Is It Time For A Focus On Blight?

by turfgrrl

August 17th, 2008 · 61 Comments

Tags: Norwalk

61 Responses so far ↓ “Is It Time For A Focus On Blight?”

• 1 Diane Cece- enforce the current laws // Aug 17, 2008 at 9:07 am

  TG: To the very point you make yourself, most issues dealing with “blight”, no matter how one defines it, are ones that are well-covered by existing code. As I’ve said a million times, most of the quality of life issues we face are directly attributable to an overall lack of enforcement (police, traffic, building, zoning, trees & shrubs, sidewalks, garbage, health, etc). I, and many others, have been vocal for 2 years or more on the need of P&Z to have more enforcement officers. At one time, we were told that even if they had the staff, the support mechanisms were not in place, such as lawyers to pursue the cases, courtroom space and available judges to hear them, etc. But many of us found that explanation unacceptable, and when P&Z requested the additional headcount, we spoke and wrote letters in support, and the request was approved. The same is true of support for additional police enforcement. If such a need also exists in building enforcement and the health department budgets, I was not aware, but would certainly support those as well.
  As to a “blight study”: as you know, a blight ordinance was recently proposed, and was rejected by the committee. There were a number of reasons articulated by the committee members, not the least of which were my objections to the “subjectivity” of defining blight (is painting my house lime green “blight”?). Also, complaints of blight could be abused if done so anonymously, tantamount to harassment. And last but not least, no one could identify how many properties might even fall under these definitions, leaving me to wonder if this ordinance proposal was a solution looking for a problem.
  Finally, as to issuing and collecting fines: if there are no constables or such thing to perform these duties, then perhaps the unpaid fines and the associated late interest fees should go directly on to the property owner’s tax bill as a separate line item.

• 2 Did amanda brown get fired ? // Aug 17, 2008 at 9:08 am

  Read in the paper that Ms. Brown’s company laid off all its stamford employees, guess that includes her. Maybe she will get a job with CRRA as payback for her “help”.

• 3 Anonymous2 // Aug 17, 2008 at 9:24 am

  Don’t we have constables? What do they do? Maybe this would a perfect place to put our constables, who as far as I know, really don’t have a function in Norwalk.

  All we need to do is start a group like what was started for Meadow Street,in South Norwalk. We won with the group, I bet we could win this one too.

• 4 turfgrrl // Aug 17, 2008 at 9:33 am

  Diane Cece: Whoa there. Not all issues are covered by existing ordinance. I only found a health related one and the sidewalk obstruction one. Broken windows, overgrown lawns, standing water, all are not. A study on what is blight (definition), how it affects Norwalk, where are there chronic incidents should be pursued.

• 5 Diane Cece- enforce the current laws // Aug 17, 2008 at 10:15 am

  TG: Just to be clear, I did say “most” of the issues are covered by existing laws. I believe the three you point out may also be covered, so I’ll do some research for us. As to study, one would think that is what Ms. Brown’s ordinance committee was pursuing, to determine if we need an ordinance, and I personally concluded the following:
  Blight is hard to define, the existence of it is subjective, and there must be case laws all over the place that uphold the rights of the property owner, except of course as defined as “blighted area” for purposes of eminent domain. In that case, anything goes, apparently. I also noted at the hearing that no research had been conducted by the committee regarding blight ordinances of nearby municipalities, such as Stamford.
  How does blight affect Norwalk you ask? Not much, as best I can tell, as the committee was hard pressed to name blight complaints, other than David Park’s regarding former Fitch School property. No one else appeared at the public hearing on blight ordinance to speak in favor of it, including no one from any of the city departments, or realtors describing the economic effects of blight on property values. Finally, as noted before, there seemed to be no one who could identify chronic incidents. One would think that the Customer Service database at City Hall would be a good start for research on citizen complaints, but I’m not sure their system is “coded” by type or nature of complaint so
  that a query could be perfomed on just “blight” issues.
  Here is an excerpt from, and the link to, the minutes of the Ordinance Committee Public Hearing on Blight:
  “Ms. Straniti said that she was not in favor of moving forward on this and would vote against it. She said that it was not appropriate to create an ordinance for one property, although she was sympathetic. She said that this was an enforcement issue. There is already a system in place and anything beyond is an infringement of rights.
  Ms. Straniti said that no one wants to look at broken windows or high grass, but it could be a timing issue, or a physical inability to care for the property.
  Mr. Bondi agreed with Ms. Straniti and Ms. Cece. He said that since the last meeting, he spoke with some of the City departments and feels they have enough regulations. The biggest problem is enforcement. He said that the Health Department could cite them for the tall grass, but there could be a good reason that the grass has not been cut.”

