The following letter to the editor was submitted as sponsored (paid for) content, and paid for by the author of the letter.
To the Editor:
I love Connecticut. I grew up here, went to College here and raised my children here. As a demonstration of my appreciation to Wilton and its history, I volunteered as a town commissioner. It is highly rewarding. For those who have not had the opportunity to serve or spend a lot of time attending meetings of the various commissions and boards, you would be proud of the tremendous dedication of our local commissioners and board members. They fight for Wilton and are Warriors in true Wilton fashion. Wilton needs Warriors in Hartford too.
Last year, I became aware of a little-known Senate Bill, SB1107. This Bill, according to the CT Trust for Historic Preservation, allows “the state to unfairly sanction the demolition of historic structures that local municipalities have identified as important and meaningful to their community.”
SB1107 was also opposed by David A. Lehman, Commissioner, Department of Economic and Community Development “because it does not respect the rights of the public or their interest in observing historic resources for future generations.”
Will Haskell, the Democrat State Senate incumbent, not only voted ‘yea’ on SB1107, he seconded it. Bills like this, that chip away at local control, are unfortunately the new norm. There are several other dangerous democrat-proposed bills on the horizon that attack home-rule and Wilton’s ability to preserve its beautiful landscape and historic character. Proposed legislation that deletes consideration of the ‘character of a district’ and its suitability for a particular use. There are proposals that authorize a housing authority to expand its jurisdiction up to 30 miles outside the municipal borders, leaving Wilton completely vulnerable, with entirely no say or defense against the whims of external bureaucrats that lack our love and appreciation for the Town of Wilton.
Wilton needs a Warrior. Someone who will protect our say in local matters. Kim Healy is a Warrior and strong believer in local control. She will fight to protect the rights of Wiltonians. The rights, Will Haskell is happy to vote away.
We cannot trust Will Haskell to protect Wilton’s interests. That is why I am endorsing Kim Healy for State Senate.
Lisa Pojano
I’m not sure how I feel about this. Something doesn’t feel right. A paid letter to the editor? Does this meet journalistic standards? Kudos to GMW for marking it as paid content yet blurring the lines of the editorial page of a media outlet and paid political advertising seems to be a line we should not cross.
Thanks for your comment, Thomas. We do run sponsored content and have always marked it as such when it is published, political or otherwise. We specifically did not run this letter with other election-related letters to the editor, which run each Friday during election season. The letter writer had already submitted one letter this season, and per our published election-year guidelines, couldn’t run a second letter unless space was available once all letters from first-time writers had run. As we typically have more letters than the weekly limit allows, that was unlikely to happen, so she opted for the sponsored post. It’s an option available to anyone or any party, just like all advertising is.
Heather thanks for your response and transparency on this. What makes me uneasy is that this feels like a “Pay to Play” option. Rights and access based on ability to pay are what is corrosive to democracy and continues to drive inequality. I would urge you to reconsider your policy or at least at a minimum to fully strip the pretense of these political advertisements appearing to be Letters to the Editor.
wondering if the author actually read the bill considering this is what it says. It appears the bill is (rightly) prioritizing economic development in distressed cites over the preservation of old, abandoned properties. Seems like common sense to me
SUMMARY
Current law permits interventions to prevent the unreasonable
destruction of certain historic properties by either (1) the attorney
general, at the request of the Historic Preservation Council, or (2) any
party that would not otherwise have standing, filing suit under the
state’s Environmental Protection Act (see BACKGROUND). This bill
creates a three-year exemption from these interventions for certain
historic properties located in towns that meet the bill’s criteria.
Beginning October 1, 2019 and ending October 1, 2022, the exception
would apply to any new construction plan or project of a private or
municipal entity alone, or in combination, that proposes to rebuild,
remove, demolish, move, or raze a historic structure, on the condition
that the historic structure has been continuously vacant for at least 10
years and is located within:
1. a municipality having a population under 30,000 and designated
as distressed for the past ten consecutive years, and
2. a designated opportunity zone (see BACKGROUND).
Based on the most recent Department of Public Health (DPH)
population figures (2017) and the most recent distressed municipalities
and opportunity zone lists, Ansonia, New London, Putnam, and
Windham appear to meet all three criteria.
I want to thank GOOD Morning Wilton for this longer form option of more than 200 words, which better allows the writer to express themselves, provide more context and include more facts and details for readers.
To Mr. Schlesinger’s comment, I appreciate the research and would like to provide additional background: the net result of SB1107 would be to deprive municipalities and every citizen of their say, as best summarized by David A. Lehman “…bill would bypass the only procedurally-defined path forward for the rights of the public to seek remedy…”
Further, it is not in the interest of even the towns cited. The CT Trust for Historic Preservation points out the bill would encourage “demolition by neglect” where historic buildings will be allowed to decay to the point of destruction, increasing blight in neighborhoods and decreasing property values and local tax revenues;” and would “turn Opportunity Zones into Opportunistic Zones, allowing indiscriminate destruction of historic assets; and sets a dangerous precedent and exposes the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act to future disastrous amendments.”
I hope you find this information helpful.