduces the benefits that millions of seniors have today."

If Franz had called me, I might have been able to let him know about Sen. Lieberman's record. It might have spared Franz the pain of writing such a vitriolic letter.

There is one more point that Franz makes. "Next time you read about the mess in Iraq, the loss of American lives, ask how many members of Sen. Lieberman's family are in uniform fighting for what Joe Lieberman says he believes in. He's done nothing." Here, I think, is the crux of the problem that Franz and many other Connecticut Democrats have with Sen. Lieberman. The Iraq War. In this case, I have to agree with Franz. Not regarding his red herring about who in the senator's family is in uniform in Iraq -- that is a meaningless misdirection, a gewgaw draped over Franz's real objection.

But the Iraq War is the issue that separates most Connecticut Democrats, including me, from Sen. Lieberman. I have decided that we are better off with the Sen. Lieberman who has accomplished (and will continue to accomplish) so much for Connecticut on the vital domestic issues that Franz raised, than with a newcomer with whom I agree regarding the Iraq War.

Franz and I disagree, I guess; it's not the first time, and it won't be the last.

Joseph P. McDonagh
Democratic Town Committee chair

School Spending Out of Whack

The substantial tax increase in the town of Hamden is ominous, to say the least. The very notion of a property tax hike in the neighborhood of 25 percent should have all residents in an uproar. The legislative powers that be in Hamden are evidently more concerned with greasing the outstretched palm of the special interests, e.g., the administrative and educational factions who make the most, yet cry the loudest.

The recently passed computer contract in the mid-six figures for the schools is a shameful example of the contempt for taxpayers flowing from Town Hall. This, adding insult to the ongoing injury of the unneeded and poorly conceived middle school, as well as the bottomless pit better known as the administrative payroll in education.

Let me be absolutely clear. The personal services of any employee of the town of Hamden do not merit a compensation package valued at or above $150,000 annually. The suggested property tax increase will place a cruel burden on the elderly, the disabled, the working poor who may own a modest residence, and everyone on a fixed income. In these difficult economic times, especially in the face of $3-per-gallon gasoline and home heating oil, this 25 percent is an extreme bite out of the budget of those who can least afford it.

I call on the town of Hamden to put its fiscal house in order, make real and substantive spending cuts and cease and desist from their never-ending search for new ways to extract another almighty dollar out of the taxpayers.

Charles Mosher
Glenbrook Avenue

Stop Killing Old Hamden

I read with deep regret that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted, with only two opposed, to allow the demolition of the pre-Civil War house on Dixwell Avenue.

This building at 2556 Dixwell Ave., called the Sanford House, is a dying breed here in Hamden. We are losing our heritage. It is unfortunate that nothing could have been done to preserve this house, located on an already crowded Dixwell Avenue corridor. It is now set to be demolished, like so many other buildings from our past.

On this note of historic preservation, I recently purchased an excellent book called "Images of America, Hamden," created by the Hamden Historical Society in 2004. I urge every Hamden resident to purchase this book. In it, there are countless pictures of homes from the past, some of which are still standing, but many have long since vanished to make way for urban sprawl. The Miller homestead on Whitney Avenue, built in 1785, was demolished in 1980. Also included in this fascinating book are pictures of some of Hamden's public buildings from the past. Connecticut's first McDonald's, located where Popeyes is now. Rowe's Drug Store, located in Centerville. The old Church Street School (my alma mater). The old Pine Street School. The old District 11 School in Hamden Plains. The old Hamden airport. Mt. Carmel School. And Hamden's first Town Hall, built in 1888. These are just some of the many buildings that will never be seen again. We have to protect what we have left.

Unfortunately, the Sanford House has now become one of these fading images of Hamden's history.

In closing, I would like to congratulate the Hamden Historical Society for putting together such a tribute to the history of our town. Its book should be required reading for every Hamden resident. Kudos to each and every person who worked on it.

In terms of the Sanford house, it is a sad example of why Hamden needs to preserve its historic buildings. We need better planning and zoning regulations that protect these kinds of properties. Please, Hamden, speak up. Come to meetings and voice your concern about the destruction of our heritage here in the Land of the Sleeping Giant. Our history and our children's history are at stake.

Austin T. Cesare
Hamden

On Behalf of Our Son

Jordan Jacques (right) at camp. Courtesy photo

The J.M.J. Scholarship Foundation was established in 2001 in honor of Jordan Jacques. Jordan, a student at Wintergreen Magnet School, was celebrating the fifth anniversary of the bone marrow transplant he had in 1996. Family, friends and staff at Wintergreen wanted to do something special for him, and decided to start the scholarship fund.

We had a dream that along with Wintergreen getting yearly awards, we would award one of Hamden's other schools. This dream came true last year when we awarded Church Street School.

This year we are pleased to give two students from Helen Street School an award along with Wintergreen students. This was only possible because of the generosity of the community -- and we thank you very much.

