Zandri renews battle

[rapuda]

An article in the Record-Journal (2/23/08) reports about Geno Zandri resuming his fight with zoning. He disagrees with the zoning that is in effect for open-space developments. He lives in an open-space development (Balsam Ridge) and would like the zoning for these developments to be changed. He is seeking an appointment to the Planning and Zoning Commission to change the policy he dislikes.
Is it just me or does this seem out of balance? Would it make sense to appoint someone to this position who clearly wants the position for his own personal gain? I hope the committee takes this into account before they make their decision.
As far as the zoning he wants changed, Zandri states, " I can't for the life of me understand who in Wallingford would oppose someone having a swing set in his backyard."
How about all the people that opposed the development in the first place? Some of the open-space developments were only allowed to go forward based on conditions given to the developer by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The developer agreed to certain conditions and therefore was allowed to build. These conditions should not be changed now that certain residents are unhappy. The only area that Zandri has a legitimate complaint about, would be the amendment passed in December of 2004. His development predates the amendment and therefore he feels it should not apply to his development. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what happens in that situation.
The Planning and Zoning Commission passed these rules for a reason. They felt it would be an eyesore to allow people in open-space developments to place swing sets, sheds, pools, fences, and who knows what else on the property.
I wouldn't want these restrictions for my property, but I didn't buy a home in a restricted development for that very reason.

[eds]

Zandri has every right to change the rules if he wants to. Just because you buy into a set of rules, does not mean they must remain in place forevermore. How many amendments to the Constitution are there? Some of them are good, others not so.

He is being up front about his intentions. Those intentions mean nothing to the appointment. If he never said why we would not know his intentions anyway. If you think about it, when a person runs for president he sets out his agenda, his platform, and people vote that person into office to implement that persons platforms. Running for office with a preset agenda is nothing new to politics.

This is a "democracy". So let him use his rights to effect change. Use yours to oppose change. That's what America is all about.

[rapuda]

I agree Zandri has the right to try and change the rules, it's the method that I disagree with. According to how he was quoted in the paper, he said, "These people on these boards are supposed to be looking out for the interests of all the residents in Wallingford." Now that he publically stated he wants the appointment to benefit himself, how can he be looking out for the interests of all the residents in Wallingford? Do we want someone on the commission that has publically stated he wants to be on the commission for his own self interests? Do the Democrats on the town council agree with his stance? If they appoint him, they will be condoning his actions, especially because he was up front and public about his intentions.
I can't see how these intentions don't mean something to the appointment.
I would think we would want an impartial person to that position, not someone who has a personal agenda.
This will be an appointment. I could be wrong, but doesn't that mean that we don't vote him in? If he gets in, it's by someone else's decision, not mine.
I plan on researching this at the town hall on Monday to better educate myself on this topic.
I will use my rights to oppose and to make sure he uses his rights ethically, and within the proper guidelines.

[Modernliberal]

I don't have a problem with Zandri becoming part of the committee at all. Nor do I have a problem with him having issues that he wants to fight for. The emphasis is on ISSUES!! He has one issue. One issue that has an impact on him. He then has nothing else that he is trying to accomplish. Not just that, who decided that he would represent all those people that are so "mad"? I have yet to hear many people complain about this issue. Once he changes it, which I find unlikely because the board voted unanimously to approve it then what is he going to do? So if the vote was 5-0, it will now be 4-1. He will have failed to achieve his goal, and then he will be on with no other interests. I think before he gets on the board he needs to come up with some more issues. Also, interesting to point out, why is he looking for Democratic support now, but he was unwilling to support the Democrats during the election? The only way he can be nominated is by one of these major parties. He knows the Republicans will not nominate him, so he needs the Democrats. Things seem really interesting now. It is a little different when the shoe is on the other foot, huh? When the party needed his help where was he? He was running against the party. Now, that he needs the party to nominate him he is trying to be all buddy buddy now. It doesn't work that way. Hey Zandri, why don't you have Lucille nominate you, oh yeah that's right because she can't!! I think the Democrats shouldn't even acknowledge his existence until he decides whether is going to actually support the party or not.


Modernliberal:)

[Modernliberal]

Guess everyone agrees with me. This has to be a forum first! Wow, interesting and weird at the same time.

[rapuda]

I agreed, just didn't post it.

[eds]

Except me of course, which I already posted.

[Modernliberal]

Eds I don't think we disagree. I said I don't mind him joining and fighting for this issue. I want him to have more than one issue, I also stated that even if he gets on it won't matter. We both did say that he has the right to say what he wants and fight for any cause that he wants. Personally I just wonder who is going to let him be on the committee seeing as how neither party in town likes him. That is what I said in a nutshell. It is going to be interesting, that is for sure.

Modernliberal:)

[eds]

Oh! I didn't get that from your post the first time around. I do think running on a single personal issue is kind of lame, but that's his right I suppose. Not really a winning platform but there is no law against a bad political campaign. How do you think we will elect our next president? :D

[Modernliberal]

If you want to talk bad political platforms lets elect Ross Perot, or Ralph Nader. I am not sure but they may make Bush look good. Would be hard to do, but I am sure if anyone can do it, they can!:D

Modernliberal:)

[Modernliberal]

Well a lot of good Zandri "voicing his opinion" did. In case people missed it he got DESTROYED by Baxter 73-8!!! I am actually surprised that there were 8 people that supported him after what he did to the party. Gouveia, and Avellone made speeches about how the party needs to unify, and they are all good people. I think that was the first step in their goals. Uniting to make sure that Zandri didn't get in to office. I am impressed. Who knows maybe they can actually unite enough to get the mayor's seat!


Modernliberal:)

[eds]

They were relatives... :)

And the election process works out after all!

[Modernliberal]

Ok now that the Democratic party has made these positive steps toward improvement, starting with Zandri the party members, (they know who they are) that are having the spats for power need to get their heads out of their @$$ and work together not just for the better of the party, for the the betterment of the town itself. If they put their petty differences aside the party could be unstoppable. With the General election coming up in November it is important that they work together, to encourage the people of Wallingford to see that change is not just important it is necessary.

Modernliberal:)