Norwalk: Moccia Creates Campaign Issue For Briggs

by turfgrrl

November 1st, 2007 · 65 Comments

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

65 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Moccia Creates Campaign Issue For Briggs”

• 1 Anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 12:03 pm

  So one of the arguments being cited by Moccia et al is that property owners wouldn’t be provided tax abatements during the delay. Were they under the old ordinance? If not, how come that was never an issue then?

• 2 mattw // Nov 1, 2007 at 12:21 pm

  Walter’s statement, which we provided to the papers last night:

  “It is disappointing that Mayor Moccia killed the new Demolition Delay ordinance by neglecting to sign it this week. Councilman Coffey included the historic preservation community in developing this ordinance, and produced a valuable law that extends the delay for destroying historic buildings so the public, property owners, and experts can all weigh in before a potential treasure is lost.

  “It is clear from his ‘pocket veto’ that Mayor Moccia lacks the foresight to protect our irreplaceable historic buildings, and the political courage to do so openly.”

• 3 Anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 12:48 pm

  Demo Dick is in someone’s pocket. Most likely property developers. The only opponents of this ordinance are his mini-me’s on the Council and the greedy people who continually treat Norwalk like a crack ho looking for abuse.

• 4 anon once more // Nov 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm

  Again untruths spewed by the Brigg’s campaign to discredit and destroy. The veto is so that this ordinance can go back to committee to get the insight it needs to be properly crafted and not done in haste.
  Is no-one listening? One hour before the common council meeting, a hearing takes place and revisions are made. The document is then quickly run off on a copier without even the law department able to look it over for inaccuracies and then it is presented to the council for a vote, but wait in the middle of discussion of said document there is another revision added into the language. So let me get this right, If there is a document someone wants to push through so be it and the heck with the circumstances and possible conflicts down the road? What we have here is a monumental misuse of public officilas authority to cover their agenda’s during an election period. For the life of me I cannot understand why Mr. Coffey would want to push something thru like this because it would help the democrats during the election cycle. Mike, wake up, the dems threw you to the wolves so many times over the past two years and now they are trying to seal your fate.

• 5 Anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 1:08 pm

  Red Herrings from the Reds spell Redrum for the Demo Delay Ordinance…

• 6 anon again // Nov 1, 2007 at 1:18 pm

  Remember the kind of development we got under Esposito? Remember the ZBA that granted variances to anyone who fogged a mirror? Remember all the ugly condos that replaced single family homes? Hope you liked it then ’cause we’re about to get it again. And all those anti-preservation guys are gonna claim it’s to protect your property rights. Smoke and mirrors, folks. It’s really to protect their buddy developers’ rights to build when they want, where they want, and how they want — without worrying about community impact. Don’t you think they want to get rid of the demo delay so that nothing stands in the way of Seligson demolishing Orhcard Street for his Xanadu? We’ll lose a great neighborhood of affordable houses that people have worked hard on improving. No demo delay; nothing to slow down the bulldozers or give Seligson a reason to consider alternatives. Face it; these guys don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to YOUR property values. It’s all about fattening their wallets.

• 7 anon // Nov 1, 2007 at 1:41 pm

  This council has made sure that property developers cannot and will not take peoples properties for commercial gain in that any and all parcels of property slated for new development cannot be taken by eminent domaine without first being reviewed by and then voted by the entire council. so your comments are unfounded and more political bashing. The democrats have a huge problem with the non partisan approach this council has had in much of their decision making because they feel as Mr. Briggs has aluded to that the Democrats will once again take over city hall. Wake up everyone, we have seen over the years what a one party regime can do to the welfare of the city. Balanced government is the only way Norwalk will “move on” as the saying goes and it will prosper. Because its election time we cannot allow ourselves to throw caution to the wind and allow a one party government to run our city. This means Dems or Reps, look for balance and we will all win. As taxpayers, parents and business owners we just can’t let one party make all of our decisions.