  http://norwalkct.org/AgendaAction/ordinanceAction.htm

• 6 Diane Cece- (job? what job? this blog is full-time work) // Aug 17, 2008 at 10:24 am

  ANON@: I found some references to the constables in Norwalk, and their duties, but also found the objections of the police to constables issuing a summons, which is a police activity.
  Here is link to 2001 ordinance committee discussion on litter ordinance, which sheds some light on overall enforcement issues:

  http://www.norwalkct.org/AgendaAction/ordinanceActionJune2801.htm

  In 2002, the Finance Committee minutes reference the to the “success rate” of the constables collecting delinquent taxes.

  Sounds like I need to find the actual job description of a Norwalk constable. Sounds like yourct needs to hire a research assistant!

  I’ll get back to you guys on the broken windows, tall grass, standing water, and constables.

  Your humble cub reporter,
  Diane

• 7 turfgrrl // Aug 17, 2008 at 10:55 am

  Diane Cece: To study the issue, you’d first have to have a list of abandoned properties. Then you’d have to have photo evidence of what those properties look like. Of course there’s a way to query the database for reports in to the city customer service. Text searches for “broken windows”, “overgrown” and “junk” should produce a few hits. Which is what should have been done before even getting to the ordinance committee.

  Amanda Brown is right about the utility companies not caring for their properties. David Park is right about the vandalism at the former Fitch school. There’s the building on Harbor Ave. There’s the former Elinco building on Main ave. The last two have debris obstructing the sidewalks.

  I’m curious as to what a reasonable explanation for tall grass could be, but tall weeds, including the now ubiquitous spread of virulent poison ivy could certainly be looked at.

  But it all does come back to enforcement doesn’t it. And the Council needs the data to back the case for that enforcement funding including fines and penalties.

• 8 Diane Cece- tall grass & oldies // Aug 17, 2008 at 10:57 am

  From the 10-2-06 Health Department minutes:
  Tall Grass & Weeds
  At the request of the Health Welfare & Safety Committee of the Common Council information was collected on ordinances addressing tall grass and weeds. The Norwalk ordinances do not address this matter. ACTION ON COMPLAINTS OF TALL GRASS AND WEEDS IS TAKEN AS A PART OF THE SOLUTION TO VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDINANCES. An example is a vacant piece of land strewn with debris and infested with rodents. The local ordinance allows for an order to exterminate for rodents. In order to effectively exterminate, tall grass and weeds are cut down. In other Connecticut communities’ elimination of tall grass and weeds is addressed in anti- blight ordinances and in housing and health codes. The anti blight ordinances address appearances rather than public health. The public health ordinances in Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford focus on the effects to human health from pollen bearing plants. A discussion ensued. Considerations are the lot size, location, and density of population. The Board asked Mr. Callahan to meet with the Inspectors, get their input and bring this matter up in November.

  And here is the November follow up:
  Tall Grass & Weeds
  In follow up to the Board’s request, Mr. Callahan met with the Inspectors to get their input on the enforcement of tall weeds and grass. The inspectors made several observations. If an ordinance is written, the Inspectors recommend that it be in the Housing Code since aesthetics are included in this code. An example made by one of the Inspectors is peeling paint. If the paint contains lead there is a health risk. If there is peeling non-lead containing paint, a violation of the Housing Code exists. In this latter case there is no health hazard, rather an unappealing condition exists. Similarly tall weeds and grass may pose a HEALTH RISK when pollen bearing. However tall weeds and grass might be considered a violation of the Housing Code for aesthetic reasons, as with non-lead peeling paint. The Inspectors also recommended consulting with the State’s Attorney since prosecution for non-compliance is through this office. Mr. Callahan requested the assistance of Assistant State’s Attorney Judith Hayes. Attorney Hayes is the prosecutor assigned to the Norwalk Housing Court. Attorney Hayes has not yet responded.

