Let’s Examine the “Misinformation” on the Highway Project
I attended the informational meeting on the Highway project on 12/1 where Mr. Audet put forward the slide presentation and argument for the bond, and quite frankly, in my opinion, the case was not in any way made for the scope of this project- nor was there the specificity I believe necessary for the public to make an informed decision in approving it. In fact, I found the scare tactics regarding the level of contamination (notwithstanding the salt shed issue on a standalone basis) pretty laughable; an example:
Come on up to my barn and I will dig out a couple of oil filters, throw them on the ground and we can take pictures…then the Aljazeera crowd can call the DEP and EPA and report me. What are we, 4 years old?
As I have written previously, it’s not so much the project (which I find over-blown), it’s the mindset on which it was approached. I have done a lot of reading on this subject now and it appears to me that our committee missed an opportunity to do this well- instead concentrating their sales effort on the aspects of cheap money through bonding at this time, a depressed contractor market, and our perceived ability to continue to pay because other debt service is being retired; not good reasons to do this without research into how the proposed buildings will be utilized during their alleged 30-year lifespan.
In my reading, I came across a number of relevant issues regarding the technology available today and how the philosophy has changed:
· Wash bay technology has changed to support brine production in that the water used to remove salt from the equipment can be reused to make brine- apparently not considered.
· Simple and relatively inexpensive retrofit systems are available for the spreaders for "pre-wetting" the salt to be disbursed, thus cutting waste and drastically cutting or eliminating sand use.
· UCONN has resources we apparently have not utilized lately. The Technology Transfer Center (aka "T2") offers assistance in such projects. Apparently we participated in their roundtable on highway maintenance in 2005 (Report -HERE-), yet we don’t talk to them prior to a $3M project?
· Conventional buildings (what is being proposed) vs. a "Clear-Span" type building which is much less expensive to build and maintain- I found this report from the NYDOT interesting; they replaced all of their buildings with the Clear-Span type. Note the size of the buildings they erected: 50’-60’ wide x 90’ long. Our proposed salt shed is 70’x140’ (see below):
Let's do the math on this: 43,000 miles of roadway divided by 72 buildings, which are quite a bit smaller than the one proposed for Woodstock, which comes to 597 miles of roadway that each building is to house material for. Woodstock has 125 miles which includes 100 "improved" and 25 gravel according to the "T2" roundtable meeting that we participated in. This is what I mean by "over-blown".
Per the slide show presented at the meeting:
"Upgrades to the Highway Facility are required to comply with certain federal and state laws."
Necessary Updates include:
- New salt storage facility
- Storm water drainage improvements
- Material management improvements
- New water supply well
- New septic system
This appears to be a far cry from the $3M being requested for this project which includes an addition near twice the size of the existing building and a fuel depot with canopy (Think Xtra-Mart only bigger) in addition to the salt shed.
While I am not completely adverse to upgrading our facilities and I am in no way denigrating the effort put in by Mr. Audet and others, it is very clear that this was approached from a standpoint of what they thought they could "sell us" rather than a true needs assessment taking into consideration the state of the economy, looming cuts in state aid which will have massive effects on our budgeting process which begins very soon (and we all know what a friendly discussion that is every year), as well as the potential impact of improved winter road maintenance best practices from both a cost and environmental perspective which clearly were not considered.
These are just some of the issues that lead me to write my letter to the editor that appeared in the Villager this past Friday. This project needs to go back to the drawing board and pared down to a realistic and functional assessment of the real needs of the town now and heading into the future. Join me in sending the correct message- Vote NO.
-Craig R. Powers
And, just to cut through the fog on cost to the taxpayer, $2.5 million dollars costs $180,000+ a year at 4% interest and as interest rates rise - we don't know what they will be two years from now - so does the cost. 5% pushes it to over $200,000. This is money that will not be available to cover other expenses period, and as state funding is cut back - as it must be - this money will come out of education and town services.
This project is AT LEAST one million dollars over engineered.
Dave Richardson
If you follow the NY model, 90’ times 60’ equals 5400 square feet times 72 buildings or a total 388,800 square feet of salt storage. Divide the 388,800 by the 43,000 miles and you need 9 square feet of storage per mile. Woodstock has 125 miles of road, so in storage the town needs 125 miles times 9.05 square feet of storage per mile or 1130 square feet. We are planning 9800 square feet…………….WOW, maybe this is why it looks like a dairy barn, let the cows come home.
I couldn't attend the meeting but looking at the pictures of the propososed salt shed I have more questions. Why are we building storage for seperate sanders? The state and most towns have done away with seperate sanders on plow trucks for at least a decade. They all use a univesal body. Just look at the state trucks that salt our roads- no seperate sander (do we really live in the place that time forgot?). Why do we continue to operate in the past? More stupidity on the part of the town. It has been years since the pollution has been identified on the site and what have we done to correct the problem-nothing except try to pass bonds for wasteful projects and tie the pollution clean-up to them.