This year's awards went to Wintergreen eighth-graders Brittany Breland and Nancy Presnick. The other awards went to Karina Aponte and Andrew Hoang, both Helen Street sixth-graders. Congratulations to all the winners. A special thanks to Wintergreen principal Sharyn Esdaile and Helen Street principal Lynette Kelleher.

We thank Mayor Craig Henrici for attending the Wintergreen ceremony last week, and giving each student a special proclamation. We at the J.M.J. Scholarship Foundation look forward to keeping this tradition ongoing.

And a special thank you and congratulations go to our son Jordan on this being his 10-year anniversary of being cancer-free. You are a true inspiration for others who are going through tough times.

Paul and Leslie Jacques, Jordan's parents
Helen Street

The Fox Destroys the Old House

In my 25 years as a professional advocate for revitalizing and reusing historic buildings, I have been involved in countless negotiations to save buildings. In some cases, everyone involved genuinely agreed that preservation, while difficult and more costly, was the best thing for the community because it promoted a balanced and sustainable environment.

Such efforts have revitalized cities across this state and nation. One only need to look at New Haven, both downtown and some neighborhoods, to see that the promotion of historic preservation has provided both improved housing conditions and commercial success.

I have heard just about every excuse and deceptive reasoning put forward by developers about why they must demolish historic buildings. Sadly, in Hamden, where our community ethic is undefined, the bottom line becomes their bottom line.

At last Wednesday's Planning & Zoning meeting, it became clear that the fox is running the hen house. In this case, a group of doctors -- relying on the advice of "experts" with little understanding of rehabilitating historic buildings -- was able to fool a majority of the commission and our town planners that the Dennis Sanford House, built in 1858 and located at 2556 Dixwell Ave., was "beyond repair." In fact, our public representatives, without independent verification from authentic preservation professionals, chose to rely on the developer's paid malarkey and stated so in the hearing.

Older buildings do take extra effort and sometimes more money to preserve. It is the value and nature of stewardship to do so. There are many experienced preservation and rehabilitation specialists who can be used to evaluate and rebuild special features. The Sanford House is actually in fair to good condition and it would not take much to blend it with a new building.

It is clear that this group of doctors, with a team of architects, set out from day one to demolish this landmark. They even purchased the lot next door so they could build a big enough building on the lot to satisfy their economic return. They presented no evidence that a full and reasonable examination was undertaken for rehabilitation and reuse of the Sanford House.

It is also clear that our historic-built heritage will continue to be lost to the highest bidder, as long as they have the keys to the henhouse. Even more frightening is we, the people, are without effective public advocates.

Peter Haller
Hamden Preservation Action
---------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 Tune Distasteful

I have attended Hamden's July 4 fireworks with my children for many years, and have always come away thoroughly impressed by the spectacular display and uplifted by the sight and sound of so many happy, celebrating families. However, this year's event was marred by the DJ's inappropriate selection of music to accompany the fireworks.

As the fireworks soared into the air, the DJ played two songs that detailed the events of Sept. 11, 2001. By the middle of the first song my elementary-school-age child was no longer looking at the fireworks -- he was distracted by the disturbing lyrics of the song and questioned me about them. By the second song, one adult member of our party was crying. She said in disbelief, "I didn't come here to cry!" Our group contained people on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but all agreed that the music was a disturbing distraction at odds with the purpose of the July 4 commemoration.

I attend the Memorial Day parade each year and salute the veterans who have made sacrifices for our country. I have personally participated in memorial services on Sept. 11 to honor the innocent victims of that horrific nightmare. But there is a time to laugh and a time to mourn. July 4 is a birthday party. A time for picnics and parties and dizzying displays of color in the night sky.

It was only a few short years ago that July 4 saw us all huddled on the golf course, listening to an orchestra's inspiring presentation of the magnificent 1812 Overture, followed by wordless renditions of songs like "Stars and Stripes Forever" and "America the Beautiful" -- truly fitting accompaniments to the fireworks that celebrate the birth of this great and complex nation. Even though I'm young enough to have small children, I find myself longing nostalgically for those good old days.

Christine Hayes
Hamden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Get Phased

Did your tax bill give you sticker shock? Don't like it? Suspect that the local tax burden is being shifted from those better able to pay and businesses onto poorer and middle-class citizens, just as has happened in Washington? I heard "we can't do anything about it now?"

"We can't" often means "we don't want to." Maybe it's laziness. Maybe it's because taxes might not have to be raised in fiscal year '07-'08 -- an election year -- giving a good impression to the taxpayers of the current administration and Council. Phase-in of the revaluation (a revaluation which is flawed for another set of reasons) would bring more fairness to the property tax situation and ease the sticker shock experienced by many citizens. It can still happen, through an adjustment to the second half of property tax payments due Jan. 1 2007. Despite the excuses about computer systems not being ready; despite all the other lame and anemic and shifting reasons given to us citizens by the administration and legislators, it can still happen.