  It is a fabulous day outside! So off to the yard, and then maybe to the Green for Deja Vu oldies concert this afternoon - (I promise not to sing and dance - no I don’t, I take that back)

• 9 Anonymous // Aug 17, 2008 at 11:04 am

  Yep shootings stabbings homeless pissing on downtown Sono streets,empty houses attracting crack dens and shooting galleries in fine productive tax earning areas,crime is rearing its head at a higher rate than most want to admit and we can now worry about tall grass.Why not start with the federal crimes at some of these houses,drugs ,illegals and prostition all crimes that need no constable just a larger police dept who can respond deduct and react to what they see.

  While we are at it lets get the bastards who come aroud at 3 am with a pickup and shopping carts that dump them blue buckets on the lawns and take the deposit cans and leave the mess.

  Must be nice to live on the other side of Norwalk wwhere grass is green and cut.

  Blight is what? rats coming from the dumpsters the size of cats out of Sono dumpsters,one bit a housing resident on so mains st last week there are so many sightings this trend continues..

  But it is what it is ,complain to the masses about any problems and get so what live with it or move.

  3 weeks have gone by and an illegal boarding house on a foreclosed property is still running fines or not.

  4 months have gone by and the house with broken windows and tall grass that was found to have a shooting gallery still continues to service the community and as the house sits empty with a for sale sign on it for over a year you would think the for sale sign advertises room for transients.The way the thought process is the “for sale sign” is the blight or at least creates the problem.

  What about the fire dept who is footing the bill on the arson last fire put a heavy tax on the equipment and firefighters of an empty house,I’m sure other cities charge the owners if it becomes obvious it was negligence.What does Norwalk do when it becomes a problem do we have a bite on owners making them do the right thing?

  By the way for sale on an empty house is $400 dollars of copper inside waiting to be brought to Lajoies.Maybe its time to educate the residents to look for crime as it happens not after.

  Seems there are solutions but seriously who is going to pay a fine on property not even the police can find to arrest on more serious charges?

  Yes we have had enough Mr Bondi time to remove the trash leave city hall please.

• 10 The roots of our lawn obession // Aug 17, 2008 at 11:30 am

  “Green, weed-free lawns so common today didn’t exist in America until the late 18th century. Instead, the area just outside the front door of a typical rural home was packed dirt or perhaps a cottage garden that contained a mix of flowers, herbs, and vegetables.

  In England, however, many of the wealthy had sweeping green lawns across their estates. Americans with enough money to travel overseas returned to the U.S. with images of the English lawn firmly planted in their imaginations. Try as we might, it wasn’t as easy to reproduce a beautiful English lawn. After all, they couldn’t just run down to their local hardware store and pick up a bag of grass seed. Grasses native to America proved unsuitable for a tidy and well-controlled lawn, and our extreme climate was less than hospitable to the English grass seeds.

  By 1915, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was collaborating with the U.S. Golf Association to find the right grass—or combination of grasses—that would create a durable, attractive lawn suitable to the variety of climates found in America. Included in the testing were Bermuda grass from Africa, blue grass from Europe, and a mix of Fescues and bent grass. Fifteen years later, the USDA had discovered several grass combinations that would work in our climate. We were off and running, to find the most suitable pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that would protect and serve newly blended mix of grasses. After all, now that we had a good grass blend, we couldn’t let it starve or be eaten alive by some hungry pest, or succumb to some nasty disease.

  The right grass and the right treatments weren’t the only problems facing homeowners wanting the perfect lawn, however. There was also the challenge of providing sufficient water to keep the grass green in summer. It wasn’t easy hauling a bucket of water out to the yard during the summer droughts. Cutting the grass was a challenge, as well. English lawns were trimmed with scythes, an expensive process that required a certain amount of finesse, or by grazing livestock on the greens.

  Mechanical mowing came about early in the 19th century and there is a general agreement that an Englishman, Edwin Budding, an engineer at a textile mill, developed a cylinder, or reel-type mower. It was a series of blades arranged around a cylinder with a push handle patterned after a machine used in a cloth factory for shearing the nap on velvet. In 1870, Elwood McGuire of Richmond, Indiana designed a machine that basically brought push mowing to the masses. By 1885, America was building 50,000 lawnmowers a year and shipping them to every country on the globe.