How about cleaning up the pollution the town has caused on the site and use the money in the existing budget to do so?
Folks the state is broke and the last thing the people in the town need is a tax increase. The proposal for this bond is nuts. Find the money in the budget to clean up the pollution. Vote NO on Tuesday and tell your friends to Vote NO as well.
Yet another sad day for Woodstock in the irresponsibility of our "leaders". The lazy electorate is going to get what it deserves and the rest of us along with them while the "leaders" continue to feed at the trough of your wallet. Just wait for budget season when everyone realizes that there is no money.
We can't educate our children properly but we can design and build this ridiculous monstrosity on 35 year old technology...unbelievable.
Mr. Powers, Regardless of your so-called position on this or any issue, the one constant which seems to inform nearly all of your comments is the utter contempt you show for us Woodstock Citizens, your vehement and rather smug certainty that you know more than the rest of us and the sometimes enormously patronizing tone you use to communicate your overblown opinion.
You make the same kind of condescending, insulting comment every time you lose.
Well Mr. Ford- oops I meant Con, I found your comment in the spam file (where it belongs)...at least I have a "so-called" position which was well researched and responsible, as well as the courage to put it out there.
What is "overblown" is the galatically stupid proposal that was flown under the radar by our tax and spend republicans, you, and the rest of the idiots over on Aljazeera.
I lost nothing. Woodstock lost big-time as usual under the "leadership" of the rocket scientists that we continue to elect in this podunk town.
As far as "condescending and insulting"- perhaps a reading and comprehension class might do you some good- a writing class might help too.
Dear Admin, First I wonder whether you’ll even publish this, as you seem to enjoy having the last word.
My comment obviously touched a nerve and you again abandon your own principle (memorialized on this website - that “Admin will treat you and your posts with respect, period” ) and, rather than actually respond, choose to lash out with off-subject, predictable (and weak) sarcasm. That is, you AVOID my point (have you no retort?). I’ll re-phrase: The Citizens of Woodstock ought not be insulted – especially through know-it-all comments written in self-aggrandizing language which comes across as condescending and patronizing – as though the writer believes that only he ‘knows’ while the Citizens of Woodstock remain ignorant.
Put aside your petty dislike for me - can you’re highness please explain how calling Woodstock Citizens “lazy electorate” who will “get what it deserves” is NOT insulting and patronizing? Please address that spot-on question, regardless of whether it’s well-written or that you don’t like me (after imputing me with a political position impossible for you to know – jumping to conclusions like that betray kind of lame rhetorical skills).
About that “respect, period” statement - why brag about such high Blogging Standards if you abandon them for petty sarcasm whenever the mood strikes? Your readers deserve to be able to count on such firm statements of principle…
Why wouldn't I post it? Every blog needs its village idiot.
It appears to me that your lack of comprehension precludes you from understanding the dynamics of the intended message. It is also my opinion that when the "lazy electorate" drives up Coatney Hill some morning and sees "Chandler's Folly" in all of its glory, combined with the obvious tsuami headed our way in state aid cuts and the ugliness that will be our upcoming budget process, they will realize what was put past them and the backlash will be extreme.
On top of that, it won't be long before we will hear about the changes they have "just discovered" in road maintenance technology which will require another money grab.
With somewhere in the neighborhood of 4000 voters, it's pretty clear that 3300 or so remain ignorant on this issue. Do you think our "leaders" did a good job in informing the public on this project? They didn't, and it was by design as was the timing on this referendum. A price will be paid for this in the near future- wait until the mommies figure out where the payments will have to come from.
As ususal, most of your other statements are incomprehensible so I cannot respond to them.
With regard to "petty dislike", you must be referring to your own feelings for me as I don't know you, but I do know that your expressed positions are "rhetorically lame" which helps me draw my opinion of you.
The good news for me is that I could care less what you think, and right around the time that the payments for Chandler's Folly are coming due, we will be leaving Mayberry and it will be one of the happiest days of my life.
In the meantime I will continue to point out the obvious in my quest to leave this town better than I found it- a tall order with the likes of the "leaders" that the "lazy electorate" continues to elect and put in charge of your money, of which you are about to have a lot less- you will however have plenty of sand...and relatives of your "leaders" to clean it up by the hour. Have a nice day Mr. Ford.
I can not believe the vote on the Highway garage!! People in the Town of Woodstock need to wake-up. Putting that kind of money out for something that is way over kill. If the salt is polluting the ground why do they keep piling it outside the salt shed? It is like putting 10 lbs. of apples in a 5 lb. bag. Why aren't we going to calcium chloride-that works at a lower temp.? Can be stored in a poly tank that will not leak! There will be some story after the building is up that they will not be able to put the trucks in the garage again! Possibly because they are on their side more than upright! Lastly having a vote at this time of the year-come on!