• 8 Anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 1:42 pm

  Who said anything about eminent domain? Another Red Herring by the Reds to throw people off the subject.

• 9 disgusted taxpayer // Nov 1, 2007 at 2:00 pm

  #6- The Dems don’t give a rat’s a$$ about anything other than the almighty power of taking over city government. they want control no matter who they have to crush to get there. Just reading some of their garbage here makes me wonder why we allow these bozo’s in office in the first place. Keep spending taxpayers money so we can all move out and leave you to rule alone.

• 10 anon again // Nov 1, 2007 at 2:06 pm

  I once had someone say to me that as they drove from Westport west on rte 1, they knew immedidately when they were in Norwalk because it “gets ugly.” I guess it’s true because on the other end, you can pretty much tell when you get to Darien because it stops being ugly. Why is that? Could it be because the developers pull the puppet strings on certain of our elected officials? Ohhh…180 day demo delay. Too scary. Please, Mr. Dick, can we have no more of that? Please, Mr. Dick, veto it. We don’t need it; you can trust us to do the right thing. The delay might make it hard for us to make so much money that we can live someplace nice — like Greenwhich or New Canaan or Westport. Someplace where they have and enforce standards. Mmmmm…Thank you Norwalk. Thank you Mr. Dick. Kiss, kiss.

• 11 Anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 2:22 pm

  #10-Kis Kiss? Please, most of these developments have been in place way longer than this administration and I don’y recall any comments from your peanut gallery when he did whatever he wanted because “He was the Mayor” None of had a say in anything that went on back then and it will revert to the same standards if Walter gets in. Who do you think is spearheading Walters attacks? Certainly not MattW. He’s too busy kissing butt in Bridgeport.

• 12 demolish history // Nov 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm

  Why do Republicans shoot themselves in the foot on preservation issues? They don’t show up at meetings, they don’t want to fund preservation. And when they have concerns they wrap themselves sround the special interests of tax abatements. While I think Moccia has done a good job as mayor I’m now inclined to change my vote. I can’t imagine that any mayor would be so against policies that serve to increase property values for residents. This is too much like George Bush allowing forests to be clear cut instead of saved. This is a great site, lots of interesting issues. Glad to be here.

• 13 Anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 2:34 pm

  Norwalk will always be the poor child of the area where the folks from Darien, New Canaan and Westport come to get their cheap goods at Wal-Mart or Costco and then hightail it back to martinis in the burbs. As long as Norwalk allows itself to be treated like their servant, nothing will change.

  Dick’s got the kneepads on for the developers, so until someone else steps in with a real vision for this town, nothing will change.

• 14 nwlknative // Nov 1, 2007 at 2:49 pm

  Thank you #11 - I was going to say the same thing. Westport Avenue just didn’t get ugly in the last two years - in fact it was destroyed under the Knopp administration and most of the new building was approved under his administration. Westport and Darien have always had a very strong Planning and Zoning commission and nothing got built for a long, long time. Just look at the buildings going in in Darien now. The ones they just finished by the theater look like they have been there forever - they match the facades of the other structures and fit in perfectly. The other new buildings will have the same type of architecture and facades to blend in. In Norwalk, it is “anything goes” and nothing matches. We have a hodgpodge of ugly buildings.

  As far as the 90 vs. 180 day delay is concerned, what difference does it make. Wasn’t the 90 day delay in effect when 124 East Avenue was bulldozed? I don’t hear anyone talking about why there was no delay posted for that one. So what is going to stop someone from doing the same thing again - $500 fine? That is laughable.