  For the average American, the invention of the garden hose and the rotary mower made the lawn a more realistic option. Until then, lawns were just too much bother for most families. When most of the necessary tools and types of grass seeds became readily available, the average homeowner was now able to grow a lawn of their own if they wanted. As of yet, there wasn’t a real big demand for green lawns in the front yard. It wasn’t until The American Garden Club stepped in. Through contests and other forms of publicity, they convinced home owners that it was their civic duty to maintain a beautiful and healthy lawn. So effective was the club’s campaign that lawns were soon the accepted form of landscaping. The garden club further stipulated that the appropriate type of lawn was “a plot with a single type of grass with no intruding weeds, kept mown at a height of an inch and a half, uniformly green, and neatly edged.” America thus entered the age of lawn care.

  Today, U.S. homeowners spend over $17 billion on outdoor home improvements. More than 26 million households hired a green professional, according to a 2000 Gallup survey and this number is expected to grow. Your little patch of green has become a big business and for good reason.”

• 11 Anonymous // Aug 17, 2008 at 11:39 am

  We’d be better off removing the blight of deer from Norwalk and removing some of the trees from around our properties, which will keep our families free from tick bites and Lyme disease.

  It is a known fact that deer prefer wooded properties with easy access to meadows (our lawns) for feeding. And it is also a fact that where deer go, ticks go. Ticks that carry Lyme.

  It is also a fact that when the deer are removed, the ticks disappear.

  And recent correlations have been made to brain-infesting Lyme disease is behind what many assume to be Alzheimer’s disease in the elderly - turns out, it really was untreated Lyme disease all along, that attacked the brain.

  Lyme is caused by a spirochete similar to that of syphilis. In fact, Lyme mimics the progression of syphilis to a great degree. And diseases which are part of Lyme and carried by the ticks that transfer the disease to humans - Borrelia burgdorferi and Babesia microti - have been found in huge amounts in the plaques normally associated with Alzheimer’s when such patients’ brains were sliced and studied.

  Also Lyme disease can trigger ALS and MS-like reactions in many people.

  The Lyme spirochete, when treated with antibiotics, turns into hard-walled cysts when stressed with medications. After a few weeks of treatment when the patient begins to rebound, the medication is stopped, the cysts morph back into spirochetes, and the disease begins all over again. Only aggressive treatment with a series of antibiotics - Mepron, Zithromax, amoxycillin, Rocephin, doxycycline, minocycline and many others, intraveniously and orally, and over a period of years, not months, is what ultimately cures the patient completely of Lyme. But try finding a doctor who will treat Lyme in this manner!

  I suggest you read the book “Cure Unknown: Inside The Lyme Epidemic” by Patricia Weintraub.

  Lyme is a chronic disease. It can require treatment for many years before a person is truly considered “cured”. However, approximately 95% of the doctors treating Lyme today ascribe to the notion that “chronic” Lyme is “all in your head” or they assume it is fibromyalgia. Most people who were not treated immediately following a tick bite are doomed to years and years of illnesses while they attempt to convince the medical community that they actually have Lyme disease. And doctors who are willing to treat Lyme aggressively the way it needs to be treated in order to eradicate it from the human body are being forced into closing their practices and leaving the treatment of the disease to others due to pressure from the medical community to follow their sheep-like thinking.

  Reducing the amount of treed properties will reduce the amount of deer. Less deer means less ticks in your yard. Less ticks mean less Lyme disease in your families.

• 12 The roots of our lawn obession // Aug 17, 2008 at 11:54 am

  Before you crank up that chain saw…

  http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/journals_publications/acp_internist/jul-aug02/lyme_disease.htm

• 13 Anonymous // Aug 17, 2008 at 12:01 pm

  Uh-huh. That site is put up by the medical community, as I said, 95% of which DO NOT BELIEVE that Lyme is a chronic disease.

  Try reading the book first. THEN make your determination.

  I used to believe that Lyme was “easily curable” too. That was BEFORE I read the book.