If we want it enough we need to keep calling our legislative representatives on the Town Council. Just call and politely say you support the phase-in for the second half of taxes, and don't pay attention to the excuses you might encounter. You can do this from the privacy of your own home. Call Town Hall (287.7000) if you don't know the name/phone/e-mail of your district councilperson.

On Independence Day remember, taxation without representation is tyranny.

Want more information and some hard numbers on a phase-in? It's available from Hamden Homeowners for Tax Relief at 281.0345.

Barbara Schlein
Pine Rock Avenue

Go Ask Hartford

Regarding the revaluation and potential phase-in, I think people's anger and energy are misplaced. What needs to be reformed is Connecticut's tax system.

Unfortunately, Connecticut's municipalities have really only one way to raise revenue -- property taxes. While there are some fees and charges, the huge bulk of Hamden's and any other towns' revenue that it can control is property taxes. There is state aid, such as for education, but that is limited, does not increase at the level the spending does, and is totally out of the town's control. So we have property taxes.

These in turn are necessarily based on the value of one's property. Fortunately or unfortunately, property values have significantly escalated in the past five years, since the last town-wide revaluation. These increases have not been uniform. Condos and lower-priced houses have increased much more in comparison to higher-end and commercial properties.

So we have a system of taxation based on local property values. Why would it be fair to use old, outdated values when determining the amount of tax one owes? One could argue that the values should be adjusted annually, as they are in other states, but that is another issue. Is the reliance on local property taxes a good system? I think it is horrible, as it consistently penalizes high-tax, residential, older towns such as Hamden, and benefits towns that already have high property tax values (and thus wealthy residents), such as those in Fairfield County and along the shoreline.

Can the town of Hamden or its local officials change that? Obviously not. It is up to our elected state officials to make a concerted effort to overhaul this system of funding. The only time significant changes have been made at the state level is in response to lawsuits or court orders, such as in the Horton and Sheff cases which required changes in state education funding (never fully implemented, to Hamden's significant detriment).

So people can complain about Hamden's tax rate and talk about phase-ins until they are blue in the face. It is largely useless unless changes are made on the state level. I would call on those seeking a phase-in and complaining about their tax bills to direct that energy and anger at your governor, the candidates for governor and your elected state officials (I think all the links are on the HDN) and ask why the property tax system is not changed.

Paul Begemann
Hamden
---------------------------------------------------------------------

We Shall Not Forget in '07

Although only 12 percent of Hamden households have children in our school system, astoundingly, the education budget eats up over half (56 percent) of the town's budget. And the superintendent of school's salary is higher than the vice-president of the United States at $154,000.

Of course, on this meager salary of $154,000, how could Ms. Begina afford to own a car? So the town is paying the lease on a brand new luxury car for her. That means the suffering homeowners of Hamden are paying for Ms. Begina's luxury car.

This is only part of the waste of funds at the Board of Education, the tip of the iceberg. Why does it take so many highly paid administrators to run only 10 schools? You see, much of the rapidly increasing money the town gives to the Board of Ed isn't really going directly to the children, but to the bloated salaries of administrators, too many unnecessary staff and pie-in-the-sky programs that just don't benefit our children the way we are misled to think they do.

I am an educator with a master's degree in education and a PhD in studies, and I do ongoing research which indicates that good education does not always mean just throwing a lot of money into the system and people's pet projects (many of them of unproven value). In fact, in a number of cities in Connecticut and neighboring states, statistics show that many times cities that have received increased funding have seen academic performance drop.

Moreover, the mayor and Council members are duty bound to protect all segments of their constituents -- not just one group. So by having homeowners pay a whopping 81 percent of Hamden's taxes is unfair, untenable and destructive to our community. It will ultimately negatively impact our children. Don't our seniors count as well as our children? What about mature adults who own homes? I know of a disabled adult whose wife lost her job. Doesn't it matter to our mayor and legislators that he and his wife and children will be forced from their family home because of this tax increase?

If the mayor and our Council are concerned with only our children (and that is the way it seems by their policies), that is age discrimination. This unfair and largest tax increase in Hamden's history will destroy our neighborhoods, because homeowners will no longer afford upkeep of their homes.

I was frankly appalled by the indifference of our mayor and most of the Council members toward homeowners. The mayor told us to "bite the bullet." It's high time businesses, renters and others also "bite the bullet." Homeowners pay 81 percent of taxes, while businesses pay only 19 percent.

Mayor, Council members, be on notice: We shall not forget what you did to us when we go to vote next election. Don't for a minute think that you can rely on your constituents' short memories at that time, because we now have very active homeowners' tax-fairness organizations who will heavily publicize the names of all those who told us to "bite the bullet." Every homeowner will know these names, and vote them all out.

Our motto: "Remember the Alamo, remember Pearl Harbor, and remember the largest tax increase in Hamden's history."

Helen Blitzer
Hamden

Tip Us Off
Send news tips