• 15 just my opinion // Nov 1, 2007 at 2:54 pm

  Keep in mind, Change isn’t always what its cracked up to be. #12 apparently you are reading too much into what is being said on this blog by the same people with different names. People who are informed do not need to stoop to this level. If we were to take everything on this blog as gospel truth we would be in a world of trouble. This started out as a way for people to discuss their views and has now turned into move on dot org and news max. How about a little middle of the road sensibility for a change and look at both sides? Its no wonder that we have such a low turn out at the polls during a municipal election. If people are reading and believing the garbage being spewed here they will probably lock their doors and put up for sale signs on election day. As someone who moved into town just a few short years ago, I can tell you this disgusts me because I have been following much of what has been going on in this city and frankly, other than the BOE as it stands I am quite excited to have chosen Norwalk as our family home and look forward to the vibrance and bustle this city will have in the not so far future.

• 16 Anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 3:04 pm

  So many people here hit the nail on the head but it wont change because Norwalk cant attract anyone to the Mayors office that is a thinker with vision. Planning and zoning laws are 100 years old when Norwalk had 2000 people and no one cares to change. Keep lining the pockets of the developers you are defacing Norwalk and stealing away its open space every day. I hope someday we can elect a mayor of cares about Norwalk and the perception of Norwalk by residents and outsiders alike.

• 17 anon again // Nov 1, 2007 at 3:43 pm

  No,Norwalk didn’t get ugly in the last two years. It got ugly during the 14 years of Esposito — and Moccia is trying to roll back the clock to those days. Look at his “team” — Conroy, Bonenfant, Nolin, Torrano — all former Esposito people — plus the others he’s already seeded the commissions with. So we can look forward to more “successes” like we got with Esposito. Yeah, “successes” if you’re an out of town developer.

  Knopp turned historic presevation around in this City. He got the demo delay in place, went with preservationists to Hartford to speak up for saving 93 East Avenue, and took a true leadership postion to save 5 Elmcrest from the Hospital’s demoliton plans. Drive by there and then tell me about how you support the right to tear it down and create surface parking. Tell me why you support surface parking over this great condo that is contributing to our tax rolls.

  Knopp even came and supported Spring Hill Neighborhood Associaton during the 90 day delay they invoked to try to save the Stuart Avenue houses from demoltion — this after Knopp had lost the election AND given the fact that the main movers in that issue were key Republicans. That’s truly bipartisan. Moccia never showed his face at any Stuart Avenue preservation event. Just ask Rick McQuaid or Diana Paladino how “helpful” Moccia was in that debacle. I know this isn’t about Knopp but he was the guy that reveresed the “just build it” mentality and breathed life into preservation.

  Want more? How about all of Moccia’s grandstanding in the press about how “horrifed” he was with the demolition of 124 East Avenue and how we needed a stronger demolition ordinance — and then quietly vetoing the enhanced version of our existing demo delay ordinance that attempted to do just that.

  Here’s the campaign song for Mr. Dick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH4Sg3UXQWo.

• 18 Anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 3:57 pm

  #17-sounds like Knopp hired you to shine his halo.
  Please, if he was so wonderful why did his own party want him out? Do you honestly believe that Moccia won that election on the Republican vote alone. Think again.

• 19 turfgrrl // Nov 1, 2007 at 3:59 pm

  anon again: You’ve got way too much revisionist history in there. Knopp turned preservation around in this city? ROTFLMAO. I think the preservationist minded people in this city did that. Knopp just paid lip service and showed up for “photo ops.” When it came to actually following though with supporting any legislation like eminent domain reform, history preservation incentives, creation of historic districts or architectural review districts, he killed them all.

  And I think it was even under Esposito that Norwalk had a facade restoration program that provided tax credits to property owners. So be careful there painting a one sided brush. The real issue here is getting our wheels of government to work towards a common ground solution towards preserving economically feasible and sustainable historic areas.

• 20 Democrat // Nov 1, 2007 at 4:10 pm

  Turfgirl, I tend to agree with your point on preservation under Knopp and Esposito, but go back a little before your time to the Collins administration.
  He was able to preserve some beautiful buildings while redeveloping SONO after a monumental struggle. He also succeeded in getting the zoning laws changed to favor “mixed use” of new developments, which would provide more housing and more attractive buildings.