  Now I’m educated as to what Lyme really is and the havoc it can wreak on my family. I would take the advice from people who have been suffering from Lyme disease for DECADES over any doctor who thinks it’s “all in their heads” ANY day.

  Don’t be a sheep.

  READ THE BOOK.

  Patricia Weintraub is a Lyme victim. So is her husband and her 3 kids. She’s been editor for OMNI, consulting editor for Psychology Today, and has covered science and bio-media for over 25 years. She knows what she’s talking about.

• 14 Diane Cece- tall grass & oldies // Aug 17, 2008 at 8:22 pm

  Not much luck researching the standing water and broken windows issues, but I did go the oldies concert at The Green and it was fabulous!
  There was no description whatsoever of elected constables, so we’ll probably need to get someone in the city to answer this for us. Perhaps a constable themself if they are reading this.
  The questions are: what does a constable do, and can a constable issue violations and collect fines on behalf of city departments and agencies.

• 15 Anonymous // Aug 17, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  Ask Moccia or Bondi wasn’t one a constable and the other still is? I’m sure they know.

• 16 demsknow // Aug 17, 2008 at 10:01 pm

  constables serve legal documents for the city and for attorneys much the same as the city sheriff. Moccia was a State Marshall. constables serve tax warrants as well should the city sheriff but I hear tell Bondi has that all sewn up. they serve supoena’s etc. Neither can issue violations or collect fines. Their job is service of legal papers. The only difference with the sheriff is that if the council people don’t show for a mandatory meeting they are the ones that the mayor would call to go out and collect those who refuse or otherwise fail to show. Unlike the former admin who used the police department as a taxi service. I guess in Norwalk the sheriff is just a formalty and are part of the city charter. But then thats politics in Norwalk, some get the glory and some don’t. I wonder how many constables get city work besides Bondi.

• 17 Anonymous // Aug 17, 2008 at 10:52 pm

  #16 thanks I enjoy opening a can of worms #15

• 18 Diane Cece- need enforcement // Aug 18, 2008 at 8:49 am

  Thanks for the scoop #16. I wonder still if there is an official job description, and also, why the constables cannot issue a summons or collect fines. Does it have something to do with the police union after all? If that is the case, then it is useless to even pursue the matter, because we don’t have enough cops to stop the stabbings, shootings, burglaries, robberies, etc. much less go after the broken window offenders.
  Also, how is it that P&Z and DPW can issue and collect fines?
  At any rate, the questions still are related to blight, the definition thereof, the effect of ordinances, and whether Norwalk should have one.
  If we really need one (ie, not a solution looking for a problem) then that should be the driving force behind a decision, not whether we can enforce it, however, if there is no effective means of enforcement, then why bother?
  See how much the cell phone law did to stop idiots from gabbing on phones while driving?

• 19 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 10:06 am

  The health department and DPW can issue and collect fines. If you see a property where grass is higher than your butt, garbage is strewn all over and windows are broken and a hazard to the community, call the health department first and then DPW. There are summons issued and fines imposed and there are people within these departments who are paid to do this. I don’t know about P&Z having anything to do with this but we do have 2 departments in city hall who are equipped to get the problem taken care of. The health department contacts the owner of the property and they are given a timeline to get the situation taken care of, if they do not do this they are fined. If they still do not clean it up, the city will go in and clean it up/cut the grass etc at the expense of the property owner. Can’t get more efficient than that. However, unless these properties are reported to the proper departments nothing will get accomplished. We can sit here all day long speculating and scheming but unless people report what they see it ain’t happening! The cell phone law is another feel good law that is very hard to enforce unless local and state police can actually stop each and every person in violation and the end result would be taking them away from the important aspects of their jobs like emergencies and crime.

• 20 Blight is in the eye of the beholder // Aug 18, 2008 at 11:05 am

  Blight, you mean like 93 East Avenue?

• 21 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:29 pm

  #20, there’s a perfect example of blight - and right in the middle of the “historic” Norwalk Green area too. Forefront to welcome all visitors as they enter the city.

  And you can add to that the overgrown lot across from City Hall, another “blight” on what used to be a nice-looking part of town. But in order for visitors to come to or from the highway, they have to pass that ugly lot as well as 93 East Avenue.