The town garage referendum might not a colossally stupid mistake after all. After eight recounts and over two dozen absentee ballots thrown out, this is starting to smell of voter fraud to me.
In fact, when I voted yesterday I wondered why our new expensive voting machines that tabulate the votes were not in use. My neighbor told me she asked one of the women at Town Hall that question. She was told the ballots were copied and put into a box to "save money". When has the Town of Woodstock been interested in saving money??? I smell a rat. . .a very noxious odor is coming from Woodstock Town Hall.
Well the voting is over and the Selectmen have won. Let's just hope and pray they are discreet; prudence and decorum should be the rule. $3 Million in debt to save a $1000.00 electric bill as Mr. Chandler Paquette explained on WINY is hardly justified. Parking the trucks inside while so many people in CT will be sleeping outside is just cruel. The State is broke and shortage in budget commitments is inevitable. What could have ever convinced Mr. McCoy that a fuel depot of such a magnitude was more important than the education budget? I just don’t understand. I only hope that a great deal of consideration is exercised by the Selectmen before the loan is applied.
The people made a big mistake in not going to the polls; maybe a petition for a second referendum is possible? I just don’t know.
Con, you are proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that even educated people can be stupid.
Regrettable - what EXACTLY did I say to prompt your cliche, ad hominem playground insult? Be very specific and address the issue/my writing, NOT the person.
Admin,
I asked you 3 times (you failed to post these comments): What is the source of your ignoble desire to get personal, insult and just lash out!?! WHY DO YOU SO EASILY AND QUICKLY ABANDON YOUR WRITTEN ‘MISSION STATEMENT’ CLAIMING THAT COMMENTS ARE ‘TREATED WITH RESPECT, PERIOD’!?! Do you abandon other principles with such slippery speed when it’s convenient? (Like abandoning the notion of ‘allowing all viewpoints in a marketplace of ideas’ and ‘transparency’ by posting my comment pointing out clear flaws and sneaky tricks?
This is my 3rd try to post – it is hard to believe that Admin fears posting my comments. Why not post it? Fearing to post it in spite of repeated claims of fairness, non-censorship and TRANSPARENCY seems too simple. It does seem that Admin’s failure to post illustrates a deep hypocrisy on a website which abounds with self-righteous claims of superiority when it comes to NOT censoring comments, allowing ALL viewpoints and wishing for a true ‘marketplace of ideas’.
I guess that Admin will only post comments which agree with all the self-important and faulty conclusions on this site and downright FEARS to post even weak comments like mine, pointing out that his personal attack/insulting comments violate his own written policy (he’s dodged that challenge like a true huckster who knows his ‘goods’ are cheap and false…).
At least at ...cafe.com I am sure that my comments will be posted, whether anyone there (including Admin) agrees with anything I say. I’ve posted dissent and agreement there and every comment is posted without delay, yet so many comments at woodstocktruth.com accuse Café site of censoring comments – I haven’t seen it. Anyone offer proof?
Admin claims my posts are poorly done – if so, he ought to have little trouble defeating each challenge point-by-point (personal attacks and insults are a refuge of the losing side who has NO counter-argument) – I’m talking about addressing the simple statements at face-value (‘why abandon mission statement’? – assume I’m a total idiot, that challenge speaks for itself and remains UNANSWERED, dodged, avoided – not Transparent! I expect more from someone who spends so much time describing what kind of person he is (much of it pretty admirable qualities – Talk Radio jocks spend inordinate time talking about themselves…)
Con,
We've been around this merry go-round a number of times now, yet you continue to harrass for whatever your purposes may be- believe it or not there are more important things in my life than wasting my time with you- if you don't like it here change the channel and go suck up at Aljazeera.
You will notice that I have changed the 'About the Blog' statement just for you- just the way it's going to be. I have asked you repeatedly to debate the issues facing the town and I see at times you can be thoughtful and coherent; regardless, you persist with this sort of trash which is an impostion on my time- it appears to me that you have nothing of substance to say and simply take joy in attacking me.
If you would like to discuss the issues in an adult manner you are welcome here- otherwise you and your fragile ego can take a hike.
Dear Admin/Pot,
Thank you for the valuable and thoughtful advice – as I’ve repeated many times I, too, don’t find insults (like ‘village idiot’ and the like) and personal attacks to be ‘discussing the issues in an adult manner’. Perhaps this advice can be useful to others as well? Just my crazy notion that standards ought to be applied to everyone equally…
Con/Kettle
Touché.
Those who approach without rancor are treated in kind.