  As soon as the Republicans took over in 1987, they overturned the mixed use requirement,and favored the big box stores that we’re stuck with now, along with McMansions. Preservation and sensible zoning policies are issues where the Democratic administrations have clearly limited the amount of ugly development for the past 30 years.

• 21 oldenorwalker // Nov 1, 2007 at 4:27 pm

  Norwalk’s slogan should be “when no one else wants you, you can always dump in Norwalk” That has been true for many, many years and bears out the fact that architectural design and history have been totally neglected in Norwalk. “Just build it so we can collect taxes on it”. I am still waiting to to see when my taxes will go down because according to the city fathers by building condos and ugly strip malls and just filling every 5000 sf parcel in Norwalk with another ugly building is supposed to broaden the tax base and lower my taxes.

  If the 180 day moratorium was passed unanimously by the state legislature and there seems to be nothing illegal about it, why so many objections to it in Norwalk. People do not want to understand that very, very few buildings will be cited. Past history has already shown that. Th 90 day did not just happen
  a few years ago; it has been on the books for decades, and many important buildings were successfully saved and readapted. A few years ago it was changed to buildings 50 years and older as it should be. Now the state legislature wisely extened that to 180 days. For anyone to believe that every 50 year old building is going to have a 180 day moratorium put on it is just plain stupid. But we seem to have many stupid people trying to suck up to the general population and create hysteria.

  The fact is that Knopp very much favored historic preservation and did things to help it along. Moccia has done nothing for preservation except to cancell out any outspoken pro-preservation person, even people in his party. It is so obvious who is really running the show in Norwalk - the developers have the mayor in their pockets, the mayor forgets he serves the people in his town (ask how many of these developers live in Norwalk), and it goes back to my opening statment that says everybody ‘dumps’ in Norwalk.

• 22 turfgrrl // Nov 1, 2007 at 4:28 pm

  Democrat: And I agree with you about Collins. Much of what Collins still writes about mixed use and multi-purpose and priced is very relevant to Norwalk today. But, I suggest that before tarring the Republicans in 1987, that you look at who owned the land those big box stores ended up on. Which btw, in the 80’s at least were where ugly trucking companies stood, so I can’t say that wasn’t such a bad evolutionary advancement.

  McMansions happen everywhere, so I won’t agree that one party favors them over another, its a result of societal shifts that fuel the bigger is better and everyone needs an entertainment room mentality.

  I’d counter that its not zoning that drives development but rather who favors “urban renewal type” redevelopment over “organic” redevelopment. DIgging into that philosophical divide yields far more perplexing issues.

• 23 Democrat // Nov 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm

  It doesn’t matter if a Democrat owned the properties you allude to, the zoning regs should have limited the retail stores. And McMansions don’t just sprout up on their own, they can be limited also. Bill Collins told me that he was invited to speak in Rowayton 3 or 4 years ago and had to tell the homeowners it was too late to stop the big boxes going up, due to the Esposito policy of welcoming them.
  Please explain”organic” development, is that different from “green”?

• 24 turfgrrl // Nov 1, 2007 at 5:00 pm

  Democrat: Ah but the property owner does matter, because like anything all aspects of development must be considered. A property owner does deserve the right to maximize profits by selling, restoring or building new. The market is also a factor, determining value for different competitive uses. Large cities have few gas stations because the market (demand) is driving a better use (a building), as an example. And lastly the community matters because we all have to live next to whatever occurs on the property. All are important.

  Organic meaning non-planned. A city like Montreal, has developed over time organically, building by building. There’s old Montreal, where colonial buildings still stand, and downtown Montreal where the mix of architecture juxtaposes as new buildings replace older ones, and older ones get restored all on the same bloc. Boston provides examples of organic, and planned, and urban renewal, BackBay versus Jamaica Plain, versus South End, versus the Financial District.

  Closer to home, New Haven provides that ugly strip off 34 a result of urban renewal next to streets like Elmwood which has sustained organic redevelopment as large mansion like houses turned to tenement housing and now Yale administrative offices and student housing.

• 25 anon // Nov 1, 2007 at 5:18 pm

  Moccia has done some very good things in office (like hiring smart people and having good timing) but he does not have Norwalk’s best interests at heart when it comes to presevation. His stand on 93 East Avenue pretty much sums up his attitude on preservation—it doesn’t matter to him if the house is a national landmark, doesn’t matter if it’s one of the Oldest houses in Norwalk, or that it played a part in the Revolutionary War, doesn’t matter if it is at the heart of the Norwalk Green, if tearing it down makes the owner feel happy and the owner gets to build a bland addition to his bland motel–then so be it according to Moccia. Imagine Westport letting them tear down the YMCA on Main St-they need to expand; take a look at the train station details in Darien, fits right in with the feel of the town—these neighboring towns work very hard to keep their beauty and history and it makes their properties more valuable, their town’s lovely. Norwalk should have an architectural review board that has a say into how the properties in the heart of the city are developed.

• 26 Mr Greenpeace // Nov 1, 2007 at 5:25 pm

  I agree with gas stations and the land use, but some maintain that the paucity of gas stations hurts the city financially: Fewer stations means the District collects less in the way of gas taxes, and that prevents the District from getting its full share of federal Highway Trust Fund dollars, because the District doesn’t have the dollars for the required local match

  but then we have

  Siting Restrictions Given the likelihood that UST systems will release gasoline constituents (most commonly in the form of vapor leaks from underground piping systems) and the possibility that spilled fuel will be carried off the fueling area by stormwater, municipal officials interested in providing the highest possible level of protection for groundwater used for drinking water should consider restricting the siting of gas stations as they would any other land use that is likely to contaminate groundwater. If the municipality’s zoning ordinance prohibits the location of certain high-risk land uses in wellhead protection areas, aquifer protection areas, or other areas of high-value groundwater, gas stations should be considered for inclusion in the list of prohibited land uses

• 27 Anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 5:27 pm

  You lost me on the second paragraph, Mr. G. You get a smiley face for improvement, though.

• 28 I Remember // Nov 1, 2007 at 7:54 pm

  #20
  The Republicans’ Master Plan prevented condos and commercial buildings from being built on Connecticut Avenue because of the pressure exerted by the NIMBYs of the West Norwalk Association. Box-store-traffic-nightmare is what they got. Be careful what you pray for. Now, of course West Norwalk wants to turn back the clock on CT Ave. Too Late!

• 29 indiga // Nov 1, 2007 at 8:44 pm

  What has saved those great old buidlings in the heart of old Montreal is a lot of effort by concerned groups over a lot of years. I’ll bet it wasn’t easy and I’ll bet there were folks screaming over property rights and their entitlement to do as they pleased.

  Here’s a bit of information:

  “The CSD cited three reasons for awarding the Geotourism Charter to Greater Montréal: a history of destination stewardship; a commitment to future geotourism activities; and leadership in the global preservation and tourism industries.

  “The metropolitan city’s long track record of collaboration among citizens, preservation and conservation associations, public authorities and the tourism industry has resulted in appropriate care for its unique historic, cultural and natural assets.”

  See those key elements “collaboration among citizens, preservation and conservation associations, public authorities and tourism….”? You can’t get that when the main “public authority” thinks historic preservation is pointless drivel and that there’s no place for it in a city that’s “moving forward.”

• 30 anonymous // Nov 1, 2007 at 8:57 pm

  If you want to save a building, get some people together, raise public funds, buy the building and do what you want. As a taxpayer, I don’t want my tax funds telling someone else not to do something to their property which might actually increase their tax obligation to the city and lower mine. McMansions and box stores pay more property tax to the city than low income units, and are less of a drain on the educational budget.

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All

Leave a Reply