• 22 nwlknative // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:52 pm

  Another example of blight are the two closed businesses on opposite corners of Westport Avenue and Strawberry Hill Ave. Boarded up windows, weeds growing all over and litter strewn along the fences and buildings. Not a very pretty picture.

• 23 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 1:06 pm

  Not too long ago you could of got off of 95 and the first thing you saw was a house windows all broken and even after a gas line was hit sat there for months looking like crap .Learn by example seems to be the case in Norwalk,if one can do it why can’t everyone else?

  I recall after many break ins and kids using the house for drug parties city hall still wasn’t able to have it boarded up,but it did sit there as a monumnet for Norwalk, it sat there for a long time.

  Maybe it was just some in the city saying see that ugly looking property see what we did to improve it,always at the expense of the taxpayers,cost a lot nightly for the police to clear out the house with no doors or windows ,seem more like a development PR ploy more than a safety concern yet no where did the developer get fined for his display of blight on Norwalk for almost 8 months.Its how the game is played here or anywhere else I guess.

• 24 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  #22- Complaints have been made numerous times and these properties have been cleaned up many times only to be left go again and again. Unfortunately you cannot force anyone to sell their property but you can force them to keep it clean. I have called my council person (former) on many occasions and she has been quick and helpful in getting this taken care of so many times. While she is no longer on the council, myself and others in the vicinity still contact her when the problem gets out of hand and she still contacts the proper departments and we see some relief for a time. These places are bad for business and they reflect on the various business owners around them. We must keep our properties clean and safe at all times so is it too much to ask that these property owners are required to do the same?

• 25 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  #24-Exactly, whats good for one business is good for another no matter if you are occupying the building or not! Why should the rest of us look at their garbage?

• 26 Age of Aquarius // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  The overgrown lot across from City Hall wasn’t ugly until the building was illegally demolished and weeds started to grow in its place.

  They’ve since mowed the weeds. Good on one hand, but now you can see the “house of a thousand gables” very clearly again.

• 27 My back hurts // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:45 pm

  I’m getting tired of all the terrible roads in this town. What’s up with that? When are the roads going to get fixed?

• 28 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  Maybe the health department can issue a summons or fine DPW for the roads! Can we all call that former council women? Maybe she can help all of us.

• 29 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:40 pm

  How about the empty lot at East Ave. and I95 where the Howard Johnson’s used to be? How is it that a property owner is allowed to let something like that exist for a decade or more? Common sense would dictate that developed property adds more value to the City than an empty lot does.

• 30 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:44 pm

  That lot is owned by the Penny’s Restaurant people. Every time something is proposed to be done with the lot, they come out in force and say they have plans for the property but nothing is ever built there.

  They should have left the Yankee Doodle Hot Dog Stand there - the HoJo’s was a joke anyway. Nobody ever used it but Jennie Cave and her clique of Independents.

• 31 #30 heres a thought // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  Move 93 East Avenue there and it will kill 2 birds with one stone. I will get rid of it on the Inns property, and it will become completely visible to anyone entering or getting off the CT thruway. A big sign with its history can be nailed on it and maybe just maybe it will attract tourists to Norwalk.

  Kind of like Anthrax would attract tourists.

• 32 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  #31- that piece of property does not have any connections with the owners of the Inn so why would you move it there? Also, Howard Johnson’s was a really good late night place after the bars closed many years ago. The owners of Penny’s own that property with nothing on it and they own Penny’s Two in the Ludlow shopping area and that too is closed and they will not sell it to anyone or use it themselves. They do not want any competition to their retaurant/diner and therefore will not sell the property. And they have no use for it themselves.

• 33 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 6:15 pm

  Let me guess. The Penny’s Diner people also own the squalid little Ludlow Square strip mall. Is there some kind of cultural thing going on here with respect to ownership of derelict properties?

• 34 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 6:28 pm

  #33, I dunno, why don’t you go complain to City Hall and see where it gets you?

• 35 Anonymous // Aug 18, 2008 at 6:50 pm

  You mean tell it to Mayor Handrinos?

• 36 anon 12345 // Aug 18, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  This is actually useless conversation because again, you cannot force people to sell or use property they own. The only thing the city can do is make sure they maintain their properties within city guidlines and if they don’t then the city follow every avenue available to them to enforce the laws. Right now they should be looking at the piece of property across the street from City Hall where there is a big hole and no fencing around it. This is not only dangerous but the people who own it blatantly go against every law there is and just don’t care. Up til last week the weeds were as tall as most people walking by it, now with the weeds cut down there’s a damn hole ther that someone could fall into and nobody would know because nothing is being done with the piece of property in a timely manner.

• 37 A Nonny Mouse // Aug 18, 2008 at 8:05 pm

  I thought they were planning to build another river view-blocking set of condos there?

• 38 Nonymous // Aug 19, 2008 at 7:13 am

  #33- you took the words right out of my mouth about the cultural connection.
  I AM sort of wondering if there isn’t some kind of ordinance that would REQUIRE people to maintain some level of neatness, for lack of a better word, around their properties, no matter what their situation. I think I’m the only one on my otherwise lovely little street who bothers to pull the weeds up that grow between the edge of the street and the sidewalk. It makes my property look so much nicer but it isn’t going to be any help when I’m trying to sell if everyone else isn’t doing it. And I’m talking about people who in general DO care for their yards - but everyone seems to think the city is responsible for that and they ought to have noticed by now that if they don’t do it themselves it ain’t gonna get done!

• 39 Anonymous // Aug 19, 2008 at 8:26 am

  Property owners are responsible for maintenance of the sidewalks and walkways in fron of their homes. Yes there are ordinances to this effect and yes they can be imposed upon those whole fail to do so. However, if the problem is an ongoing thing and no one has alerted city hall to the problem then its a bit difficult for them to know of the problem unless they hire a full time person to go out on a daily basis and do nothing more than check properties.

• 40 Anonymous // Aug 19, 2008 at 12:45 pm

  Found this info on city website. Just one question there are two sections which I would like tyo know if any of what was said ever implemented and when? If they were maybe we wouldn’t be having some of these conversations now.

  http://www.norwalkct.org/mayor/2004stateofcity.htm
  QUALITY OF LIFE INITIATIVES and NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION

• 41 Diane Cece- need enforcement // Aug 19, 2008 at 9:41 pm

  I attended the Ordinance Committee this evening, and seems the discussion of a blight ordinance is indeed headed back on the table. Ms. Brown indicated a constituent of hers intends to start a “grass roots” effort to bring a blight ordinance to Norwalk, possibly modeled after Stamford’s.
  So, everything old is new again. In fact, at the ordinance public hearing in May, I asked if anyone had read the Stamford version, or had done research into how it was received, is it working, how do they measure success, etc.
  Still, I think blight can be subjective, so unless the wording is carefully crafted, this latest endeavor to create an ordinance could be opening a Pandora’s box.
  Somebody show me a case they call “blight” that is not already covered under an existing department’s jurisdiction, and I’ll show you a lady living next to a lime green and pink house.
  In fact, be careful what you wish for. For want of some “tall grass” to be kept to your standards, the offender could cut the grass and then spray paint it every month with holiday themes, cartoons, neon colors, etc. And there isn’t a law in this land that could stop him from doing it.
  Or the “broken window guy” could fix the windows, and when he pulls down his shades, there are pictures of monsters on them! And if you complain about “standing water lady”, well, get ready for her menagerie of solar-powered fountain bird baths and 100 anatomically correct statues with water coming from you know where!
  See, some folks don’t get mad, they get even.
  Speaking of which, makes lots of sense that a blight complaint should never be made anonymously - that would take all the fun out it, now wouldn’t it?

• 42 OH NOOOOOOO! // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:13 pm

  Re: Ms. Brown indicated a constituent of hers intends to start a “grass roots” effort to bring a blight ordinance to Norwalk, possibly modeled after Stamford’s.

  Hasn’t she gotten into enough hot water already? Can someone tell Ms. Brown that what she does must go through the council? While I agree with a blight ordinance for repeat offenders and abandoned properties, we also have to be very careful about the guidelines before we have developers coming in wanting a piece of property and if they can prove that it marginally reflects a blight ordinance that is not properly thought out and executedthe city will then make way for them them to get the property by eminent domain.

  If you have a complaint about someones property, make sure you give your name otherwise they will have no record of your call. Always follow up with it as well.

• 43 anonymous // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm

  Way to go Diane. We need you to keep up the fight against these idiotic blight ordinances. Keep up the good work. Maybe Amanda Brown will understand that you are right and that she is wrong.

• 44 Diane Cece- need enforcement // Aug 20, 2008 at 4:44 pm

  Anon 43 - No one is “right” or “wrong” when it comes to having an open dialogue on new ordinances. I cannot tell, however, if you are being sarcastic.
  I’m not against a blight ordinance if the need truly exists, and no one to date has convinced little old me of this. TG came close with the standing water/broken glass/tall grass stuff, but as we say “close, but no cigar”. I still think all three of those might actually fall under health department domain.

• 45 anonymous 43 // Aug 20, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  Diane I am being serious. Keep up the good work.

• 46 Diane Cece- on your side (maybe) // Aug 20, 2008 at 5:29 pm

  You know what? I’ve found over the past few years that a lot of the work I do (good, bad or indifferent) is really the work that our elected council folk and officials are supposed to do:
  You know, like research issues, play devil’s advocate, voice dissent when appropriate, and question anything that one does not fully understand.
  And you know something else? No councilor should ever be voting yes or no on an agenda item that he or she cannot clearly articulate to us as to the meaning of the item, why he or she is voting they way they are, and what alternatives did they pursue or would like to pursue.
  Seems pretty simple to me , but who the heck am I? (don’t answer that)

• 47 Anonymous // Aug 21, 2008 at 9:01 am

  Diane, you are correct that our elected officials should do background prior to voting on anything. But they should do it themselves and not depend on the incompetence of others who have agenda’s. Keep up the good work, at least if these people don’t agree with you it gives them a wake up call that people are watching and doing their own background work. Don’t worry that they don’t all agree with you because it would be a very boring world if there wasn’t some debate.

• 48 Anonymous // Aug 21, 2008 at 9:56 am

  I was surprised to observe the lack of research that goes into most votes,but then again if you didn’t have Hal,Harry,Fred,or Hydes or the big DICK intimidating others with their arogance more would get done.They play GOD when it comes to issues they want then discount even facts to council members and play the spin game on any legit point that comes up.You see them squirm votes as if the death penality was involved.We asked for accountibility we got a few who are now up their asses and sticking facts on their foreheads soon most of them won’t be able to see where they are going.

  You can’t consider what Bondi and Kydes do is debate,only defense we have is put it on cable and let others decide before the next election is this what Norwalk needs.

• 49 Anonymous // Aug 21, 2008 at 11:16 am

  I always get a kick out of people like #48 who like to play armchair politician and think they “know” better than our elected officials. If you think these people are doing such a terrible job, then why did you vote for them? And if you think yourself so much smarter, then why aren’t you running for office against them?

  These people give up a lot of their personal time and do a great deal of work for your benefit. Merely because you don’t agree with the political party they’re associated with is a lousy reason to badmouth them. It’s obvious these people are dedicated or they wouldn’t continue to run, and it’s also obvious that their fellow citizens think they’re doing a good job or they wouldn’t continue to keep them in office.

  If you disagree, just remind yourself of the people who were formerly on this council or in the mayor’s office, and it should become obvious. If others had been doing a good job, they’d still be there.

  It never ceases to amaze me how often clueless people think they know so much better how to do the job than the people who are actually doing it.

  #48, if you think you can do it better, then put your money where your mouth is and get your campaign under way. Until then, keep quiet.

• 50 Anonymous // Aug 21, 2008 at 11:39 am

  #49-your statement “If you disagree, just remind yourself of the people who were formerly on this council or in the mayor’s office, and it should become obvious. If others had been doing a good job, they’d still be there.” Is not quite true. Some are no longer there because their partie don’t like that they don’t toe the line! Their very own parties go against them every step of the way and don’t allow for independant thinking. With party line politics its Our way or the highway without the change of getting the nod again. If the dare go against party politics they are blackballed for their actions. Don’t even try to deny this because you would definately need to go to church and confess.

  We have had dedicated people serving this town in prior years and are still doing it on the sidelines with no recognition who have been tossed out not by the voters but by their own parties.

  Its all about who’s arse you kiss

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply