View Full Version : Nov. 8, 2008: Mosque ruling upheld
An entire room filled with people holding placards stating "NO MOSQUE ON LEIGUS" would fall into that category.
Exactly right!
Wallyworldite
06-19-2008, 12:37 AM
An entire room filled with people holding placards stating "NO MOSQUE ON LEIGUS" would fall into that category.
Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that the proposal is for A MOSQUE, yes, oooohhhh, I wrote it, A MOSQUE, yes the forbidden words, A MOSQUE. Funny, when the signs said "No Walmart" did you claim that the opposition was anti-Chinese? I think not or, perhaps in your ultimate attempts to find prejudice everywhere, you did. The simple fact of the matter is the proposal is for A MOSQUE, and no one is saying that the MOSQUE should not be in Wallingford, far from it..., just not on Leigus. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that "No MOSQUE on Leigus means just what it says, that there should not be a MOSQUE on Leigus. I know that you continually stretch everything to try to find prejudice lurking in every bush, but you can't be dense enough to take offense from a sign that is so apparently appropriate for the matter at hand? Or, were you sheltered as a child from any adverse situations and handed an award just be cause everyone had to get them? That's o.k. everything will be alright. But, then of course the applicant doesn't even use the word MOSQUE in his application, preferring the term "Islamic Center" as opposed to MOSQUE. There, I have used the word MOSQUE ten times in the same message... Is my message prejudiced? I'm sure you will blindly make that claim but, as is your usual course, without any scintilla of fact. But, such is life..., some people just can't see past their own personal agenda. Good luck in July..., you're gonna need it.:D
leigusite
06-19-2008, 01:02 AM
An entire room filled with people holding placards stating "NO MOSQUE ON LEIGUS" would fall into that category.
You are WRONG and uninformed----what else would you use to describe a proposed islamic house of worship---it is about traffic--and for the record--I recall seeing a sign on Leigus several years ago that said no mortgage lenders building on leigus road---I suppose you think that was anti-business racism at work---get over it--it's traffic pure and simple
Does anyone read this thread in it's entirety, or do they just jump in when they feel like it? There have been SEVERAL posts against the mosque that are clearly written by narrow-minded bigots. (no, not everyone who opposes the mosque is automatically a bigot) What amazes me, though, is the fact that people still deny racism exists regarding this issue. We've had people come right out and state their fear of a terrorist cell in Wallingford. Others don't want their daughters to see how women are treated. How can anyone honestly argue this is a traffic issue if they don't immediately denounce the posts I mentioned? If you don't speak against them, it's assumed you agree with them. By remaining silent, you're just proving our point.
There is no ultimate attempt to find predjudice everywhere. It already exists. Those fighting it are strong enough to call it when we see it. Others who fail to see it are either ignorant, weak, or agree with it.
RC12L4
06-19-2008, 08:24 AM
I think a sign reading:
"No nondescript building of non disclosed religious beliefs will be acceptable on Leigus"
Would have been more acceptable.
Of course prejudice exists. The people who have voiced concerns in this forum and in letters have their views. Do I support them? No. I didn't realize that my not denouncing them, implied that I supported them. I have now denouced it. Of course, everyone who opposes us, will say we aren't being truthful, that it's too late and it's just to look better. I find this forum discussion somewhat dense. A point is made(factual) and the discussion comes back to a few statements made. Always about racism. Whether there is bigotry or not, the facts are the facts. This is not a philosophical issue. Traffic at this corner will pose a hazzard. Not only to those of us living there, but anyone driving there and that includes Mr. Farid's mosque members. God forbid anyone gets rear ended at 50 miles an hour going from 68 to Leguis. People fly on this road and don't always pay attention. What do we do if this happens? What if someone is seriously hurt or killed? It could be my child, it could be your child. It can't be undone. You don't create a traffic issue to prove you aren't racist. Some of you seem to purpose this, by ignoring the facts presented at the P&Z.
This is an anonymous discussion. I don't know the motivation of everyone posting here. No one does. A few have stated that they are from the neighborhood involved. You know where they are coming from. Others here, could just be antagonists. This is why the internet isn't the P&Z. The people here have opinions, but they aren't informed opinions. There is a difference.
Not one person opposing us has gone to the P&Z meetings, reviewed the police reports or watched the video. Of course, you don't have to. There is a very different tone at the meetings, than the one presented by the Record-Journal. Your only info is this forum and the paper. It isn't enough.
Fit 2 Print
06-19-2008, 12:10 PM
The people here have opinions, but they aren't informed opinions. There is a difference.
Not one person opposing us has gone to the P&Z meetings, reviewed the police reports or watched the video. Of course, you don't have to. There is a very different tone at the meetings, than the one presented by the Record-Journal. Your only info is this forum and the paper. It isn't enough.
[B]Yep, that's what Anna said in the previous entry. No one here as an "informed opinion" except for Anna. Imagine! Well, there it is.
Yes, that is what I said. I don't understand your objection. I am refering to the issue of traffic. I can't imagine that everyone here is as informed as Mr. Farid, P&Z or our neighborhood. I believe for anyone to be truely informed on any issue, you have to do your home work. There is a difference bewtween C-SPAN and MSNBC. In any issue it makes you far more informed. I mean, just look at Al Gore. :)
Letter of the week: 6/16/08: Rancor and recrimination in Wallingford
The application to build a mosque on premises at 105 to 109 Leigus Road in Wallingford was withdrawn in the same dishonest fashion in which it had been filed. The applicant, stung by the thoroughness of the neighbors in uncovering the half-truths, misrepresentations, and departures from the requirements of the zoning code which were the hallmark of this application, utilized the time set for the presentation of the application to heap rancor and recrimination upon those who had opposed it.
The applicant credited the failure of the application on claimed malevolent motives of the neighbors rather than recognizing the numerous short-comings in the application itself as the cause for its failure. As a result, many of the same flaws present in the withdrawn application are repeated in the new application.
The fact remains that the application did not comply with the regulations, did not provide sufficient parking, and was accompanied by a traffic study which a peer review thoroughly discredited.
ATTORNEY VINCENT T. McMANUS JR., WALLINGFORD
leigusite
06-19-2008, 09:51 PM
I think a sign reading:
"No nondescript building of non disclosed religious beliefs will be acceptable on Leigus"
Would have been more acceptable.
Oh Yeah!!! then why does the OFFICIAL placard from the TOWN OF WALLINGFORD read that a proposal for a mosque will be held at such a date in front of the proposed building??????Put that in your pipe and smoke it
Put that in your pipe and smoke it
Take your own advice and light a peace pipe. It might loosen up a few sphincters over in Wallyworld!
oldnickel
06-20-2008, 11:31 AM
Anna, just a couple of questions. If that part of Rte 68 has so many accidents and is so dangerous now, what improvements or adjustments where to be made by mortgage lenders? It would seem that ML would be providing way more traffic than the Mosque and it is not even in operation yet.
Next with regards to the video, what makes you believe that this mosque will be as busy as the one in Berlin. As i understand it there are mosques in hamden and Meriden. In my opinion, one of the reasons for the high attendance in Berlin is the large number of muslim store owners on the turnpike. It is simply more convenient for them to go there. Demographically speaking, what makes you think this area is the same. Why do you think that the overflow from Berlin would come here and not to Meriden?
Finally with regards to P & Z meetings. This is not a popularity contest or a decision made by popular vote. Instead the P & Z has rules and regulations it must follow. This is s process and it is not unusual for applications to be withdrawn & reworked, nor is it unusual for the P & Z to work with applicants.
Fine Whine
06-20-2008, 12:23 PM
If that part of Rte 68 has so many accidents and is so dangerous now, what improvements or adjustments where to be made by mortgage lenders? It would seem that ML would be providing way more traffic than the Mosque and it is not even in operation yet.
Since I live in this area, my travels often take me across Leigus Road and through it's intersection with Route 68. My travel times vary from early morning to very late at night and times in between.
I have traveled this route my entire life both now and before the large subdivisions were constructed on Leigus and Grieb Roads and I have never witnessed an accident nor a close-call.
I have never experienced a wait nor a problem turning onto Route 68 nor turning from Route 68 onto Leigus Road. It is a 4 lane road with a dedicated eastbound turning lane at the Leigus intersection.
My return route takes me off 91 south onto 68 east to wait for the light at Leigus. I have never had any type of unusual encounter with a 4-wheeled vehicle nor a tractor trailer.
I don't disbelieve the record of the number of accidents in this area but without data concerning on:
-the severity of the accidents,
-whether they are property damage only mishaps, i.e. occurrences without injuries, and
-how that data compares with other comparable intersections in the area,
I question whether the number of accidents at this intersection over that 5 year period is abnormal.
Old Nickel's observations on the attraction of the Berlin Mosque is interesting and assumptions that this proposed Mosque will draw similar number is only a guess, an unproven assumption.
The Planning & Zoning regulations clearly state the parking requirements for a "place of worship". It is those regulations govern this application.
Wallyworldite
06-20-2008, 07:48 PM
The Planning & Zoning regulations clearly state the parking requirements for a "place of worship". It is those regulations govern this application.
No they don't. The P&Z regulations have parking for a "church", but that is based upon seating.
PLEASE take the time to review the regulations
http://www.town.wallingford.ct.us/ZoNefm_11_30.pdf
A mosque doesn't have seating and therefore it can't be a "church ". (Oops there's the "m" word again.) There are no general parking regulations for "places of worship" in the zoning regulations. According to the fire code, and the Town of Wallingford's Fire Marshal, the applicant should be planning for about 300 parking spaces for the NEW plan..., the current application calls for 96. I see another defeat for Mr. Farid on the horizon.
Were there signs all over Leigus Road against Mortgage Lenders? Just wondering.
Wallyworldite
06-20-2008, 08:28 PM
By: George Moore, Record-Journal staff, 1:43 p.m.
06/20/2008
WALLINGFORD - After criticisms that lawn signs stating "No mosque on Leigus" are offensive, opponents of the Leigus Road mosque plan will print new signs that say "No more development on Leigus."
"I still think the (old) signs are appropriate, but I'm getting annoyed at the people who think we're bigoted when we're definitely not bigoted," said Craig Fishbein, a vocal opponent of the Leigus Road mosque plan.
Tariq Farid, who is proposing a mosque on the corner of Leigus Road and Route 68, has said that the "No mosque on Leigus" signs are offensive.
Fishbein and other residents defended the "No mosque on Leigus" signs, stating that they simply refer to the building being proposed by its actual name. They have also stated that the signs refer to the Leigus Road area and do not oppose the construction of a mosque elsewhere in town.
Initially, residents plan to print 50 of the new lawnsigns.
leigusite
06-20-2008, 10:43 PM
By: George Moore, Record-Journal staff, 1:43 p.m.
06/20/2008
WALLINGFORD - After criticisms that lawn signs stating "No mosque on Leigus" are offensive, opponents of the Leigus Road mosque plan will print new signs that say "No more development on Leigus."
"I still think the (old) signs are appropriate, but I'm getting annoyed at the people who think we're bigoted when we're definitely not bigoted," said Craig Fishbein, a vocal opponent of the Leigus Road mosque plan.
Tariq Farid, who is proposing a mosque on the corner of Leigus Road and Route 68, has said that the "No mosque on Leigus" signs are offensive.
Fishbein and other residents defended the "No mosque on Leigus" signs, stating that they simply refer to the building being proposed by its actual name. They have also stated that the signs refer to the Leigus Road area and do not oppose the construction of a mosque elsewhere in town.
Initially, residents plan to print 50 of the new lawnsigns.
so what are the people that say fairlawns farms is racist going to complain about now that the wording on the signs has been changed????
leigusite
06-20-2008, 11:54 PM
Take your own advice and light a peace pipe. It might loosen up a few sphincters over in Wallyworld!
« The Muslim (Islamic) march across America
By J. Gerald Harris, Editor
Published September 14, 2006
Islam is the second largest religion in the world with more than 1.3 billion adherents. In the United States, Islam is the fastest growing religion, a trend fueled mostly by immigration. There are almost 7 million Muslims in the United States.
If we choose to continue to open our borders to radical Muslim immigrants and accept multiculturalism as a societal philosophy then we must be willing to face the consequences of losing our British-based Christian culture and our Judeo-Christian morality.
It is the declared intention of Muslims in America to turn the United States into a Muslim state. They really do not want to integrate; they want to dominate. It is predicted that Islam will also be the second largest religion in America by 2015. There are now more than 1,200 mosques in America; there are more Muslims in this country than Methodists.
While the West has been busy inventing new medicines to alleviate human suffering and increase life expectancy, and while the West has been attempting to decode human genes in an effort to find the cure for cancer and heart disease, and while the West has been launching space shuttles to enhance exploration, and while the West has been developing better economical models for a more prosperous world, and while secular humanism has been promoting its doctrine of tolerance, and while the ACLU has been gaining control over common sense, and while many Christian churches in America have been resting in the victories of the past, the Islamic religion has been aggressively propagandizing, converting, proselytizing, and winning the war for the minds and souls of our fellow Americans.
A veteran missionary to Middle Eastern people recently stated, �If you want to look at a dedicated, sincere, committed Muslim, look at Osama Bin Ladin.�
A former Muslim stated, �I left Islam when I understood that Islam is a sick and evil religion. The Islamic message to the infidels of the West is: �We will fight the infidel to death. Meanwhile, American laws will protect us. Leftists will support us. UNO will legitimize us. CAIR will incubate us. The ACLU will empower us. Western universities will educate us. Mosques will shelter us. OPEC will finance us. Hollywood will love us. And UN Secretary-General Koffi Annan will pass politically correct, sympathetic statements for Jihadists.��
When President George W. Bush addressed Congress following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 he stated, �I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It�s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect to hijack Islam itself.�
However, Bush�s comments do not ring true with many Americans, because many contend a closer analysis of the Muslim religion will reveal that their renunciation of violence is only superficial.
The Ayatollah Khomeini, former dictator of Iran, once said, �All those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world. Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. [They] are witless.�
Anis Shorrosh, in his book Islam Revealed, comments, �Religious liberty is unknown where Islam is the creed of the majority. Of course, Muslims are quick to take full advantage of the freedom of religion, which is practiced throughout the western world. This is demonstrated in the Muslim centers established in the last fifteen years.�
The King Abdulaziz Chair for Islamic Studies, the King Fahd Chair for Islamic Shariah Studies, the Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud Program in Arab and Islamic Studies, the H. E. Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani Islamic Legal Studies Fund, the King Fahd Chair of Oncology and Pediatrics, the Bakr M. Binladin Visiting Scholar Fund � you may think these studies are taking place in the Middle East, but these are branches of American universities. Saudi Arabia is funding most of them and using them as propaganda machines to promote the Islamic religion.
God promised Abraham a son, with whom He would establish an everlasting covenant. The Muslims believe that son of promise was Ishmael, but the Bible says, �He (Ishmael) will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man�s hand against him� (Genesis 16:12). Jews and Christians believe according to the scriptures that the promise was given to Isaac who became the father of the Israelites, father of Moses who received the Torah, father of King David who ruled in righteousness over God�s people and who also received the promise that from his descendents would come the king who would rule the world for ever and ever.
Christians and Muslims do not simply have two different fathers (Isaac and Ishmael) and two different books (the Bible and the Koran), but they have two completely different spirits: one brings freedom, the other brings bondage. One leads to life and one leads to death.
In the Bible we see that God wants us to make the choice (freedom). �I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live� (Deuteronomy 30:19). But according to the Koran, Alllah chooses the way for us (bondage). �This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed my favour unto you, and have chosen for you as your religion Islam� (from the Koran, Sure 5:3).
Christianity has spread because Christ died to His own desire and in the end gave His life for us. Islam, on the other hand, has spread because Muhammad lived for his own desires and killed everyone who tried to stand in his way.
Muhammad said, �I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them: (Sure 8:12).
Jesus said, �A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another� (John 13:34-35).
The Ayatollah Khomeini, former dictator of Iran, once said, �All those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world. Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. [They] are witless.�
Muslim studies in America
Anis Shorrosh, in his book Islam Revealed, comments, �Religious liberty is unknown where Islam is the creed of the majority. Of course, Muslims are quick to take full advantage of the freedom of religion, which is practiced throughout the western world. This is demonstrated in the Muslim centers established in the last fifteen years.�
The King Abdulaziz Chair for Islamic Studies, the King Fahd Chair for Islamic Shariah Studies, the Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud Program in Arab and Islamic Studies, the H. E. Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani Islamic Legal Studies Fund, the King Fahd Chair of Oncology and Pediatrics, the Bakr M. Binladin Visiting Scholar Fund � you may think these studies are taking place in the Middle East, but these are branches of American universities. Saudi Arabia is funding most of them and using them as propaganda machines to promote the Islamic religion.
God promised Abraham a son, with whom He would establish an everlasting covenant. The Muslims believe that son of promise was Ishmael, but the Bible says, �He (Ishmael) will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man�s hand against him� (Gen. 16:12). Jews and Christians believe according to the Scriptures that the promise was given to Isaac who became the father of the Israelites, father of Moses who received the Torah, father of King David who ruled in righteousness over God�s people and who also received the promise that from his descendents would come the king who would rule the world for ever and ever.
Christians and Muslims do not simply have two different fathers (Isaac and Ishmael) and two different books (the Bible and the Koran), but they have two completely different spirits: one brings freedom, the other brings bondage. One leads to life and one leads to death.
Choices
In the Bible we see that God wants us to make the choice (freedom). �I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live� (Deut. 30:19). But according to the Koran, Alllah chooses the way for us (bondage). �This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed my favour unto you, and have chosen for you as your religion Islam� (from the Koran, Sure 5:3).
Christianity has spread because Christ died to His own desire and in the end gave His life for us. Islam, on the other hand, has spread because Muhammad lived for his own desires and killed everyone who tried to stand in his way.
Muhammad said, �I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them: (Sure 8:12).
Jesus said, �A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another� (John 13:34-35).
Prejudice
06-21-2008, 07:40 AM
You prove my point that your position has nothing to do with "traffic".
You prove my point that your position has nothing to do with "traffic".
No kidding! Thanks for making it so easy for us. If we were in a fistfight, Leigusite would be punching himself in the face!
oldnickel
06-21-2008, 11:06 AM
Really long response leigusite, but no where do you discuss traffic & congestion! I would guess your motivation has more to do with religion than anything else by the tone of your post.
People have used religion as a justification for the most horrific acts. People selectively quote the bible or other holy books to justify their position then conveniently ignore other parts. Christians have been just as guilty as any other religion for persecutions and wars. I'm sure the indians of both North & south america were grateful for the freedom to choose between conversion & death. How about the spanish inquisition, that was backed by the pope. How about which hunts, the innocent by drowning group. Remember, the bible condoned slavery, so I guess freedom wasn't for everyone. Finally how about this part of the new testament: Jesus states that in order to be a true believer you must give up all your worldly possessions and follow him. How many people follow this one.
So, lets get off the religious bandwagon!
Maybe someone can give answers to my previous post?
3800 or so sq feet is the current proposal from what I read in the article regarding sign changing today. About the size of a large home.
In thinking that I realized that all Farid needs to do is build two large houses on that property. Or one big one. Then he can invite his friends over for a "party". He does not have to notify the neighbors or get approval from P&Z. The party can happen every Friday afternoon. It could happen every day. That is perfectly within his right to do with his residence and is perfectly legal. I've already confirmed this with counsel and it's all legal. The only issue would be noise and on-street parking if on-street parking is not permitted. Noise is really no issue. And parking can be solved by letting as many cars as will fit within the confines of the property. He could park 100 cars on the front lawn if wanted to and as long as they are all registered it's not an eyesore. There are no ordinances against parking on your front lawn.
I sure hope someone has advised Farid about this. I think its a viable way out.
Watch it, pretty soon we'll see "No EDS in Wallingford" signs!
Wallyworldite
06-21-2008, 11:49 PM
3800 or so sq feet is the current proposal from what I read in the article regarding sign changing today. About the size of a large home.
In thinking that I realized that all Farid needs to do is build two large houses on that property. Or one big one. Then he can invite his friends over for a "party". He does not have to notify the neighbors or get approval from P&Z. The party can happen every Friday afternoon. It could happen every day. That is perfectly within his right to do with his residence and is perfectly legal. I've already confirmed this with counsel and it's all legal. The only issue would be noise and on-street parking if on-street parking is not permitted. Noise is really no issue. And parking can be solved by letting as many cars as will fit within the confines of the property. He could park 100 cars on the front lawn if wanted to and as long as they are all registered it's not an eyesore. There are no ordinances against parking on your front lawn.
I sure hope someone has advised Farid about this. I think its a viable way out.
Eds, when you were saying that you confirmed [this scheme] with counsel, you must have been speaking of your therapist. To suggest that someone go to town hall and submit plans for a residential structure on the property, with only a couple of parking spaces, and then have a party every Friday afternoon attended by about 300 people, as well as five somewhat smaller parties EVERY day, as well as funerals, weddings and other social events at the home would be deceiving and fraudulent, and the religious uses would be shut down in no time. If it is your opinion that that is the only way to get a house of worship built, then I feel sorry for Meriden (your apparent hometown). The simple fact of the matter is that the proposal, even in its current state is inappropriate for that site. There are plenty of other sites within the town or Wallingford but Farid refuses to consider them. Tell your therapist I said "hi".
Oldnickel, thanks for the questions. There have been 37 accidents at this intersection, some serious. The police dept has the actual stats and I believe this is over a 5 yr period. As far as MLN goes, they no longer exist. The town's "deal" was with them. Work Stage is the construction company that has been left holding the bag, or building in this case. They have changed a few things at the site. There is now more traffic going out onto Leguis than was originally purposed, because they no longer see a need for the "shuttle" lot that MLN was going to use. An additional 80 parking spaces have been added to the front of the building.
That shuttle lot was going to draw cars out to Miles RD. Not gonna happen now. The road work is not done and who knows when it will be done, or for that matter how it will be done. ( This was brought up by the board at the last P&Z meeting) There are no occupants. MLN was approved based on 3 shifts of workers for one tenant. There may be as many as 6-8 businesses now. It is an unknown. All we do know is that it is 300,000 sq feet, able to accomodate 3,000 employess and I think there are about 1000 parking spaces. Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
The purposed mosque on Leguis is most similar to Berlin in size, highway proximity and parking (Their road is actually a better set up than Leguis is and the traffic is still a nightmare). Hamden and Meriden are smaller and not near the highway. Mr. Farid stated and I quote, " I want to grow in this town. I want to bring my family here." He also stated in the New Haven Register that this was a great location because it was right off 91. Why be concerned with 91, unless highway access is important? Are local people from Wallingford going to use 91 to get there? Does that make sense to you? He expects "out of towners". The average mosque in the U.S. has approx. 220 members. I think one can logically come to the conclusion that this site will grow, and draw people from surrounding towns and cities. I-91 is a much more convenient ride than the Berlin Turnpike. Wallingford is a great business location because of it's highway accessability and central location in the state. I think it is more than reasonable to think that the overflow from Berlin would come here. Wallingford should use Berlin as a model in what "not" to do. They didn't plan for what it evolved into and now they have to play catch up.
I don't expect the P&Z to look at this situation as a popularity contest. I also don't expect them to create a situation that negatively impacts our lives just to be politically correct. I truely think we have presented a reasonable argument to deny Mr. Farid's application "at this site." If he were to move up the road a little bit, and I do mean a little bit, he could build the mosque he originally wanted and have room for expansion when he needed it. He also would not need a special permit. Honestly, his logic escapes me.
I hope I answered some of your questions. If anyone can do a better job, please jump in.
eds, I'm surprised at your suggestion. Mr. Farid wants a center named after his mother. Something as a tribute to her. You make it sound like he should build a FRAT house. Some of the statements here get crazier and crazier as this discussion goes on.
Off topic: This is why I don't think we can ever have a true Liberterian system in this country. In order for a government to be Liberterian, people have to be "good, decent and honest" or we become the wild west. Purposals like yours, are dishonest on their face and from your previous and ,normally thoughtful posts, I'm a little disappointed.
Honesty and morality have nothing to do with what is legal and permissible under our current system. When we involve subjective behavior such as morality we need to determine the standard by which we judge morality. Whose standard will we use? There is not universal standard of moraility. Theories of morality abound, such as moral relativism, moral absolutism, and moral realism. All deal with the theory of what is "right" and what is "wrong". One side says there is a universal theory of morality which is not known but exists to be discovered. The other side says morality is determined by the communal society from which it is derived. So then we must derive what is "right" from the laws of our society which we ourselves accept as a group. Therefore why is it immoral and dishonest? Is it any different from bible study groups that get together in someones house? Is it any different than a book club meeting in someone's house? What about a Tupperware party or Pampered Chef party? Or a baby shower? Or a wedding shower?
Besides under a Libertarian society, this situation would not have happened. Farid would have built his mosque, no questions asked. His property rights do not impede yours by force. That is basic tenet of objectivist theory of property rights. Your land does not even border his. The traffic is only an inconvenience. So under a Libertarian society his mosque would already be built by now. There is no intrinsic danger to building a mosque. So your argument is without basis under a Libertarian society.
If you really want Libertarian society, then buy the land and you can prevent the mosque from being built. Get your neighbors together and instead of printing signs, start a fund and buy the land as a group. Then you can keep it open space forever with the right covenants on the deed.
Eds, when you were saying that you confirmed [this scheme] with counsel, you must have been speaking of your therapist. To suggest that someone go to town hall and submit plans for a residential structure on the property, with only a couple of parking spaces, and then have a party every Friday afternoon attended by about 300 people, as well as five somewhat smaller parties EVERY day, as well as funerals, weddings and other social events at the home would be deceiving and fraudulent, and the religious uses would be shut down in no time. If it is your opinion that that is the only way to get a house of worship built, then I feel sorry for Meriden (your apparent hometown). The simple fact of the matter is that the proposal, even in its current state is inappropriate for that site. There are plenty of other sites within the town or Wallingford but Farid refuses to consider them. Tell your therapist I said "hi".
Wrong. So Wrong. Pathetically wrong. You have no clue. If the noise level is kept down, and the cars do not overflow onto the road, I can park as many cars on my property as will fit. Right now I can park 10 cars on my front lawn if I wanted to. They will fit. I can invite as many people to my home as I want. What gets people into trouble is the noise level not the amount of cars or people. As long as they don't get rowdy, as long as the cars are all registered, not in disrepair, and are not there all the time, the town can't say squat about it. It's called peaceful congregation and is considered a pursuit of happiness. The right to congregate is protected under the constitution. My neighbor does just that. He has about 10 cars in his lot, at all times. They are all registered and are all in working order. My neighbor has parties from time to time and fills the area with cars. There is nothing the police can do about it. Nothing anyone can do about it. It's within his rights.
Farid will end up suing under the Religious Land Use Act. You cannot prevent this mosque from being built. You can alter the proposal, but you must work with this person under that act. Nothing in the proposal is inherently obstructive to justify permanent denial. Rest assured your town will be sued just like Meriden and the P&Z will reverse the decision to avoid a lawsuit. Farid could sue the town into financial ruin and will get his way eventually. It's only a matter of when not if. If he wants to that is. He might give up. Who knows? The Jehovahs didn't in Meriden. According to the articles in today's paper, the zoning board was forced to reverse its decision. The proposal in Meriden still needs final approval, but with a tweak here and there it will be approved. Its more of a formality now.
Watch it, pretty soon we'll see "No EDS in Wallingford" signs!
Hey now! Bad press is better than no press they say.
I don't make the rules or the holes. I just point out the holes. Don't shoot the messenger. Farid is a smart man. He probably already thought if it.
eds, I just disagree. Does the term "Faculty Lounge" mean anything to you?:)
eds, I just disagree. Does the term "Faculty Lounge" mean anything to you?:)
Not in the slightest.
Fine Whine
06-22-2008, 06:01 PM
« The Muslim (Islamic) march across America
By J. Gerald Harris, Editor
Published September 14, 2006
Islam is the second largest religion in the world with more than 1.3 billion adherents. In the United States, Islam is the fastest growing religion, a trend fueled mostly by immigration. There are almost 7 million Muslims in the United States.
If we choose to continue to open our borders to radical Muslim immigrants and accept multiculturalism as a societal philosophy then we must be willing to face the consequences of losing our British-based Christian culture and our Judeo-Christian morality.
It is the declared intention of Muslims in America to turn the United States into a Muslim state. They really do not want to integrate; they want to dominate. It is predicted that Islam will also be the second largest religion in America by 2015. There are now more than 1,200 mosques in America; there are more Muslims in this country than Methodists.
While the West has been busy inventing new medicines to alleviate human suffering and increase life expectancy, and while the West has been attempting to decode human genes in an effort to find the cure for cancer and heart disease, and while the West has been launching space shuttles to enhance exploration, and while the West has been developing better economical models for a more prosperous world, and while secular humanism has been promoting its doctrine of tolerance, and while the ACLU has been gaining control over common sense, and while many Christian churches in America have been resting in the victories of the past, the Islamic religion has been aggressively propagandizing, converting, proselytizing, and winning the war for the minds and souls of our fellow Americans.
A veteran missionary to Middle Eastern people recently stated, �If you want to look at a dedicated, sincere, committed Muslim, look at Osama Bin Ladin.�
A former Muslim stated, �I left Islam when I understood that Islam is a sick and evil religion. The Islamic message to the infidels of the West is: �We will fight the infidel to death. Meanwhile, American laws will protect us. Leftists will support us. UNO will legitimize us. CAIR will incubate us. The ACLU will empower us. Western universities will educate us. Mosques will shelter us. OPEC will finance us. Hollywood will love us. And UN Secretary-General Koffi Annan will pass politically correct, sympathetic statements for Jihadists.��
When President George W. Bush addressed Congress following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 he stated, �I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It�s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect to hijack Islam itself.�
However, Bush�s comments do not ring true with many Americans, because many contend a closer analysis of the Muslim religion will reveal that their renunciation of violence is only superficial.
The Ayatollah Khomeini, former dictator of Iran, once said, �All those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world. Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. [They] are witless.�
Anis Shorrosh, in his book Islam Revealed, comments, �Religious liberty is unknown where Islam is the creed of the majority. Of course, Muslims are quick to take full advantage of the freedom of religion, which is practiced throughout the western world. This is demonstrated in the Muslim centers established in the last fifteen years.�
God promised Abraham a son, with whom He would establish an everlasting covenant. The Muslims believe that son of promise was Ishmael, but the Bible says, �He (Ishmael) will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man�s hand against him� (Genesis 16:12). Jews and Christians believe according to the scriptures that the promise was given to Isaac who became the father of the Israelites, father of Moses who received the Torah, father of King David who ruled in righteousness over God�s people and who also received the promise that from his descendents would come the king who would rule the world for ever and ever.
Christians and Muslims do not simply have two different fathers (Isaac and Ishmael) and two different books (the Bible and the Koran), but they have two completely different spirits: one brings freedom, the other brings bondage. One leads to life and one leads to death.
In the Bible we see that God wants us to make the choice (freedom). �I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live� (Deuteronomy 30:19). But according to the Koran, Alllah chooses the way for us (bondage). �This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed my favour unto you, and have chosen for you as your religion Islam� (from the Koran, Sure 5:3).
Christianity has spread because Christ died to His own desire and in the end gave His life for us. Islam, on the other hand, has spread because Muhammad lived for his own desires and killed everyone who tried to stand in his way.
Muhammad said, �I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them: (Sure 8:12).
Jesus said, �A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another� (John 13:34-35).
The Ayatollah Khomeini, former dictator of Iran, once said, �All those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world. Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. [They] are witless.
Anis Shorrosh, in his book Islam Revealed, comments, �Religious liberty is unknown where Islam is the creed of the majority. Of course, Muslims are quick to take full advantage of the freedom of religion, which is practiced throughout the western world. This is demonstrated in the Muslim centers established in the last fifteen years.�
The King Abdulaziz Chair for Islamic Studies, the King Fahd Chair for Islamic Shariah Studies, the Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud Program in Arab and Islamic Studies, the H. E. Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani Islamic Legal Studies Fund, the King Fahd Chair of Oncology and Pediatrics, the Bakr M. Binladin Visiting Scholar Fund � you may think these studies are taking place in the Middle East, but these are branches of American universities. Saudi Arabia is funding most of them and using them as propaganda machines to promote the Islamic religion.
God promised Abraham a son, with whom He would establish an everlasting covenant. The Muslims believe that son of promise was Ishmael, but the Bible says, �He (Ishmael) will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man�s hand against him� (Gen. 16:12). Jews and Christians believe according to the Scriptures that the promise was given to Isaac who became the father of the Israelites, father of Moses who received the Torah, father of King David who ruled in righteousness over God�s people and who also received the promise that from his descendents would come the king who would rule the world for ever and ever.
Christians and Muslims do not simply have two different fathers (Isaac and Ishmael) and two different books (the Bible and the Koran), but they have two completely different spirits: one brings freedom, the other brings bondage. One leads to life and one leads to death.
In the Bible we see that God wants us to make the choice (freedom). �I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live� (Deut. 30:19). But according to the Koran, Alllah chooses the way for us (bondage). �This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed my favour unto you, and have chosen for you as your religion Islam� (from the Koran, Sure 5:3).
Christianity has spread because Christ died to His own desire and in the end gave His life for us. Islam, on the other hand, has spread because Muhammad lived for his own desires and killed everyone who tried to stand in his way.
Muhammad said, �I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them: (Sure 8:12).
Jesus said, �A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another� (John 13:34-35).
Leigusite is the same contributor to this forum that has professed that "traffic" is the sole issue of the residents of the Leigus Road area.
Obviously, his prior statements are not true.
In fact, there is at least one statement in this last post by Leigusite that ALL should be weary-of:
"If we choose to continue to open our borders to radical Muslim immigrants and accept multiculturalism as a societal philosophy then we must be willing to face the consequences of losing our British-based Christian culture and our Judeo-Christian morality."
These thoughts and statements are shameful, dangerous, and an embarassment to the community of Wallingford.
leigusite
06-22-2008, 06:51 PM
Leigusite is the same contributor to this forum that has professed that "traffic" is the sole issue of the residents of the Leigus Road area.
Obviously, his prior statements are not true.
In fact, there is at least one statement in this last post by Leigusite that ALL should be weary-of:
"If we choose to continue to open our borders to radical Muslim immigrants and accept multiculturalism as a societal philosophy then we must be willing to face the consequences of losing our British-based Christian culture and our Judeo-Christian morality."
These thoughts and statements are shameful, dangerous, and an embarassment to the community of Wallingford.
I agree those statements are shameful & dangerous--but they are directly from an Islamic Website---I feel that racism is a TWO way street--people acuse Fairlawn Farms residents of being racist???????????????????????
Fine Whine
06-22-2008, 07:52 PM
I agree those statements are shameful & dangerous--but they are directly from an Islamic Website---I feel that racism is a TWO way street--people acuse Fairlawn Farms residents of being racist???????????????????????
First, If you want to make traffic your concern, then restrict your arguments to traffic.
Second, the quote that you singled-out that I cited as shameful is that of the Baptist minister who rambled those rascist views. That quote is not from an Islamist website.
The two-way street that you want to create is to profess that your concern is traffic while simultaneously making references to Islam and the fact that Muslims want to take over the United States.
By resorting to this dialog, you clearly are concerned with Muslims in your neighborhood and not any traffic that might be created by their Place of Worship.
Peoples minds are so wharped.....this person needs mental help....
another nutjob....r u for real kimbie or wut.....
Fit 2 Print
06-23-2008, 12:52 PM
IF some form of prejudice is at work, it extends to Christian churches, as well.
Just today (6/23/08), I noticed a headline on the website saying that two 18-year-old vandals were caught last night in Plantsville spray-painting "666's", swastikas and numerous other vulgarities all over the exterior of St. Aloysious R.C. Church. Apparently, they did some extensive damage...
Do some folks just resent having "houses of worship" nearby? I sure hope not!
It probably is just anti-establishment, counter-cultural behavior. Whatever is opposite, whatever will get people angry, is what these people will do.
Hey now! Bad press is better than no press they say.
I don't make the rules or the holes. I just point out the holes. Don't shoot the messenger. Farid is a smart man. He probably already thought if it.
:D :D :D :D
RC12L4
06-23-2008, 09:54 PM
Please let this thread die.
Fit 2 Print
06-25-2008, 04:13 PM
The previous post by "RC12L4" suggest this thread should "die."
I guess the writer thinks that's the appropriate answer to all subjects of public record when he or she has heard enough about them.
For those still interested in the topic, it remains vital. So, if there's any corpse, it was buried prematurely by indifference to a subject of much public concern.
Dismissing people and their ideas often displays a closed mind.
RC12L4
06-25-2008, 04:34 PM
The previous post by "RC12L4" suggest this thread should "die."
I guess the writer thinks that's the appropriate answer to all subjects of public record when he or she has heard enough about them.
For those still interested in the topic, it remains vital. So, if there's any corpse, it was buried prematurely by indifference to a subject of much public concern.
Dismissing people and their ideas often displays a closed mind.
When there's a new argument, new position or new vital information regarding the mosque added to this thread I'll pay attention.
Beating a dead horse over and over again often displays someones need to keep hearing themselves talk.
Fine Whine
06-25-2008, 04:46 PM
When there's a new argument, new position or new vital information regarding the mosque added to this thread I'll pay attention.
Apparently you are paying attention anyway. :eek:
But more important, the new vital information is that some of these opponents are hypocrites as evidenced by their protestations that they are not bigoted followed by postings containing rants about everything from the Ayatollah Khomeini to claims that Muslims want to take over the United States.
People in Wallingford are embarrassed by the stance of the people making such statements.
They should be embarassed, but they don't seem to be doing anything about it. The silent majority may be okay with the mosque, but as long as they remain silent, the bigots will speak for them.
jma, First of all, I am not embarassed. Disappointed in the discourse maybe, but not embarassed. We were not silent about how we felt about Mr. Farid, and his mosque members, at the meetings. We were kind, respectful and stressed numerous times that he and his mosque were welcome in Wallingford. We stated he should have a place to worship. We just didn't want more traffic in our neighborhood and expressed our concerns. Feel free to "run the tape" and see for yourself.
I don't feel that we have to continue to say we aren't racist. It's hard to prove a negative. No one wants to listen to us. No matter what we say, you choose not to believe us. Yes, I know a few people said somethings. I get it! If you want to think we are racist and evil, there is nothing I, or anyone else can do to persuade you otherwise. The only way to make anyone happy here, is for us to give in and let Mr. Farid have what he wants. It's not going to happen. He has his case to prove and we have ours. Why does someone have to be the bad guy here?
I find it amazing that no one has commented on Mr. Farid's shortcomings. Only ours , why is that? You have decided that he is 100% correct and above reproach. Basically he has all the rights and we have none. Honestly, I think you're biased against us.
BTW the signs were changed to make clear our position and because we understood that they could be seen as offensive. ( Be aware that was not the intent when they went up) They now read; "No more development on Leguis". This, however, will not be seen as a possitive. It doesn't fit into "your" agenda. It's hard to even get aggrevated anymore. It is the definition of "insanity" posting here sometimes. And yet, here I am again. Now that's saying something. :)
RC12L4 has it right to some degree. This thead's summary...
"Mr. Farid wants a mosque on Leguis."
"We don't want increased traffic on Leguis."
"You're a racist."
"No we're not."
"Yes, you are."
"No, we're not."
"Yes, you are."
"It's about traffic."
"No, it isn't."
"Yes, it is."
"No, it isn't"
"Yes, it is."
"You're a racist."
"No, we're not"
and on, and on, and on.....:(
Fine Whine
06-26-2008, 08:59 AM
Driving on Leigus Road yesterday on my way to Route 91, I couldn't help but notice all the anti-development signs. ("No More Development On Leigus")
Most were on lawns of Fairlawn Farms residents, a development of over 200 homes.:eek:
One was on the lawn of a homeowner running a outdoor furniture business from his home. :confused:
Like many other Planning & Zoning debates, this one is also populated by critics who want the barn door shut after they have gotten approval for their development.
Also humorous is that the critics (Anna for example) continue to raise the MLN site as an issue. Don't move next to something you don't like and then complain about it. MLN was zoned commercial before your house was ever even in the planning stage, let alone when you purchased it.
By the way, traveling through the intersection of Leigus and 68, there were no accidents, near misses, screaching brakes, nothing at all. It was normal.
Well..MLN is an issue. I'm glad you drove thru this intersection safely. There have been 37 accidents here. There are police reports. If you've never been robbed, does that mean there is no crime? Your turn....:)
Prejudice
06-26-2008, 10:42 AM
Well..MLN is an issue.
You are like the people that move near airports and then complain about the noise.
Check out today's opinion column: (6/26/2008)
Wallingford mosque proponents: Reverse prejudice?
By Craig C. Fishbein
Unfortunately, the proposal for a mosque at the corner of Wallingford’s Leigus Road and Route 68 has taken on a life of its own. I have lived in Wallingford (almost) my entire life. I graduated from Sheehan High School in 1983. I am not new to this town. I love this town and its small town charm (what is left of it).
It is apparent that many of the supporters of this application do so, not because they believe that the project is of limited impact, well thought-out, or needed, but rather because they do not want to be perceived by others as being bigoted or prejudiced. That is actually what some people have said, “I support the mosque because I don’t want the town to look prejudiced.” Unfortunately, this position is perversely misguided. The determination should be dictated by facts and evidence, in conjunction with the special permit regulations. The issue here is not whether or not there should be a mosque in the town of Wallingford, the issue is whether or not any use should be added to the Leigus Road area that will bring so much traffic to the area (in addition to the inevitable traffic resulting from the Workstage Building) such as to cause safety concerns and hazards. It is just coincidence that the proposal at question is for a mosque.
Most of the proponents charge the opposition with covering up an agenda of prejudice and bigotry, some claim that, based upon what they heard at the P&Z meeting of June 9, 2008, they see no reason that the mosque should not be built. But, as some may recall, on June 9, 2008 the only speaker that was allowed to make a presentation was Mr. Farid. Unfortunately for our town and our “public hearing” process, on that evening, the public, and even the commission itself, was precluded from asking any questions of the applicant, as after Mr. Farid’s diatribe, the application was withdrawn, and no public comment was allowed at this alleged “public hearing.”
There is no “cover-up,” and there is no “hidden agenda” by the Leigus area residents. It is very easy to support a plan just because one does not want to be “perceived” as being prejudiced, only hear from one side. On the other hand, there are many concerns and questions that have been raised by the independent peer review of the traffic / parking issues, as well as by the fire department regarding the capacity of the proposed structure, estimating the same to be well in excess of 300 persons.
As one may recall, when Mortgage Lenders was proposed to move into the Leigus Road area, the neighbors opposed the application, expressing concerns about traffic, safety, and maintaining the rural character of the neighborhood. Funny, now that the Leigus area residents oppose this mosque plan (for some of the same reasons) they are all of a sudden “prejudiced” and “bigoted” and “hiding behind traffic concerns.” Yes, there are more people voicing their concerns now, and yes there are signs, but that is because the neighborhood is more organized this time. The Leigus Road area residents are extremely bitter about the Mortgage Lenders project. Many in town refer to it as the “white elephant,” “monstrosity,” or even “a fiasco,” and accordingly the residents are fed up with not being heard.
The fact of the matter is, from my perspective, it has never been about a “mosque.” This dispute is about the use of the property and the traffic that it will bring, it is about the parking that should be required for that traffic that it will bring. It is very easy to sit on the other side of town and point a finger claiming “prejudice” when you won’t be affected by the traffic and parking.
I have never said that a mosque should not be located in Wallingford. Nonetheless, it is apparent that the proposed site is not appropriate for such a use. The proponents herald the new plan as being a “compromise,” but in fact, given the concerns raised by the peer review, as well as other evidence before the Planning & Zoning Commission, it was highly doubtful that the application would have been approved on June 9, 2008. There are alternate sites around town, but apparently the Farids do not want to consider them. That is unfortunate, as their plan (and that of their proponents) is apparently one of reverse prejudice instead of reliance on the factors listed within our local regulations and state statutes. Throughout this process, the Leigus Road area residents have attempted to address these factors, and continue to do so.
Craig Fishbein is a local attorney, who resides close to the proposed Wallingford site. He is one of the leaders of a coalition of Leigus Road area residents who are opposed to any further nonresidential development of Leigus Road.
Fine Whine
06-26-2008, 11:41 AM
Well..MLN is an issue. I'm glad you drove thru this intersection safely. There have been 37 accidents here.
Since you keep bringing this up, you must have details on this point.
What was the severity of these accidents? How many were minor accidents (fender-benders) without injuries? For example, some of those 7 accidents per year could be motorists simply bumping the car ahead of them while waiting at the light to change thinking the car ahead has turned right on red.
The 37 you mention is over a 5 year period. How does that compare to other intersections in this area? Is it average, above average, or below average?
After all this IS a four lane state road. A major road that carries thousands of cars.
Would a traffic engineer conclude that 7 accidents per year is a significant number of accidents on this type of thoroughfare given the nature and characteristics of the area?
oldnickel
06-26-2008, 12:06 PM
the number of accidents at this intersection is actually much smaller. I heard Mr fishbein state on sunday that the 37 accidents was for the general area. This leads to the question what does this area include? Also with regards to Fine whine's comments, what time of day did these accidents occur? I'm thinking that accidents that happen late at night are not indicative of a problem here. If I heard it right the number of accidents at this intersection over a 2-3 year period was 7, again no time frames.
Anna with regards to your comments. Where would Mr. Farid get the idea that religion was the issue here? Maybe by reading the posts on this and other blogs. I dont totally believe everything anybody says, but the level of rhetoric and animosity here is quite high. Much higher than you would suspect if the issue was just about traffic and congestion.
Fine Whine
06-26-2008, 12:23 PM
Check out today's letter to the editor: (6/26/2008)
Wallingford mosque proponents: Reverse prejudice?
By Craig C. Fishbein
As one may recall, when Mortgage Lenders was proposed to move into the Leigus Road area, the neighbors op*posed the application, expressing con*cerns about traffic, safety, and main*taining the rural character of the neigh*borhood. Funny, now that the Leigus area residents oppose this mosque plan (for some of the same reasons) they are all of a sudden “prejudiced” and “bigot*ed” and “hiding behind traffic con*cerns.” Yes, there are more people voic*ing their concerns now, and yes there are signs, but that is because the neigh*borhood is more organized this time. The Leigus Road area residents are ex*tremely bitter about the Mortgage Lenders project. Many in town refer to it as the “white elephant,” “monstrosi*ty,” or even “a fiasco,” and accordingly the residents are fed up with not being heard.
[/I]
MLN is an irrelevant point, as it was always commercially zoned. The fact that the neighbors opposed it only shows their ignorance.
The fact that Mr. Fishbein ignores bigoted statements contained in letters to town officials, quoted in the Record-Journal, and in this blog, all by opponents of the Mosque proposal, shows his ignorance as well.
rapuda
06-26-2008, 01:10 PM
They should be embarassed, but they don't seem to be doing anything about it. The silent majority may be okay with the mosque, but as long as they remain silent, the bigots will speak for them.
I didn't like the signs that were created originally because they didn't explain the message of the people that placed them. If you weren't following the story, you had no idea what the signs meant. The first impression you got from reading the signs was people against islam. Once you research the story, then you understand what the signs are about. I'm glad the signs finally changed. Although it may be too late for some, as a town resident I'd rather drive by the new message than the old one.
As far as the silent majority, just because people don't speak out doesn't mean they agree or disagree. Maybe they're tired of the same things being said over and over in this thread. RC12L4 said it best.
When there's a new argument, new position or new vital information regarding the mosque added to this thread I'll pay attention.
Beating a dead horse over and over again often displays someones need to keep hearing themselves talk.
One issue doesn't define a town. These residents have a right to protest. They probably lost their message due to a poor choice of wording on their original signs, but they still have the right to organize and protest. I'm sure some of these residents have motives non-related to traffic, but I believe most are doing what they're doing for legitimate reasons.
As far as them being racists and bigots, some have caused themselves to be labeled. As far as the group as a whole, the posts here and the Record-Journal editorials have caused them to be labeled. This topic has hit a nerve with some. That would explain how this thread has become confrontational at times. Over 300 replies and over 7000 views.
I don't have an opinion about whether the Mosque should be built or not. I do have an opinion about my town however. As I said in a previous post. We are similar to our surrounding towns. To call us a racist community would be to call all around us racists. How about our state? Are we a racist state? Our country?
If people want to throw around words like, racist, bigot, ignorant, or if people want to express their anger towards someone, they should direct it towards the appropriate person or persons. Don't group everybody into your response or attack. Don't group the entire town into your personal judgement.
Wallyworldite
06-26-2008, 07:27 PM
MLN is an irrelevant point, as it was always commercially zoned. The fact that the neighbors opposed it only shows their ignorance.
The fact that Mr. Fishbein ignores bigoted statements contained in letters to town officials, quoted in the Record-Journal, and in this blog, all by opponents of the Mosque proposal, shows his ignorance as well.
How is MLN irrelevant. There is an entrance to RIGHT ACROSS from the proposed mosque entrance. Many have posed saying, How can the neighbors complain when they have the MLN building right across the street?. Do you know what the word irrelevant means?
Here, I'll help..., from Dictionary.com:
IRRELEVANT–adjective
1. not relevant; not applicable or pertinent: His lectures often stray to interesting but irrelevant subjects.
2. Law. (of evidence) having no probative value upon any issue in the case.
I get it, you must have mistyped, as MLN is so clearly relevant, it is transparent
Here, I'll help again:
TRANSPARENT –adjective
1. having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen.
2. admitting the passage of light through interstices.
3. so sheer as to permit light to pass through; diaphanous.
4. easily seen through, recognized, or detected: transparent excuses.
5. manifest; obvious: a story with a transparent plot.
Also, Fishbein does not have to address whatever shallow, paranoid comments that have made by the proponents of this project, and even by Farid himself with regards to this mosque. For you to throw all of the opponents into a mold and claim prejudice is, actually, prejudiced in and of itself.
Here, I'll help ya some more:
PREJUDICED - noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
–verb (used with object)
6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.
If anything, it is the proponents of this project that are being prejudiced against the opponents of this mosque project.
Oops there it is again, the "m" word. :eek: I gotta stop that as Farid and his family are looking for bigots and prejudice under every rock and in every bush with regards to this mosque.
Oops, there it is again, damn, damn, damn, gotta stop that before the "paranoid police" come and claim that I am prejudiced against mosques. :(
Damn... gotta stop. Damn, damn. :mad:
oldnickel
06-26-2008, 08:25 PM
I was on the fence about this project. I really wanted to post to see if we can get some facts instead of generalities or leaps of faith. Some posts here were really good. Some posts were really bad. Some were just annoying.
As for your last post, I put that in the last category. It adds nothing to the discussion and in my opinion borders on condescending. After reading your post, I would vote for the mosque just based on your attitude.
speakerguy
06-26-2008, 10:33 PM
I was on the fence about this project. I really wanted to post to see if we can get some facts instead of generalities or leaps of faith. Some posts here were really good. Some posts were really bad. Some were just annoying.
As for your last post, I put that in the last category. It adds nothing to the discussion and in my opinion borders on condescending. After reading your post, I would vote for the mosque just based on your attitude.
Attitude is irrelevant. The only relevant information is the facts as it relates to the proposal: Size, usage, parking, traffic, etc. You indicate that you are looking to the blog for facts. Why? I certainly didn't. It is not the logical place to get the facts. I got the facts from Town Hall and from attending the P&Z meetings or watching the entire meeting on Public Access TV. Attaining the facts this way required me to make a significant effort to do so. I have taken personal time off from work twice in order to go to Town Hall and pay for copies of the records. I have also taken the time to attend or watch the Wetlands and P&Z meetings. This is the ONLY way to get all the facts and truly understand this issue. Too many people on this blog are eager to "shoot from the hip" based on "sound bites". You do not appear to fit this mold, but seem frustrated by the bantor on the blog. I recommend that you take the time to obtain the facts in the same manner as I did and then return here to offer your educated opinion.
Fit 2 Print
06-27-2008, 12:56 PM
The phrase "educated opinions" is a thinly-veiled slam to put another person on notice that the issuer of the statement considers himself/herself to be superior.
Perhaps the reason many are incessantly chanting "facts, facts, facts . . ." is to deflect the overriding fact in this case: some folks, apparently, are incapable of issuing Muslims a warm welcome and reasonable accommodation.
Now, that's a fact.
speakerguy
06-27-2008, 01:56 PM
The phrase "educated opinions" is a thinly-veiled slam to put another person on notice that the issuer of the statement considers himself/herself to be superior.
Perhaps the reason many are incessantly chanting "facts, facts, facts . . ." is to deflect the overriding fact in this case: some folks, apparently, are incapable of issuing Muslims a warm welcome and reasonable accommodation.
Now, that's a fact.
It always amazes me that when someone cannot offer an intellegent rebuttal to an argument that they always resort to insults.
You consider my phrase "educated opinion" a slam, and that it fine. However, due to significant effort on my part, as was well documented in my last post, I do have more facts about this issue than most of the posters on this blog. By definition, this would make me more educated about this topic than those folks. Not superior, just more educated.
I do not fault anyone for ignorance of the facts. But I will STRONGLY fault any person who would offer opinion on the subject without first obtaining all the facts, and in some cases, ANY facts.
Your own statement above cuts to the heart of the matter. I will gladly accept "reasonable" accomodations to anyone anywhere on Planet Earth. However, anyone who has seen first hand the parking issues at MANY mosques in the US, including Berlin and West Haven, among others, would agree that proper planning was NOT done, the parking demands were woefully underestimated, and the resulting parking issues are NOT reasonable.
It is an indisputable fact that the Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion in the US. And Muslims are very devout and go to service every week. Personally, I am a lousy Catholic, who only goes to Church on Easter and Christmas, the same as many Catholics.
These differences require that the proper planning be done when considering the future capacity of the mosque. Based on evaluations of Berlin and West Haven, the proposed property on Leigus Road does not appear to offer enough parking to accomodate the maximum number of worshipers that the mosque will hold. The town engineer stated as such to the Record Journal.
I do not see how any of the above leads to the conclusion that I am biased.
Fit 2 Print
06-27-2008, 03:17 PM
If traffic concerns rank number one in denying this group of worshippers use of the land in question for purposes of the same, how is it that, say, Most Holy Trinity Church in the heart of downtown Wallingford is able to manage?
Think about it: it's hard to imagine a spot more congested with dense traffic, replete with railroad crossings, school buses and train station than this church's Rt. 5/Center Street location. The traffic is intense (especially during weekday times of large-scaled funerals at Holy Trinity). There is limited parking and traffic lights everywhere in the overall area.
Yet, this church manages to deal well with the realities. Life goes on.
Leigus Road/Rt. 68 is leisurely by comparison.
It can be worked out. It really can. It should, too.
speakerguy
06-27-2008, 03:31 PM
If traffic concerns rank number one in denying this group of worshippers use of the land in question for purposes of the same, how is it that, say, Most Holy Trinity Church in the heart of downtown Wallingford is able to manage?
Think about it: it's hard to imagine a spot more congested with dense traffic, replete with railroad crossings, school buses and train station than this church's Rt. 5/Center Street location. The traffic is intense (especially during weekday times of large-scaled funerals at Holy Trinity). There is limited parking and traffic lights everywhere in the overall area.
Yet, this church manages to deal well with the realities. Life goes on.
Leigus Road/Rt. 68 is leisurely by comparison.
It can be worked out. It really can. It should, too.
Holy Trinity was built before zoning laws and is therefore grandfathered. I highly doubt that it would get approved if proposed today.
And by the way, that area is zoned commerical, not residential, as is the case on Leigus road.
Fine Whine
06-27-2008, 03:37 PM
And by the way, that area is zoned commercial, not residential, as is the case on Leigus road.
There is a misconception that Places of Worship are not allowed in Residential Zones. They are allowed, but require a Special Permit allowing for greater control over the application.
speakerguy
06-27-2008, 03:44 PM
There is a misconception that Places of Worship are not allowed in Residential Zones. They are allowed, but require a Special Permit allowing for greater control over the application.
No misconception here. I understand the zoning. As this proposal is for a residential area, it is subject to additional zoning requirements that it would not be subject to if it were to be proposed in a commercial area. As such, and due to the fact that Holy Trinity was built before zoning, the comparison is apples and oranges.
oldnickel
06-27-2008, 05:41 PM
Many people post comments in this forum claiming to be facts. sometimes I feel the need the either get clarification or to challenge. Nothing personal intended. Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't make that person the enemy. As i stated before, the level of animosity here seems way out of proportion for something as mundane as traffic/congestion.
I heard Atty fishbein on the radio say that if the entrance/exit were to be on rte 68 rather than Leigus, he would have no problems with the mosque. Is this how all the Leigus rd group feels?
oldnickel
06-27-2008, 05:45 PM
One more thing. I agree comparing this to holy trinity or any other church in the center of town is not appropriate. Apples and oranges is right. A better comparison would be to Church of the Resurrection. That was built after zoning laws, is located in a residential area, the streets are narrow, there are no stop lights, and planning & zoning much later approved a housing development across the street.
speakerguy
06-27-2008, 06:42 PM
One more thing. I agree comparing this to holy trinity or any other church in the center of town is not appropriate. Apples and oranges is right. A better comparison would be to Church of the Resurrection. That was built after zoning laws, is located in a residential area, the streets are narrow, there are no stop lights, and planning & zoning much later approved a housing development across the street.
I totally agree that no one is the enemy.
The Church of the Resurrection is a perfect comparison. I Google mapped it and it shows that the entrances and exits are 250 ft or more from the intersections. There are about 260 parking spaces. I do not know the seating capacity but will find this out. We can then compare this to the Leigus Road proposal.
My concern is more than traffic/congestion. It is parking. I am originally from New York and am very familiar with parking up and down both sides of the street. However, the character of our new neighborhood in Wallingford is one where there is almost no parking on the street. If approval of this proposal will mean that, due to growth and a lack of planning, that once a week, or maybe more, cars will be parked up and down our street, then that changes the character of the neighborhood. My concern is not that it would be a couple of times a year, as happens on Christmas and Easter in the Christian churches, but every week. If I thought it would only be a couple of times a year, then that can be dealt with. But remember, the application is for a special permit. One of the criteria for approval is the, and I quote, "preservation of the character of the neighborhood." If there would be parking up and down the street every week that was not there before, then I feel the character of the neighborhood is not preserved. Think about this for your own street. Would you agree or disagree?
Fine Whine
06-28-2008, 01:39 AM
One of the criteria for approval is the, and I quote, "preservation of the character of the neighborhood."
You're applying this criteria in a way to only support your desire to deny the application. The opposite side of the street is zoned commercial.
speakerguy
06-28-2008, 10:28 AM
You're applying this criteria in a way to only support your desire to deny the application. The opposite side of the street is zoned commercial.
I am not speaking only about parking along Leigus road, but spilling over onto Promontory Drive, a street that is zoned entirely residential. Why is it wrong to desire to deny an application if it can be shown that the application does not meet the criteria?
It is truly amazing. You are assuming that I have some "hidden agenda". As I stated above, I used to live in New York, 20 miles from Manhattan. We moved to Connecitcut not to get away from New York, but only because the work dried up in New York and the only work I could find was in Connecticut. Believe me, living 20 miles from Manhattan, I understand diversity and the positive effects of diversity. The more you know about other cultures an nationalities, the more you realize that we are more the same than different. We picked Wallingford BECAUSE it was more diverse than other towns in Connecticut and reminded us more of where we used to live.
Mr. Farid's cultural background and religion is not an issue for me. He deserves the same treatment as any other American. As such, the P&Z is obligated to review the merits of his application. They cannot discriminate against him and I know they won't. But just as importantly, they cannot grant him any special priviledge either. If it can be shown that the application does not meet the criteria for the special permit, then it should be denied. The P&Z board, Town Planner and Town Engineer are our public servants also, not just for the applicant. They would be negligent if they do not do the proper research and planning (or require the applicant to do so) to make sure that the future does not bring the parking nightmare that exists at several other similar mosques in the area.
Or are you saying that Mr. Farid deserves more consideration than the neighbors?
Fine Whine
06-28-2008, 12:01 PM
I am not speaking only about parking along Leigus road, but spilling over onto Promontory Drive,
It is truly amazing. You are assuming that I have some "hidden agenda".
I didn't say anything about a "hidden agenda".
I pointed-out that if you are going to argue that the character of the neighborhood is residential, that completely ignores the fact that the other side of the street is zoned commercial.
To return to the question of parking. the property in question is almost 6 acres. That is more than 230,000 square feet. Any parking required for the application can be accommodated on that site.
One of the opponents, Mr. Fishbein, has stated that he would withdraw his objections to the application if the entrance were on Rt 68 rather than Leigus. That position supports the reasoning that their is sufficient on-site parking available.
speakerguy
06-28-2008, 12:48 PM
I didn't say anything about a "hidden agenda".
I pointed-out that if you are going to argue that the character of the neighborhood is residential, that completely ignores the fact that the other side of the street is zoned commercial.
To return to the question of parking. the property in question is almost 6 acres. That is more than 230,000 square feet. Any parking required for the application can be accommodated on that site.
One of the opponents, Mr. Fishbein, has stated that he would withdraw his objections to the application if the entrance were on Rt 68 rather than Leigus. That position supports the reasoning that their is sufficient on-site parking available.
The zoning of the property across the street is irrelevant. The proposal is for residential property. If Mr. Farid were to choose to build on commerical property, a special permit would not be required. We suggested that Mr. Farid look at commerical property right across the way on Northrop road. A larger property with no wetlands, better queing distances, more room for future expansion, etc. AND still in my neighborhood. Unless you consider Route 68 to be the equivalent of the Berlin wall....
Again, you do not know the facts. I did the math from the site plan and 68% of the site is protected WETLANDS and CANNOT be used for ANY development.
I know Mr. Fishbein and I believe that he is being misquoted.
oldnickel
06-28-2008, 02:03 PM
I heard mr fishbein say that he would have no objections at all if the exit / entrance were on Rte 68. This statement was made on the sullivan one on one radio show and can still be heard if you to to that web site.
speakerguy
06-28-2008, 02:55 PM
I heard mr fishbein say that he would have no objections at all if the exit / entrance were on Rte 68. This statement was made on the sullivan one on one radio show and can still be heard if you to to that web site.
I went back and listened to the entire interview with Mr. Fishbein. He did, as you said, say that he would have "no problem" if the entrance was on Route 68 instead of Leigus Road. However, if you take it in the context of the entire interview, I believe Mr. Fishbein was referring to the ingress/egress safety issues on Leigus Road. At the very end of the interview Mr. Fishbein states, and I quote, "Is it appropriate to put anything on that corner that is going to bring in 250 to 300 cars with 96 parking spaces? I don't care what it is. And it's not." Whether those cars ingress/egress from Leigus Road or Route 68 does not change that argument.
So I stand by my statement that Mr. Fishbein is being misquoted if you say that he would withdraw his objection to the proposal if the ingress/egress is changed from Leigus Road to Route 68.
oldnickel
06-28-2008, 05:20 PM
I do not think that he is being misquoted because he actually said it. I do not even think this is being taken out of context either. The conversation at that point had to do with traffic & congestion. Mr fishbein was making the point that because of where the driveway was on Leigus that this would be an unsafe situation. He provided figures on the number of accidents at that intersection and in the general area making the arguement that the added traffic would make a bad situation worse. (I am still waiting for some feed back as to what the general area encompasses what time of day these accidents occurred and whether this is much higher than other intersections). I came away with the impression that if the ingress/egress was through Rte 68, that would eliminate using Leigus Rd thus making traffic & congestion at that intersection a non-issue and he would have no problem with the Mosque. As I recall most people who oppose the Mosque use traffic & congestion as the main issue. If your assumption is correct, it would have been better for Mr. Fishbein to more closely connect those sentences. In any event, it would be best if Mr Fishbein cleared up any misconceptions.
As for parking, even the peer review admitted that there was no reliable formula to determine the required number of spaces for this type of occupancy. You can use the fire marshalls estimate but unless he has a reliable source to back up the estimate for this type of occupancy there will be an issue that can be litigated.
As for how many people will attend I do not think anyone, including Mr Farid can give you a hard / fast number. We can all take guesses, but that's all they are. You can compare this to Berlin, but why not compare this to Hamden or Meriden?
One last comment about other undeveloped land in the area. I heard Mr. Fishbein make the same comment. When questioned by John Sullivan, Mr fishbein admitted that he had not investigated whether the owner of the property would sell it in parts or even what the cost would be. All the things that you and Mr fishbein say about the property are true, but would also make the price much higher. Maybe Mr farid doesnt have the resources to buy at parcell that big at the going cost.
speakerguy
06-28-2008, 08:44 PM
I do not think that he is being misquoted because he actually said it. I do not even think this is being taken out of context either. The conversation at that point had to do with traffic & congestion. Mr fishbein was making the point that because of where the driveway was on Leigus that this would be an unsafe situation. He provided figures on the number of accidents at that intersection and in the general area making the arguement that the added traffic would make a bad situation worse. (I am still waiting for some feed back as to what the general area encompasses what time of day these accidents occurred and whether this is much higher than other intersections). I came away with the impression that if the ingress/egress was through Rte 68, that would eliminate using Leigus Rd thus making traffic & congestion at that intersection a non-issue and he would have no problem with the Mosque. As I recall most people who oppose the Mosque use traffic & congestion as the main issue. If your assumption is correct, it would have been better for Mr. Fishbein to more closely connect those sentences. In any event, it would be best if Mr Fishbein cleared up any misconceptions.
As for parking, even the peer review admitted that there was no reliable formula to determine the required number of spaces for this type of occupancy. You can use the fire marshalls estimate but unless he has a reliable source to back up the estimate for this type of occupancy there will be an issue that can be litigated.
As for how many people will attend I do not think anyone, including Mr Farid can give you a hard / fast number. We can all take guesses, but that's all they are. You can compare this to Berlin, but why not compare this to Hamden or Meriden?
One last comment about other undeveloped land in the area. I heard Mr. Fishbein make the same comment. When questioned by John Sullivan, Mr fishbein admitted that he had not investigated whether the owner of the property would sell it in parts or even what the cost would be. All the things that you and Mr fishbein say about the property are true, but would also make the price much higher. Maybe Mr farid doesnt have the resources to buy at parcell that big at the going cost.
I contacted Mr Fishbein and he confirmed that he was misquoted. However, he indicated that he could see how you and others could draw this conclusion.
You are correct that there is no standard formula to determine the parking requirements for a mosque. However, Berlin, West Haven and New Haven are living proof that the existing formulas for churches and assembly halls do not work very well when applied to mosques. Therefore, I believe a more restrictive rule should be applied for the parking formula and after reading Mr. Thompson's comments I think he believes this also.
It would not be fair to ignore the parking data obtained from the more well attended mosques and then tell the neighbors "Well, lets just hope the parking mess doesn't happen here". That shows a total lack of planning. We are dealing with the Planning & Zoning Board, not just the Zoning Board. Proper planning is one of their assigned tasks.
Typically in zoning law, if there are two regulations that differ, the more restrictive regulation shall control. This would be the case in Wallingford, called out in Article 1.4 of the Regulations.
So if it can be shown that a more restrictive parking calculation is appropriate it should be used instead of the published regulation. These determinations would need to be made by credentialed experts. The town engineer may have the credentials to do this or maybe outside help would be needed. I am certainly not qualified to make this determination. I just ask that the planning board do its due diligence and get the experts to make this determination.
As far as how many people will attend, for planning and zoning purposes the calculation is very simple. You simply look at the maximum capacity of the building. The parking requirements are then determined from the maximum capacity of the building. But this will not be able to be done accurately until the appropriate parking calculation is determined.
Traffic and congestion is an issue for many people. However, I choose not to comment on traffic because I cannot approach the traffic issue with any balance. The traffic and congestion was so much greater in New York. What your typical Nutmegger thinks is traffic I hardly even notice.
With regard to litigation, as there are many areas of new ground being treaded here, I agree that there will be plenty of litigation no matter how it goes.
Regarding resources, I do not believe that is an issue. Mr. Farid owns Edible Arrangements, a very successful franchising company. But the resources are not relevant to the issue. Lets say, for arguments sake, it was determined that a proposal was not suitable for a particular residential parcel, but was suitable for a particular commercial parcel. And the applicant says, "but I cannot afford the commerical parcel". The answer from the P&Z would be, "oh well, we are sorry." No where in the regulations does it say that the town will suspend the rules if you cannot afford to comply.
Old Nickel, I have to say that the last few exchanges between us have been more productive than many of the other exchanges on this blog. I have tried to provide as many facts as I can, and some opinion. I also respect the other opinions on the blog, although I may not agree. However, the P&Z board will make their decision based on facts, which is why I try to use the facts as much as possible. You mentioned earlier (I think it was you) that you want to question some of the facts, and that is fine. I am an Electrical Safety Compliance Engineer by trade so my job consists of interpreting standards and codes and verifying facts. I have made every attempt to provide factual information on this blog.
alwaysright
06-29-2008, 01:09 PM
I wouldn't move into a neighborhood with an existing place of worship- and I certainly would protest with vigor if one tried to move into it now. worship if you must- but don't block MY driveway or clog my road. Don't hand out your crap literature either.
leigusite
06-29-2008, 04:39 PM
I wouldn't move into a neighborhood with an existing place of worship- and I certainly would protest with vigor if one tried to move into it now. worship if you must- but don't block MY driveway or clog my road. Don't hand out your crap literature either.
Telling it like it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David
06-30-2008, 11:39 AM
Here's a copy of a post from the "Letter of the Week" forum for consideration on the topic of "houses of worship":
Houses of worship
Editor:
After reading the Record-Journal story of Sunday, 6/22/08, "Concerns over houses of worship in neighborhoods," all I can say to the people of Meriden and Wallingford is: “Been there/done that!”
In 1984, when my grandfather died, his farm in Kensington (on Park Drive) was sold to a Meriden Baptist Church. The pastor was to live in my grandfather’s house and a new church was to be built on the 6 acres of farm land. When the good people of the neighborhood heard of the plan, a petition was started and signed by all and an attorney was hired. They blocked the plan because the church would cause traffic problems in a quiet neighborhood. The pastor died and the church found another building to buy in Meriden.
I don’t know why the story never made the news big time like the present concern does (Wallingford mosque, etc.). I wish all parties involved in the present-day concerns over houses of worship all the best. I hope you can find a plan where everyone is happy.
TOM COSS, MERIDEN
I wouldn't move into a neighborhood with an existing place of worship- and I certainly would protest with vigor if one tried to move into it now. worship if you must- but don't block MY driveway or clog my road. Don't hand out your crap literature either.
Blocking YOUR driveway is already illegal, with the mosque or not.
You said, "...or clog my road". So it's your road? Well, I was not aware it was your road. Can you provide a copy of your deed?
You said, "Don't hand out your crap literature". Can you tell me when the First Amendment was revoked or when it was struck down by a SCOTUS ruling? Nobody says you need to take the literature. Anyone can stand on their soap box and hand out literature. Even if it's Matt Hale from World Church of the Creator. They have every right to profess their views. It's as bad as homophobic people who think gay people are going to hit on them or try to convert them. Utterly ridiculous.
And this is why people think "racism" when the discuss this.
speakerguy
06-30-2008, 07:34 PM
Blocking YOUR driveway is already illegal, with the mosque or not.
You said, "...or clog my road". So it's your road? Well, I was not aware it was your road. Can you provide a copy of your deed?
You said, "Don't hand out your crap literature". Can you tell me when the First Amendment was revoked or when it was struck down by a SCOTUS ruling? Nobody says you need to take the literature. Anyone can stand on their soap box and hand out literature. Even if it's Matt Hale from World Church of the Creator. They have every right to profess their views. It's as bad as homophobic people who think gay people are going to hit on them or try to convert them. Utterly ridiculous.
And this is why people think "racism" when the discuss this.
When I first read this I thought maybe the writer was being sarcastic. If not, then I agree that it does nothing but "fan the flames" concerning racism. You will not find any of that kind of rancor in my posts.
However, there is a point to the "clog my road" argument. Currently the neighborhood does not typically have on street parking. We all park either in our driveways or our garages. The commercial building across the street has its own very large parking lot so parking from the commerical building should not spill out into the local streets. However, if proper planning isn't done for this proposal, there exists a real possibility (Berlin, New Haven and West Haven are living proof of this) that parking from the mosque will spill over onto the local streets. Since the existing character of the neighborhood is one where there is no parking on the local streets, this would change the character of the neighborhood, in my opinion.
When I first read this I thought maybe the writer was being sarcastic. If not, then I agree that it does nothing but "fan the flames" concerning racism. You will not find any of that kind of rancor in my posts.
However, there is a point to the "clog my road" argument. Currently the neighborhood does not typically have on street parking. We all park either in our driveways or our garages. The commercial building across the street has its own very large parking lot so parking from the commerical building should not spill out into the local streets. However, if proper planning isn't done for this proposal, there exists a real possibility (Berlin, New Haven and West Haven are living proof of this) that parking from the mosque will spill over onto the local streets. Since the existing character of the neighborhood is one where there is no parking on the local streets, this would change the character of the neighborhood, in my opinion.
I understand that there is no parking on the street. What I find difficult to understand is why wouldn't the cars that park on the street get ticketed or towed? If there is clearly marked "No parking" signs on the road then that would be a violation of the "No parking" rule. Are there signs and is it illegal to park on the street? If so then enforce the law. That will keep the attendees in their own parking lot. If the lot fills up, do as I suggested and post a person at the entrance to turn cars away. Put that limit and requirement as part of the CO and if they violate that you can revoke the CO.
We did just that when we expanded our pistol and rifle club's shooting facilities. We agreed to curtail Sunday shooting hours for reasons of noise to get our building permit and CO for the new facilities. If we violate our agreement for Sunday shooting hours, they can revoke the CO and stop all shooting there.
What annoyed me about the comment was the implication that it was alwaysright's road. That somehow he could prevent something by reason of ownership. His/her words implied that these people weren't wanted in that part of town with their "crap literature". The overall context was hatred not genuine concern for traffic and safety issues. I can debate traffic and safety and I can see the other side of the coin. But I can't see what intended meaning alwaysright's comment has other than hatred. The town owns the road. Paying taxes doesn't give you anything but a receipt for payment. I don't understand the position that people take when they feel that paying taxes somehow gives them the right to dictate and make demands of others and other's people property. Farid has a buy-contract and PZ contingency which essentially means he bought the land, for all intents and purposes, and therefore wouldn't that road also then be his as fellow taxpayer? The tax payment was not big enough for the level of power to rise to dictation. The agreed upon form of government dictates that PZ has final say, not the taxpayers.
As I have said, and I will repeat it. Land convenants trump PZ any day. Gated communities are far more reliable and far more advantageous for reasons of remedy than PZ ever will. The neighborhood people should buy that land and set it aside for open space.
speakerguy
06-30-2008, 08:38 PM
I understand that there is no parking on the street. What I find difficult to understand is why wouldn't the cars that park on the street get ticketed or towed? If there is clearly marked "No parking" signs on the road then that would be a violation of the "No parking" rule. Are there signs and is it illegal to park on the street? If so then enforce the law. That will keep the attendees in their own parking lot. If the lot fills up, do as I suggested and post a person at the entrance to turn cars away. Put that limit and requirement as part of the CO and if they violate that you can revoke the CO.
We did just that when we expanded our pistol and rifle club's shooting facilities. We agreed to curtail Sunday shooting hours for reasons of noise to get our building permit and CO for the new facilities. If we violate our agreement for Sunday shooting hours, they can revoke the CO and stop all shooting there.
What annoyed me about the comment was the implication that it was alwaysright's road. That somehow he could prevent something by reason of ownership. His/her words implied that these people weren't wanted in that part of town with their "crap literature". The overall context was hatred not genuine concern for traffic and safety issues. I can debate traffic and safety and I can see the other side of the coin. But I can't see what intended meaning alwaysright's comment has other than hatred. The town owns the road. Paying taxes doesn't give you anything but a receipt for payment. I don't understand the position that people take when they feel that paying taxes somehow gives them the right to dictate and make demands of others and other's people property. Farid has a buy-contract and PZ contingency which essentially means he bought the land, for all intents and purposes, and therefore wouldn't that road also then be his as fellow taxpayer? The tax payment was not big enough for the level of power to rise to dictation. The agreed upon form of government dictates that PZ has final say, not the taxpayers.
As I have said, and I will repeat it. Land convenants trump PZ any day. Gated communities are far more reliable and far more advantageous for reasons of remedy than PZ ever will. The neighborhood people should buy that land and set it aside for open space.
You bring up a good point. Right now there is no restriction on parking. This is something that could be looked at.
I would love to make that land open space, however, it is my understanding (although I have not verified this) that the real estate contract of sale remains in force as long as the applicant is pursuing town approvals, with no time limit set on this. If true, this is unfortunate for the sellers as they could be strung along for who knows how long.
There are many posters on this blog that seem to have no point but to "stir the pot". That really detracts from those who are trying to get a balanced understanding of the issues. I just hope that people use more than this blog to get their perspective. Visiting the other mosques in the area and attending the P&Z meetings will give you a much different perspective than you will get from just reading the blogs.
Jim N
06-30-2008, 08:58 PM
I maybe mistaken in my history, wasn't the US founded by people who were persecuted for their religious beliefs? Doesn't the first amendment begin with the RIGHT to freedom of religion? Isn't the Christian faith suppose to be built on tolerance and love thy neighbor? Maybe it wasn't the Christians who slaughtered the Muslims during the crusades and the practitioners of the Old Religions during the witchcraft craft trials? I could be mistaken in this.
I find it so amazing that that the practitioners of all religions preach tolerance and love for mankind up until they have to put into practice. There was a movie years ago "Billy Jack" the theme song was "One Tin Soldier". The part that has stayed with me was the treasure on the mountain.
All the mountain people were slain after offering to share the treasure with the valley people "then valley people turned the stone and looked beneath it. Peace on Earth was all it said".
I thought the responsibility of parents were to teach their children love and tolerance. Remember the hatred you plant today may not affect you but it will your children and all your future generations as will the love tolerance and patience.
speakerguy
06-30-2008, 09:26 PM
I maybe mistaken in my history, wasn't the US founded by people who were persecuted for their religious beliefs? Doesn't the first amendment begin with the RIGHT to freedom of religion? Isn't the Christian faith suppose to be built on tolerance and love thy neighbor? Maybe it wasn't the Christians who slaughtered the Muslims during the crusades and the practitioners of the Old Religions during the witchcraft craft trials? I could be mistaken in this.
I find it so amazing that that the practitioners of all religions preach tolerance and love for mankind up until they have to put into practice. There was a movie years ago "Billy Jack" the theme song was "One Tin Soldier". The part that has stayed with me was the treasure on the mountain.
All the mountain people were slain after offering to share the treasure with the valley people "then valley people turned the stone and looked beneath it. Peace on Earth was all it said".
I thought the responsibility of parents were to teach their children love and tolerance. Remember the hatred you plant today may not affect you but it will your children and all your future generations as will the love tolerance and patience.
The First Amendment of the Constitution protects freedom of Religion. Muslims are guaranteed the right under the First Amendment to practice their Religion. However, the First Amendment does not say that they are guaranteed the right to practice their Religion at 105-109 Leigus Road, Wallingford CT. In order to do that, under the Laws of the Town of Wallingford, they must apply for a special permit. If they can show that they meet all the criteria under the special permit rules, then, and only then, will they have the right to practice their Religion at 105-109 Leigus Road, Wallingford, CT.
No one has EVER said that they do not have the right to practice their Religion. The applicant was free to choose another property in Wallingford that did not require a special permit. However, that is not what he chose.
leigusite
06-30-2008, 10:59 PM
[QUOTE=Fine Whine]I didn't say anything about a "hidden agenda".
To return to the question of parking. the property in question is almost 6 acres. That is more than 230,000 square feet. Any parking required for the application can be accommodated on that site.
Fine Whine--parking at Mortgage Lenders would not be allowable due to the fact that no one is allowed onto the property for insurance reasons---when a mountain lion was seen on the grounds of Mortgage Lenders several months ago, one of the residents tried to put a wildlife, motion detector camera near the den of the mountain lion and then subsequently was told to remove the camera because he was trespassing and that Workstage did not want to be held liable for any possible injuries he may sustain on their property. Also, if overflow parking was needed that just proves the point--TOO MUCH TRAFFIC and furthermore, if & when Mortgage Lenders ever becomes fully occupied, there would be no room to park cars for the mosque and again for insurance reasons , they would be opening themselves up for potential lawsuits if someone got injured on their property.
Fine Whine
06-30-2008, 11:16 PM
[QUOTE=Fine Whine]
To return to the question of parking. the property in question is almost 6 acres. That is more than 230,000 square feet. Any parking required for the application can be accommodated on that site.
Fine Whine--parking at Mortgage Lenders would not be allowable due to the fact that no one is allowed onto the property for insurance reasons
You misunderstood my comment. 230,000 sq ft is the rough equivalent of 5.66 acres, the area of the site in question. I wasn't suggesting use of the MLN site.
leigusite
06-30-2008, 11:19 PM
[QUOTE=Fine Whine]
Don't move next to something you don't like and then complain about it.
You're right---the proposed mosque site was RESIDENTIAL when I bought my house--and it should remain that way-----RESIDENTIAL--if Mr. Farid feels that the neighborhood is racist, then he should adhere to your above comment!
Fine Whine
07-01-2008, 08:06 AM
[QUOTE=Fine Whine]
Don't move next to something you don't like and then complain about it.
You're right---the proposed mosque site was RESIDENTIAL when I bought my house--and it should remain that way-----RESIDENTIAL--if Mr. Farid feels that the neighborhood is racist, then he should adhere to your above comment!
You've taken my comment completely out of context. (It was in response to one of your group members continual complaints about living next to thecommercially zoned MLN property.)
But actually, I somewhat agree with you.
Members of the Fairlawn Farms/Leigus Road area have expressed some views that I find uncomfortable. One was a parent, which is sad since it reveals that the neighborhood is a breeding ground for prejudice.
Other comments posted here contains statements that contain hatred. Toxic was a comment used to describe this area. That is an appropriate description. The way that your group has conducted themselves has sometimes been disturbing.
It would not surprise me if it continued or took on other forms after the Mosque is built.
[QUOTE=Fine Whine]
Don't move next to something you don't like and then complain about it.
You're right---the proposed mosque site was RESIDENTIAL when I bought my house--and it should remain that way-----RESIDENTIAL--if Mr. Farid feels that the neighborhood is racist, then he should adhere to your above comment!
PZ has the right to change the zoning through a petition as Farid has done. PZ can listen to the people, but can do what it likes. Under the current system there is no guarantee that your zoning will not change.
Prejudice
07-01-2008, 09:12 AM
[QUOTE=leigusite]
PZ has the right to change the zoning through a petition as Farid has done. PZ can listen to the people, but can do what it likes. Under the current system there is no guarantee that your zoning will not change.
A zone change is not part of this application and is not necessary. Places of Worship are allowed in Residential Zones through the Special Permit process.
The Special Permit process is not a zone change nor a Variance.
Uses allowed in Residential zones are not restricted to homes. The Zoning Regulations list all of the other uses. Any property that abuts a busy road like Route 68 is unappealing for a residence and may not be the highest and best use.
Someone suggested that the residents should purchase this property if the application for the Mosque fails. That is certainly a solution to part of this issue and one that would not be a substantial expense for the residents given the number of opponents.
The other part of the solution is how to resolve the problem of the prejudice that has been exposed. That is a greater problem than how to use this 5.66 acre property.
citizen
07-01-2008, 09:44 AM
The First Amendment of the Constitution protects freedom of Religion. Muslims are guaranteed the right under the First Amendment to practice their Religion. However, the First Amendment does not say that they are guaranteed the right to practice their Religion at 105-109 Leigus Road, Wallingford CT. In order to do that, under the Laws of the Town of Wallingford, they must apply for a special permit. If they can show that they meet all the criteria under the special permit rules, then, and only then, will they have the right to practice their Religion at 105-109 Leigus Road, Wallingford, CT.
No one has EVER said that they do not have the right to practice their Religion. The applicant was free to choose another property in Wallingford that did not require a special permit. However, that is not what he chose.
Federal laws are supreme and acts of Congress trump whatever Wallingford tries to do. Special permit or not, if the mosque shows a substantial burden on free exercise or that they're being treated on less than equal terms with a secular comparator the town's toast. If they fight it in court and lose, they'll go broke paying the mosque's attorney fees. If they fight and win, they'll go almost broke paying their own. The federal law is a bludgeon; it's best to just stay out of the way of its strike and lobby Congress for help.
speakerguy
07-01-2008, 12:57 PM
Federal laws are supreme and acts of Congress trump whatever Wallingford tries to do. Special permit or not, if the mosque shows a substantial burden on free exercise or that they're being treated on less than equal terms with a secular comparator the town's toast. If they fight it in court and lose, they'll go broke paying the mosque's attorney fees. If they fight and win, they'll go almost broke paying their own. The federal law is a bludgeon; it's best to just stay out of the way of its strike and lobby Congress for help.
Who says that the feds always win? There are MANY, MANY cases where state and local governments have control. That was the nature of the system when it was set up by the founding fathers to ensure that this did not become a dictatorship.
How are we causing any burden on anyones free exercise of Religion? There are many available parcels in Wallingford that the applicant could have chosen that do not require a special permit. However, this was not the route that the applicant chose. As such, he must comply with the criteria for the special permit. The Federal Government cannot stick their nose in and say "You cannot require a special permit for this application." They would be totally overstepping their bounds. All I ask is that the town do its due diligence and proper planning as it relates to this proposal. Just as they would do for any other application. The fact is that Muslims choose to have their weekly prayer service on Friday between 1pm and 2 pm, which is a workday. This is different from the Judeo-Christian religions that have their services on the weekend. This creates a different dynamic regarding traffic, number of vehicle trips, etc. that needs to be investigated to see what difference that makes.
This in NO WAY constitues hindering their right to practice their religion.
citizen
07-01-2008, 01:25 PM
Who says that the feds always win? There are MANY, MANY cases where state and local governments have control. That was the nature of the system when it was set up by the founding fathers to ensure that this did not become a dictatorship.
How are we causing any burden on anyones free exercise of Religion? There are many available parcels in Wallingford that the applicant could have chosen that do not require a special permit. However, this was not the route that the applicant chose. As such, he must comply with the criteria for the special permit. The Federal Government cannot stick their nose in and say "You cannot require a special permit for this application." They would be totally overstepping their bounds. All I ask is that the town do its due diligence and proper planning as it relates to this proposal. Just as they would do for any other application. The fact is that Muslims choose to have their weekly prayer service on Friday between 1pm and 2 pm, which is a workday. This is different from the Judeo-Christian religions that have their services on the weekend. This creates a different dynamic regarding traffic, number of vehicle trips, etc. that needs to be investigated to see what difference that makes.
This in NO WAY constitues hindering their right to practice their religion.
I'm not saying the town created a substantial burden or not. That's a question for the courts and ultimately a jury. I'm saying the bar is relatively low and the cost steep. Many similar towns have backed down in the face of RLUIPA litigation and it wouldn't be surprising to see Wallingford fall in line to save its treasury. Politically, the town leadership is better off giving up, making a neighborhood mad and not going broke then going broke and getting voted out when they have to triple taxes to pay for the litigation. When it comes to the possibility of a legal fight it's not always about who is right because the town loses no matter what if they fight this thing.
As for why federal law trumps here, Congress has power to enforce the equal protection guarantees of the 14th amendment through appropriate legislation (See section 5 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution). Article VI, Clause 2 of the same document makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Thus, where it is empowered to act (as it is here according to several federal circuit courts and the logic of the supreme court in Boerne v. Flores to enforce civil rights guarantees), its law trumps Wallingford's law plain and simple and without doubt. Where they are in conflict the federal law wins 100% of the time. It's basic constitutional law and civics.
Argue if you wish (and I'd agree with you) that it's a bad law that goes way too far (and this may be exhibit A) and causes at least as much harm as good but you can't say the law isn't supreme and quite applicable here.
speakerguy
07-01-2008, 01:38 PM
I'm not saying the town created a substantial burden or not. That's a question for the courts and ultimately a jury. I'm saying the bar is relatively low and the cost steep. Many similar towns have backed down in the face of RLUIPA litigation and it wouldn't be surprising to see Wallingford fall in line to save its treasury. Politically, the town leadership is better off giving up, making a neighborhood mad and not going broke then going broke and getting voted out when they have to triple taxes to pay for the litigation. When it comes to the possibility of a legal fight it's not always about who is right because the town loses no matter what if they fight this thing.
As for why federal law trumps here, Congress has power to enforce the equal protection guarantees of the 14th amendment through appropriate legislation (See section 5 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution). Article VI, Clause 2 of the same document makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Thus, where it is empowered to act (as it is here according to several federal circuit courts and the logic of the supreme court in Boerne v. Flores to enforce civil rights guarantees), its law trumps Wallingford's law plain and simple and without doubt. Where they are in conflict the federal law wins 100% of the time. It's basic constitutional law and civics.
Argue if you wish (and I'd agree with you) that it's a bad law that goes way too far (and this may be exhibit A) and causes at least as much harm as good but you can't say the law isn't supreme and quite applicable here.
You are assuming that the law applies in this case. I am not an attorney but have spoken to one who feels that it does not. The legal eagles will battle this one out. That being said, any government agency that does not perform their due diligence out of fear of federal prosecution is being irresponsible.
[QUOTE=eds]
A zone change is not part of this application and is not necessary. Places of Worship are allowed in Residential Zones through the Special Permit process.
The Special Permit process is not a zone change nor a Variance.
Uses allowed in Residential zones are not restricted to homes. The Zoning Regulations list all of the other uses. Any property that abuts a busy road like Route 68 is unappealing for a residence and may not be the highest and best use.
Someone suggested that the residents should purchase this property if the application for the Mosque fails. That is certainly a solution to part of this issue and one that would not be a substantial expense for the residents given the number of opponents.
The other part of the solution is how to resolve the problem of the prejudice that has been exposed. That is a greater problem than how to use this 5.66 acre property.
Actually it was I who suggested that they residents purchase when and if Farid drops the buyers contract. Thanks for clarification. It's what I meant. It's up to PZ in the end.
I would say that RLUIPA applies in this case. Its not that Feds are saying Wallingford cannot require a special permit. They say that Wallingford must justify why that use would be denied but showing a substantial burden. Would traffic count as a substantial burden? That is what would be decided in court if Farid decides to sue under that act in federal court. Under that act, it matters not that other parcels exist for Farid to choose. It matters that he chose this parcel and that is the parcel that will be considered in the case.
Wallyworldite
07-01-2008, 10:36 PM
I'm not saying the town created a substantial burden or not. That's a question for the courts and ultimately a jury. I'm saying the bar is relatively low and the cost steep. Many similar towns have backed down in the face of RLUIPA litigation and it wouldn't be surprising to see Wallingford fall in line to save its treasury. Politically, the town leadership is better off giving up, making a neighborhood mad and not going broke then going broke and getting voted out when they have to triple taxes to pay for the litigation. When it comes to the possibility of a legal fight it's not always about who is right because the town loses no matter what if they fight this thing.
As for why federal law trumps here, Congress has power to enforce the equal protection guarantees of the 14th amendment through appropriate legislation (See section 5 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution). Article VI, Clause 2 of the same document makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Thus, where it is empowered to act (as it is here according to several federal circuit courts and the logic of the supreme court in Boerne v. Flores to enforce civil rights guarantees), its law trumps Wallingford's law plain and simple and without doubt. Where they are in conflict the federal law wins 100% of the time. It's basic constitutional law and civics.
Argue if you wish (and I'd agree with you) that it's a bad law that goes way too far (and this may be exhibit A) and causes at least as much harm as good but you can't say the law isn't supreme and quite applicable here.
In February of this year, our state supreme court addressed the RLUIPA in the case of Cambodian Buddhists Society v. Town of Newtown. In that case, (as in this) the applicants were seeking a special permit to build a religious facility. In that case, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the application based upon traffic and parking concerns. In that case, The applicant appealed, AND LOST. Our Supreme Court basically said that just because it is a religious group it does not get special protections it said that special permit regulations (Newtown's is very similar to Wallingford's) the scrutiny does not apply and as long as the regulation applies to all religious groups that a claim of violation of RLUIPA has no merit at all. :cool:
Still Farid could tie up the town in litigation and make it a costly battle to win. Which is the point that was being made.
speakerguy
07-02-2008, 08:18 AM
Still Farid could tie up the town in litigation and make it a costly battle to win. Which is the point that was being made.
Assuming that the Town had acted properly, not litigating because it would be costly would set a VERY bad precedent that would end up costing the town much more in the long run.
Prejudice
07-02-2008, 08:44 AM
Assuming that the Town had acted properly, not litigating because it would be costly would set a VERY bad precedent that would end up costing the town much more in the long run.
The only valid issue is parking. If the applicant can prove there will be adequate on-site parking, and traffic will not impact existing conditions, there is no reason to vote down the application.
The fact that their services are at different times from the commercial rush hour traffic in the area removes most any impact.
Leigus is not a heavily traveled road as it is. I have never experienced more than 2 or 3 cars queued on Leigus at ANY time of the day.
The fact that the site abuts Route 68 at the faarrrrr end of Leigus also removes any traffic impact away from the residents.
doughageman
07-02-2008, 09:40 AM
In February of this year, our state supreme court addressed the RLUIPA ....
Connecticut has it's own version; however RLUIPA is federal and as such would not be heard by CT courts.
The federal statute also calls for monetary damages; the state law does not.
Regarding others who have expressed opinions that the law "goes too far"; in some cases a definite "maybe".
However having witnessed over-zealous town planners first hand as former chair of the Southington ZBA, I can cite too many cases where the town tried to put a church through the hoops for no good reason.
IE: A full site plan (which can cost over $5,000 or more) was requested prior to a church putting up a tent for a week or two.
Can you imagine filing a site plan prior to putting up a tent in your backyard prior to a large family gathering?
Me neither.
citizen
07-02-2008, 04:19 PM
Connecticut has it's own version; however RLUIPA is federal and as such would not be heard by CT courts.
The federal statute also calls for monetary damages; the state law does not.
Regarding others who have expressed opinions that the law "goes too far"; in some cases a definite "maybe".
However having witnessed over-zealous town planners first hand as former chair of the Southington ZBA, I can cite too many cases where the town tried to put a church through the hoops for no good reason.
IE: A full site plan (which can cost over $5,000 or more) was requested prior to a church putting up a tent for a week or two.
Can you imagine filing a site plan prior to putting up a tent in your backyard prior to a large family gathering?
Me neither.
Just as point of fact, the case referenced above in the CT Supreme Court WAS with respect to RLUIPA and to a lesser degree the state statute. Justice Palmer's opinion is here: http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR285/285CR143.pdf
I think the law certainly goes too far in that it allows religious groups to wield it like a bludgeon. A more narrowly tailored statute could probably curb overzealous, bigoted planning abuses. However, if courts like the state supreme court interpret the law as being little more than codification of the 1st amendment (a pure misreading and misguided interpretation in my opinion) the law will be essentially neutered and moot.
I don't think the back and forth between the us supreme court and congress is over on this one yet...
Fit 2 Print
07-02-2008, 05:33 PM
I know that Most Holy Trinity Church (Rt. 5 and Center St. in downtown Wallingford) is "grandfathered" with respect to current zoning.
Still, amdist intense traffic congestion in that area, it handles hundreds of cars for weekday funerals, weddings and weekend liturgies without a problem.
Just look about Holy Trinity Church -- traffic galore, replete with railroad tracks and station and numerous businesses and much pedestrian traffic, too! MANY hundreds of people coming and going on a regular basis.
Yet, it all works out.
If traffic is the REAL issue at Leigus for the mosque, I say Holy Trinity more than proves it's possible to deal deftly with the consideration -- and for decades, too! I would hate to think that Holy Trinity, were it being formed and built today, would be denied its genesis . . .[/B]
Prejudice
07-02-2008, 08:29 PM
Many aspects of this report sound all too familiar to the Wallingford application:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-03-08-mosque-opposition_x.htm
leigusite
07-02-2008, 09:50 PM
I know that Most Holy Trinity Church (Rt. 5 and Center St. in downtown Wallingford) is "grandfathered" with respect to current zoning.
Still, amdist intense traffic congestion in that area, it handles hundreds of cars for weekday funerals, weddings and weekend liturgies without a problem.
Just look about Holy Trinity Church -- traffic galore, replete with railroad tracks and station and numerous businesses and much pedestrian traffic, too! MANY hundreds of people coming and going on a regular basis.
Yet, it all works out.
If traffic is the REAL issue at Leigus for the mosque, I say Holy Trinity more than proves it's possible to deal deftly with the consideration -- and for decades, too! I would hate to think that Holy Trinity, were it being formed and built today, would be denied its genesis . . .[/B]
Holy Trinity has a lot more parking than the mosque would--also it's in a commercial area--not residential--and traffic is the REAL issue-and yes--if Holy Trinity were going in instead of the mosque--people would STILL BE AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC---I seriously doubt Holy Trinity would be approved if they applied for a variance in 2008 as opposed to when it was built close to 80 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
leigusite
07-02-2008, 09:53 PM
The only valid issue is parking. If the applicant can prove there will be adequate on-site parking, and traffic will not impact existing conditions, there is no reason to vote down the application.
The fact that their services are at different times from the commercial rush hour traffic in the area removes most any impact.
Leigus is not a heavily traveled road as it is. I have never experienced more than 2 or 3 cars queued on Leigus at ANY time of the day.
The fact that the site abuts Route 68 at the faarrrrr end of Leigus also removes any traffic impact away from the residents.
Hello is anyone home--duh--What about the traffic from a 230.000 square foot building when it is occupied by a company possibly operating 24/7? big enough where Workstage even had plans to have a shuttle bus to ferry the passengers on the site!
leigusite
07-02-2008, 09:58 PM
Many aspects of this report sound all too familiar to the Wallingford application:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-03-08-mosque-opposition_x.htm
I read the article in USA Today---very interesting ---but traffic remains the issue--you seem like a level-headed person--why not have the mosque and it's associated traffic from a 'small family mosque' located in YOUR neighborhood---you'd probably be up in arms too--better reading for you and all the other 'non believers' is to read the peer review traffic study---maybe you could expand your horizons and come to the same conclusion as the neighborhood has in Fairlawn Farms---(can you read thru your rose-colored glasses?)
Prejudice
07-02-2008, 10:45 PM
--why not have the mosque and it's associated traffic from a 'small family mosque' located in YOUR neighborhood---you'd probably be up in arms too--
Insults are distracting and unnecessary.
As I have stated in prior posts, I do live in this general area and the same distance from this site as many opponents, some of whom regularly post to this blog.
leigusite
07-02-2008, 11:57 PM
[QUOTE=Prejudice]Insults are distracting and unnecessary.
What I find distracting and unnecessry is that you and others brand EVERYONE in Fairlawn Farms as racist---] and say 'we' have a hidden agenda against Muslims and that we are 'hiding' behind traffic concerns. Please stick to FACTS not Fiction
Prejudice
07-03-2008, 12:16 AM
[QUOTE=Prejudice]Insults are distracting and unnecessary.
What I find distracting and unnecessry is that you and others brand EVERYONE in Fairlawn Farms as racist---] and say 'we' have a hidden agenda against Muslims and that we are 'hiding' behind traffic concerns. Please stick to FACTS not Fiction
On 6/20/2008 in this blog, you posted an article by a Baptists minister titled the Muslim March Across America.
That had nothing to do with traffic nor anything to do with this application. It was an article posted to incite and raise questions about Muslims allegedly wanting to take over the United States.
If you want to make traffic the issue, you shouldn't post such an article.
And by posting something like that piece, you further the perception that you are indeed prejudice against Muslims and your agenda is indeed to keep members of this religion out of your neighborhood.
Fine Whine
07-03-2008, 10:02 AM
[QUOTE=Prejudice]Insults are distracting and unnecessary.
What I find distracting and unnecessary is that you and others brand EVERYONE in Fairlawn Farms as racist---] and say 'we' have a hidden agenda against Muslims and that we are 'hiding' behind traffic concerns. Please stick to FACTS not Fiction
YOU are the perfect example of why your group is seen as hypocrites. You think that by saying traffic is your concern, people will not see your real concern which is having someone different in your midst.
Your entry that copied the article referenced above, The Muslim March Across America, exposed you.
Whether this application is voted up or down will not change the fact that your group are untruthful.
speakerguy
07-03-2008, 12:02 PM
[QUOTE=leigusite]
YOU are the perfect example of why your group is seen as hypocrites. You think that by saying traffic is your concern, people will not see your real concern which is having someone different in your midst.
Your entry that copied the article referenced above, The Muslim March Across America, exposed you.
Whether this application is voted up or down will not change the fact that your group are untruthful.
Everyone needs to stop throwing rocks at each other!
I have several questions for all the folks that think this application should be approved:
1. Have you witnessed first hand the parking problems at other mosques in the area? If not, can you at least agree that the existing zoning regulations have not done a very good job of estimating the parking demand at these moques?
2. Can you agree that due to the close proximity of this site to I-91, that it is very possible that this mosque may attract more worshippers than other mosques that do not offer such easy access?
3. Can you agree that more than 65% of the proposed site is protected wetlands that cannot ever be developed?
4. Can you agree that since the service will be held on Friday at 1pm, a workday, that most, if not all, of the worshippers will be coming from work?
5. Can you agree that Judeo-Christian services held on Saturday and Sunday have most of the worshippers coming from their homes, and not from work?
6. Can you agree that there is no mass public transportation to bring worshippers to the proposed site?
7. Can you agree that due to the differences between points 4 and 5 above, it will take more cars to bring "X" number of people to the proposed service than it would to bring "X" number of people to a Judeo-Christian service.
8. Can you agree that the Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion in the US?
9. Can you agree that the nature of Planning is to look out to the distant future, not just look at today?
10. Can you agree that ultimately the actual capacity of the building will determine the maximum number of attendees.
11. Can you agree that, if we are really going to plan for the future, the parking requirements should be based on the ultimate capacity of the building.
12. Can you agree that, if it is determined that proposed parking is not enough to meet the maximum capacity of the building, then the site should be large enough to expand the parking to meet that maximum capacity?
13. Can you agree that, due to point 3 above, if it can be shown that the site is not large enough to expand the parking to meet the maximum capacity, then there is a legitimate concern about the suitability of this site?
Remember that Planning is about preparing for the future, and not just the near future. They need to look out 5, 10, or even more years to project what the situation will be then. I have 28 years left on my mortgage so I feel I have a right to be concerned about making sure the proposed site will be suitable, or at least adaptable, for the reasonable expected growth that we could see over the next few decades.
One final question:
14. After reading all of the above, is there any part of my discussion that is biased, or is it just legitimate concerns based on the facts/data that I have gathered?
I welcome discussion of these points that does not include rock throwing.
Jack357
07-03-2008, 12:54 PM
"6. Can you agree that there is no mass public transportation to bring worshippers to the proposed site?"
What public mass transportation system is there that provides service to the rest of the places of worship in Wallingford?
Last I knew Wallingford does not have a public mass transportation system. With the exception of a minimal senior transportation system.
Fine Whine
07-03-2008, 12:58 PM
Many if not most of your points are based solely on assumptions.
You assume that not only the attendance at the other well-attended Mosque's in the area should serve as a benchmark for attendance at this Mosque. One could use your logic to argue that the others not as well-attended should serve as the benchmark.
I-91 might only serve as an attraction if and only if they are oriented near I-91.
3 is irrelevant if the application meets parking requirements.
4,5,6,7 and your conclusion are purely speculation.
8 is a point of information.
9 this is a zoning mater not a planning matter. Planning is done in advance of enactment of regulations.
10 is a matter for the regulations already in place.
11 Parking requirements are based on formulas according to specific uses. I do not necessarily agree with our Town Engineer's statement that a Mosque does not fall under the parking requirements that reference "Other Places of Worship". I also do not believe that Mr. Thompson has any experience with Planning and Zoning. He was schooled as a traffic engineer.
Your remaining points ramble-on about your assumptions.
A question that has been in my mind is if and how many of the opponents attended the meeting with Mr. Farid that was open to the public prior to his presentation before the Planning & Zoning Commission?
final version...it took a bit to write this out. I really did give your points a lot of consideration.
1. Have you witnessed first hand the parking problems at other mosques in the area? If not, can you at least agree that the existing zoning regulations have not done a very good job of estimating the parking demand at these moques?
What other towns did or did not do to verify parking has no bearing on this application. It is up to Wallingford P&Z and not Berlin P&Z nor Meriden P&Z to determine if the site can support the parking. The amount of parking is not limitless and neither is the amount of attendees. I still think that if you clearly mark the street with no parking signs and then enforce it with ticket/tow you will get compliance. People could park on the street anyway even if there was ample parking in the lot, just by preference.
2. Can you agree that due to the close proximity of this site to I-91, that it is very possible that this mosque may attract more worshippers than other mosques that do not offer such easy access?
You make it sound like there is this population of stranded Muslims that are just waiting for a place to attend worship services that is accessible by highway. Proximity does not dictate who will attend unless you know the population of Muslims who want to attend and who want to use the highwat and from that population who will really attend that mosque or stay with the one they currently attend if any. It is a probability model that you need to create to determine the probability that given a Muslim, what is the chance the Muslim will attend that specific mosque. You cannot estimate that reliably ever. But you could cap the parking at a specific amount Mr Farid would have to live with. No development can ever *reliably* predict who will come to it.
3. Can you agree that more than 65% of the proposed site is protected wetlands that cannot ever be developed?
I disagree. Wetlands already ruled no impact. So either Wallingford has idiots running wetlands, or Wallingford has people who know about these things and there really is no impact. Personally I don't think wetlands should stop development. I think protected wetlands is a violation of individual property rights. I like nature and animals and insects but I also think if they are to be saved it should be up to the people who own their land. Not forced by government.
4. Can you agree that since the service will be held on Friday at 1pm, a workday, that most, if not all, of the worshippers will be coming from work?
I don't think is entirely a true statement. Friday is considered a Sabbath day for some Muslims, the day of El-Gumah, and they do not work. From the Quran, 62:09-10, "Oh you who believe! When the call is made for the Salah on Friday, come to the remembrance of Allah, and leave off business. That is better for you, if you only knew! And when the Salah has ended, you may disperse through the land, and seek the Bounty of Allah, and remember Allah much so that you may be successful." Salah means prayer.
Some Muslims do not follow Sabbath because they believe Allah is tireless. However for those that do they pick Friday. Friday is a very holy day to Muslims much as Sunday is to most Christians and Saturday to Jews. Some Muslims will work until the call to prayer and then stop working. So who will observe Friday and will work? Hard to say.
Again the population of who will attend and who will come from work would have to be determine by statistical sample. So its not about who live in the area who is Muslim, but more about who works in the area that is Muslim who would frequent the mosque after work on their way home. Either way, you cannot reliably determine that population without sampling the neighborhood with a large enough sampling say 1000 people.
5. Can you agree that Judeo-Christian services held on Saturday and Sunday have most of the worshippers coming from their homes, and not from work?
Again...same response. The origin of a worshipper is irrelevant without knowing the population size of all worshippers or statistically large enough sample.
6. Can you agree that there is no mass public transportation to bring worshippers to the proposed site?
Mass transit were it to be available would not necessarily mean they would use it. Some, like me, prefer their cars no matter what. Even if gas is $10 a gallon.
7. Can you agree that due to the differences between points 4 and 5 above, it will take more cars to bring "X" number of people to the proposed service than it would to bring "X" number of people to a Judeo-Christian service.
The number of cars is still the same. In Jewish or Christian worship, males and females are allowed into service. While in Islamic services, only males are required to attend worship services on Friday. So you still have the male of the house who works coming from work, or that same male coming from home. The only difference is that if there is a child in the house. Then the male father would leave work, pick up his son, then head back to the mosque, still having the same car. Again, Friday Saturday or Sunday means nothing. It is still the same number of cars, essentially one per family.
8. Can you agree that the Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion in the US?
I can only agree with that if you also state that Christianity and Judiasm are on the decline. In a recent article I read regarding Catholic and Christian attendance in Europe and especially in Britian, stated that attendance in those religions is down. But again, fastest growing means nothing unless quantified with a rate, as well as an application of that rate to the mosque in this area. Again all estimation and supposition.
9. Can you agree that the nature of Planning is to look out to the distant future, not just look at today?
I agree with that. Predicting the future however is subjective. One can predict the future outcome to make it what they want. In reality it is entirely without basis in fact. Its a gut call. Which is why it is up to a vote of the PZ as to how well they feel Farid predicts the future versus how well they feel they can predict the future. In reality it's anyone's best guess. Who has the better guess? That is what the PZ commission would have to determine.
10. Can you agree that ultimately the actual capacity of the building will determine the maximum number of attendees.
11. Can you agree that, if we are really going to plan for the future, the parking requirements should be based on the ultimate capacity of the building.
12. Can you agree that, if it is determined that proposed parking is not enough to meet the maximum capacity of the building, then the site should be large enough to expand the parking to meet that maximum capacity?
13. Can you agree that, due to point 3 above, if it can be shown that the site is not large enough to expand the parking to meet the maximum capacity, then there is a legitimate concern about the suitability of this site?
Maximum capacity of the current building assumes no additions to the building. Also it assumes that a mass transit system, as you suggest, doesn't get developed in the future. It also assumes that Islam would continue on its path of growth, whatever rate that might be. Whatever the building size is that will be built, it can hold only so many people. However, Muslims can worship in any location, without a building. I know this because I see pictures of Muslims praying on their knees facing Mecca using only a blanket outside in large courtyards. Then what? They are not in the building? But if you don't consider that, then just look at the capacity of the building, which I believe is 300 people, if I remember correctly. That's 300 cars assuming worst case 1 per car. The site is nearly 6 acres, or 261,360 square feet. At approximate 300 sq ft per parking stall, and assuming 5000 square foot for the building, you could park approximately 854 cars assuming they were lined up without aisles to get to the cars. Since this is not lilkely, then assume half of that as a conservative estimate. That is about 400 cars. Seems like enough space to me.
Is the issue keeping all the cars in the parking lot or is it traffic at the intersection?
Remember that Planning is about preparing for the future, and not just the near future. They need to look out 5, 10, or even more years to project what the situation will be then. I have 28 years left on my mortgage so I feel I have a right to be concerned about making sure the proposed site will be suitable, or at least adaptable, for the reasonable expected growth that we could see over the next few decades.
One final question:
14. After reading all of the above, is there any part of my discussion that is biased, or is it just legitimate concerns based on the facts/data that I have gathered?
I welcome discussion of these points that does not include rock throwing.
I don't think this is biased. So hopefully I don't appear biased either.
This is an exercise in futility, for both sides. No one is an expert here, no one knows how it will end. It is all speculation... The only way to stop something is to stop. Therefore, today I stop. Have a great weekend and a Safe and Happy 4th of July! :)
speakerguy
07-03-2008, 01:33 PM
"6. Can you agree that there is no mass public transportation to bring worshippers to the proposed site?"
What public mass transportation system is there that provides service to the rest of the places of worship in Wallingford?
Last I knew Wallingford does not have a public mass transportation system. With the exception of a minimal senior transportation system.
I disagree. Where is the bias? The point is that the only way to get to the proposed site is by car. I agree that most of Connecticut does not have a good mass transportation system. That doesn't make my statement biased, in my opinion. One could take Amtrak to get to Holy Trinity, although it would not be that convenient....
OK, so even if you remove point 6 from my argument, does that negate any of the other points?
This is an exercise in futility, for both sides. No one is an expert here, no one knows how it will end. It is all speculation... The only way to stop something is to stop. Therefore, today I stop. Have a great weekend and a Safe and Happy 4th of July! :)
We may not be experts at this, but are logical thinkers. At least some of us are. We also have feelings about our neighborhood and our society and sometimes those feelings are expressed in ways that unintentionally offend other people.
I think what people here are trying to do is to understand the situation, perhaps express their feelings about what is happening, and generally try to eliminate any fears that they might have by using communication. It can be frightening when your neighborhood changes drastically in ways you would not like it to. I can understand that and can accept that other people feel this way.
At some point this situation will end with a final ruling. And then we can all move on to something else like Obama vs Mcain.
Have a good 4th!
speakerguy
07-03-2008, 02:06 PM
Many if not most of your points are based solely on assumptions.
You assume that not only the attendance at the other well-attended Mosque's in the area should serve as a benchmark for attendance at this Mosque. One could use your logic to argue that the others not as well-attended should serve as the benchmark.
Response: In matters of zoning, the more restrictive regulation always takes precedence. So if it is a coin toss as to whether the parking will be like Berlin, or be like Hamden, the Zoning Board is obligated to assume it will be like Berlin, unless there is very compelling evidence showing otherwise. I have seen no such evidence to date.
I-91 might only serve as an attraction if and only if they are oriented near I-91.
Response: The proposed site is several hundred yards from Exit 15 of I-91. Seems to me that makes it very convenient to get to from I-91.
3 is irrelevant if the application meets parking requirements.
Reponse: You are absolutely correct, but only when you determine what the correct parking requirements are. And that hasn't been done yet.
4,5,6,7 and your conclusion are purely speculation.
Response: Exactly. Proper Planning is all about speculation. And I feel that the assumtions I am making in my speculation are reasonable. The Planning and Zoning Board along with the expert engineers will do their own speculation. Theirs counts and mine doesn't. I admit that. But I still feel obligated to myself and my neighbors to perform my own speculation.
8 is a point of information.
Response: Correct. A point of information to show that the attendance at mosques will grow at a faster rate than for other faiths. A fact that must be taken into account when doing Planning.
9 this is a zoning mater not a planning matter. Planning is done in advance of enactment of regulations.
Response: The application was not made to the Zoning Board. It was made to the Planning and Zoning Board. Planning is not just done in advance of the enactment of regulations. It is a continuous process. Regulations are put in place to address public concerns. An application must meet the intent of the regulation, not just the written letter of the regulation. That is why all towns hire Professional Engineers to interpret and evaluate the applications and the regulations. If it was as simple as you assume, once the regulations are written, a lay person would be capable of determining if something meets the regulations. This is simply not true.
10 is a matter for the regulations already in place.
Response: Please advise which regulation in place I should use to determine the maximum number of attendees.
11 Parking requirements are based on formulas according to specific uses. I do not necessarily agree with our Town Engineer's statement that a Mosque does not fall under the parking requirements that reference "Other Places of Worship". I also do not believe that Mr. Thompson has any experience with Planning and Zoning. He was schooled as a traffic engineer.
Response: Mr. Thompson attends every Planning and Zoning meeting and the board looks to him for interpretation of the regulations. So he has YEARS of experience with Planning and Zoning. As a traffic engineer, one of the aspects of the job is determining parking requirements.
Your remaining points ramble-on about your assumptions.
A question that has been in my mind is if and how many of the opponents attended the meeting with Mr. Farid that was open to the public prior to his presentation before the Planning & Zoning Commission?
Response: Mr. Farid only invited those people who have property that directly adjoins the proposed site. As such, I never received an invitation nor has the opportunity to attend. I would have been there had I known about it.
speakerguy
07-03-2008, 03:33 PM
final version...it took a bit to write this out. I really did give your points a lot of consideration.
What other towns did or did not do to verify parking has no bearing on this application. It is up to Wallingford P&Z and not Berlin P&Z nor Meriden P&Z to determine if the site can support the parking. The amount of parking is not limitless and neither is the amount of attendees. I still think that if you clearly mark the street with no parking signs and then enforce it with ticket/tow you will get compliance. People could park on the street anyway even if there was ample parking in the lot, just by preference.
You make it sound like there is this population of stranded Muslims that are just waiting for a place to attend worship services that is accessible by highway. Proximity does not dictate who will attend unless you know the population of Muslims who want to attend and who want to use the highwat and from that population who will really attend that mosque or stay with the one they currently attend if any. It is a probability model that you need to create to determine the probability that given a Muslim, what is the chance the Muslim will attend that specific mosque. You cannot estimate that reliably ever. But you could cap the parking at a specific amount Mr Farid would have to live with. No development can ever *reliably* predict who will come to it.
I disagree. Wetlands already ruled no impact. So either Wallingford has idiots running wetlands, or Wallingford has people who know about these things and there really is no impact. Personally I don't think wetlands should stop development. I think protected wetlands is a violation of individual property rights. I like nature and animals and insects but I also think if they are to be saved it should be up to the people who own their land. Not forced by government.
I don't think is entirely a true statement. Friday is considered a Sabbath day for some Muslims, the day of El-Gumah, and they do not work. From the Quran, 62:09-10, "Oh you who believe! When the call is made for the Salah on Friday, come to the remembrance of Allah, and leave off business. That is better for you, if you only knew! And when the Salah has ended, you may disperse through the land, and seek the Bounty of Allah, and remember Allah much so that you may be successful." Salah means prayer.
Some Muslims do not follow Sabbath because they believe Allah is tireless. However for those that do they pick Friday. Friday is a very holy day to Muslims much as Sunday is to most Christians and Saturday to Jews. Some Muslims will work until the call to prayer and then stop working. So who will observe Friday and will work? Hard to say.
Again the population of who will attend and who will come from work would have to be determine by statistical sample. So its not about who live in the area who is Muslim, but more about who works in the area that is Muslim who would frequent the mosque after work on their way home. Either way, you cannot reliably determine that population without sampling the neighborhood with a large enough sampling say 1000 people.
Again...same response. The origin of a worshipper is irrelevant without knowing the population size of all worshippers or statistically large enough sample.
Mass transit were it to be available would not necessarily mean they would use it. Some, like me, prefer their cars no matter what. Even if gas is $10 a gallon.
The number of cars is still the same. In Jewish or Christian worship, males and females are allowed into service. While in Islamic services, only males are required to attend worship services on Friday. So you still have the male of the house who works coming from work, or that same male coming from home. The only difference is that if there is a child in the house. Then the male father would leave work, pick up his son, then head back to the mosque, still having the same car. Again, Friday Saturday or Sunday means nothing. It is still the same number of cars, essentially one per family.
I can only agree with that if you also state that Christianity and Judiasm are on the decline. In a recent article I read regarding Catholic and Christian attendance in Europe and especially in Britian, stated that attendance in those religions is down. But again, fastest growing means nothing unless quantified with a rate, as well as an application of that rate to the mosque in this area. Again all estimation and supposition.
I agree with that. Predicting the future however is subjective. One can predict the future outcome to make it what they want. In reality it is entirely without basis in fact. Its a gut call. Which is why it is up to a vote of the PZ as to how well they feel Farid predicts the future versus how well they feel they can predict the future. In reality it's anyone's best guess. Who has the better guess? That is what the PZ commission would have to determine.
Maximum capacity of the current building assumes no additions to the building. Also it assumes that a mass transit system, as you suggest, doesn't get developed in the future. It also assumes that Islam would continue on its path of growth, whatever rate that might be. Whatever the building size is that will be built, it can hold only so many people. However, Muslims can worship in any location, without a building. I know this because I see pictures of Muslims praying on their knees facing Mecca using only a blanket outside in large courtyards. Then what? They are not in the building? But if you don't consider that, then just look at the capacity of the building, which I believe is 300 people, if I remember correctly. That's 300 cars assuming worst case 1 per car. The site is nearly 6 acres, or 261,360 square feet. At approximate 300 sq ft per parking stall, and assuming 5000 square foot for the building, you could park approximately 854 cars assuming they were lined up without aisles to get to the cars. Since this is not lilkely, then assume half of that as a conservative estimate. That is about 400 cars. Seems like enough space to me.
Is the issue keeping all the cars in the parking lot or is it traffic at the intersection?
I don't think this is biased. So hopefully I don't appear biased either.
You do not appear to be biased either. I respect your counterpoints on all arguments but I strongly disagree on one. The one where you refer to the maximum capacity of parking for the site. Providing parking for 400 cars would be great, but it cannot be done on that site. The site itself is large, but 68% of it (I did the math from the site plan) is Wetlands. Wetlands are protected and cannot be developed. When you remove the wetlands, my calculation puts the maximum number of parking places that can be provided at around 150. My concern is that the capacity of the building will require more parking than that and eventually there will not be enough parking. And since the wetlands cannot be touched, there will be no remedy for the resulting parking problem. Proper planning is needed to anticipate and remediate this potential issue now, before its too late. This is exactly why planning and zoning laws were developed.
Fine Whine
07-03-2008, 04:20 PM
I don't know where to begin to address your misconceptions about Zoning, Zoning regulations, and some of your other points about the application process. There is not enough space here and this is not the forums for it either.
I will only make these two points.
Go into court with a denial that was not based on regulations, but only on "planning" and the judge with throw out the denial.
When I was on the P&Z, yes the Town Engineer was consulted during meetings but not on regulations but on matters concerning engineering.
speakerguy, thanks for reading my post.
Why wouldn't 150 parking spaces be adequate if the building was limited to 150-175 people by statute? Farid and the town could contract for that limit as a CO condition?
And I just want to give you some background about me so you know my philosophy.
As you might know, I am totally against any type of P&Z. I don't feel P&Z in any town serves their purpose since with enough money anything can be built, such as the ML building. Anyone can apply for a variance and viola! You get what you want. I believe more in land covenants. I also believe P&Z commissions violate the property rights of individuals.
Personally I think gated communities make for better living conditions. And they are not that expensive to live in. Condos are an example of just such a community. The condo association dictates what you can and cannot do with your unit and appearance. It guarantees that a uniform appearance will always be there. They can be restrictive in some cases, so one must find a community that is to one's liking. For example, my friends in Arizona live in such a community but it is a large development of houses not condos. They have a rule that no one can sell their house or rent it to anyone who is on a sex offender registry. And they will evict anyone who becomes placed upon one. You make any kind of rules you want in those kinds of communities because it is all by contract on private property, deeded as such with covenants.
And let me also add that although I dislike P&Z, at this point its all we have. Retroactively creating communities would require the participation of all current landowners that would encompass that community. That would be a difficult task to get all those people to buy in but it has been done.
speakerguy
07-03-2008, 04:56 PM
I don't know where to begin to address your misconceptions about Zoning, Zoning regulations, and some of your other points about the application process. There is not enough space here and this is not the forums for it either.
I will only make these two points.
Go into court with a denial that was not based on regulations, but only on "planning" and the judge with throw out the denial.
When I was on the P&Z, yes the Town Engineer was consulted during meetings but not on regulations but on matters concerning engineering.
OK. Let's for a second assume you are correct. And I have absolutely no basis for denying the application. What is the remedy for that site when the parking demand exceeds the maximum parking that can be provided?
The regulations and engineering are married. You cannot separate the two. The formulas used in the regulations are developed by engineers and maintained by engineers.
I am a licensed Professional Engineer and I have worked with electrical codes and standards for 20 years and I can tell you that the proper application of these codes and standards never hinges upon the literal written word but on the interpretation of the written word as it pertains to the intent of the requirement. THAT is the basis for my entire argument about the parking. The intent of the parking regulations is to ensure that there is adequate parking for the intended use. The Berlin, New Haven and West Haven mosques are living proof that the existing regulations do not adequately address the parking requirements for mosques. The responsible engineer, as I feel our town engineer is, would investigate this issue to verify whether or not the proposed parking is truly adequate, not just relying on the regulation, which he (or she) knows is inadequate, but to research the issue to determine WHY the other mosques are attracting more cars than the existing requlations anticipate and then apply those findings to the application at hand to determine its suitability. I have called that planning but it is really the proper application of the regulations.
These processes are the fundamentals that I was taught in engineering school. Are you saying that civil engineers do not operate in the same way?
Mrs. Jeter
07-03-2008, 06:36 PM
I wonder if there would be this controversy if the proposed building was going to be a Dunkin Donuts.
People!! Seriously!! Give us a Dunkin Donuts over here!! That's what we really need.
;)
--Mrs. Jeter
PS. Seriously Leigus Rd....what do you expect when the area nearby is zoned for commercial use? THAT's one of the main reasons we didn't buy in Fairlawn.
speakerguy
07-03-2008, 07:00 PM
I wonder if there would be this controversy if the proposed building was going to be a Dunkin Donuts.
People!! Seriously!! Give us a Dunkin Donuts over here!! That's what we really need.
;)
--Mrs. Jeter
PS. Seriously Leigus Rd....what do you expect when the area nearby is zoned for commercial use? THAT's one of the main reasons we didn't buy in Fairlawn.
What does the zoning status of any other parcel have to do with this? The parcel in question is zoned residential. The special permit that the applicant has applied for can be requested for any residential parcel, even one right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Nowhere in the regulations does it limit the application to the perimiter of the residential districts. So your argument has no merit.
leigusite
07-03-2008, 07:08 PM
[QUOTE=leigusite]
On 6/20/2008 in this blog, you posted an article by a Baptists minister titled the Muslim March Across America.
That had nothing to do with traffic nor anything to do with this application. It was an article posted to incite and raise questions about Muslims allegedly wanting to take over the United States.
If you want to make traffic the issue, you shouldn't post such an article.
And by posting something like that piece, you further the perception that you are indeed prejudice against Muslims and your agenda is indeed to keep members of this religion out of your neighborhood.
first of all it wasn't by a baptist minister it is straight from an Islamic website--what i was trying to say is that you accuse the residents of being racist and I was trying to show that racisim is a TWO way street
leigusite
07-03-2008, 07:11 PM
[QUOTE=leigusite]
YOU are the perfect example of why your group is seen as hypocrites. You think that by saying traffic is your concern, people will not see your real concern which is having someone different in your midst.
Your entry that copied the article referenced above, The Muslim March Across America, exposed you.
Whether this application is voted up or down will not change the fact that your group are untruthful.
Since when did YOU become a mnd-reader psychic--and know what I think---I didn't say my real concern is having somesone different----you are making an assumption--and it is INCORRECT
Mrs. Jeter
07-03-2008, 08:50 PM
What does the zoning status of any other parcel have to do with this? The parcel in question is zoned residential. The special permit that the applicant has applied for can be requested for any residential parcel, even one right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Nowhere in the regulations does it limit the application to the perimiter of the residential districts. So your argument has no merit.
Um, I realize this. However, all of this began with MLN moving in across the street. The proposed mosque has made it worse. My point is if you live across the street from an area that is zoned for commercial use WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN?? It to stay treed and full of bunnies forever? Eventually the area will be developed! I believe the signs say, "No more development on Leigus" Again, what do you expect when you live in an area close to Route 68 and areas zoned for commercial use.
speakerguy
07-03-2008, 09:37 PM
Um, I realize this. However, all of this began with MLN moving in across the street. The proposed mosque has made it worse. My point is if you live across the street from an area that is zoned for commercial use WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN?? It to stay treed and full of bunnies forever? Eventually the area will be developed! I believe the signs say, "No more development on Leigus" Again, what do you expect when you live in an area close to Route 68 and areas zoned for commercial use.
There is only ONE parcel left on Leigus road to be developed and it is the parcel that is the subject of this application. It is a parcel that has 68% protected Wetlands, so the buildable square footage is quite small. It is right on the corner of Route 68 and offers poor sightlines and queing distances for any entrance/exit to and from the property. I feel that any development of that property, especially non-residential, is inappropriate for the reasons above. The fact that the proposal in question, in my opinion, does not meet the criteria in the Zoning Regulations, and will lead to a parking nightmare, only strengthens my resolve that there should be "No more development on Leigus".
speakerguy
07-03-2008, 11:46 PM
speakerguy, thanks for reading my post.
Why wouldn't 150 parking spaces be adequate if the building was limited to 150-175 people by statute? Farid and the town could contract for that limit as a CO condition?
And I just want to give you some background about me so you know my philosophy.
As you might know, I am totally against any type of P&Z. I don't feel P&Z in any town serves their purpose since with enough money anything can be built, such as the ML building. Anyone can apply for a variance and viola! You get what you want. I believe more in land covenants. I also believe P&Z commissions violate the property rights of individuals.
Personally I think gated communities make for better living conditions. And they are not that expensive to live in. Condos are an example of just such a community. The condo association dictates what you can and cannot do with your unit and appearance. It guarantees that a uniform appearance will always be there. They can be restrictive in some cases, so one must find a community that is to one's liking. For example, my friends in Arizona live in such a community but it is a large development of houses not condos. They have a rule that no one can sell their house or rent it to anyone who is on a sex offender registry. And they will evict anyone who becomes placed upon one. You make any kind of rules you want in those kinds of communities because it is all by contract on private property, deeded as such with covenants.
And let me also add that although I dislike P&Z, at this point its all we have. Retroactively creating communities would require the participation of all current landowners that would encompass that community. That would be a difficult task to get all those people to buy in but it has been done.
I do not believe that you can legally limit the attendance except by fire code. And if the fire marshall says that the limit is "X" number of people, then restricting the attendance to any number less than this due to parking concerns, in my mind, would be a violation of the First Amendment. If the capacity of the building is "X" number of people and the maximum amount of parking that can be provided on the site would be reached by the time "less than X" people arrive, then this is evidence that the site is not large enough to support the intended use. And if that turns out to be the case, what is wrong with denying the application? This isn't the last building lot in Wallingford. There are plenty of other lots that could be investigated, many very near this one, as we have pointed out many times.
I think that the P&Z process can work and I think that it will ultimately work in this case. I can appreciate the control that gated communities and condos provide, but it is a little to controlling for my tastes. I have heard horror stories about Fieldstone Farms. Maybe they have been exaggerated, but I don't see many sheds or swingsets there, two things that I could not live without, with the kids and all....
leigusite
07-04-2008, 12:05 AM
I wonder if there would be this controversy if the proposed building was going to be a Dunkin Donuts.
People!! Seriously!! Give us a Dunkin Donuts over here!! That's what we really need.
;)
--Mrs. Jeter
PS. Seriously Leigus Rd....what do you expect when the area nearby is zoned for commercial use? THAT's one of the main reasons we didn't buy in Fairlawn.
yes and that is the point--the area of the mosque was zoned residential when we moved in and should remain that way
I do not believe that you can legally limit the attendance except by fire code. And if the fire marshall says that the limit is "X" number of people, then restricting the attendance to any number less than this due to parking concerns, in my mind, would be a violation of the First Amendment. If the capacity of the building is "X" number of people and the maximum amount of parking that can be provided on the site would be reached by the time "less than X" people arrive, then this is evidence that the site is not large enough to support the intended use. And if that turns out to be the case, what is wrong with denying the application? This isn't the last building lot in Wallingford. There are plenty of other lots that could be investigated, many very near this one, as we have pointed out many times.
I think that the P&Z process can work and I think that it will ultimately work in this case. I can appreciate the control that gated communities and condos provide, but it is a little to controlling for my tastes. I have heard horror stories about Fieldstone Farms. Maybe they have been exaggerated, but I don't see many sheds or swingsets there, two things that I could not live without, with the kids and all....
You can turn away anyone from your church for any reason. A church is private property and you can be asked to leave and not come back for any reason. Church is no different than any other private property. No different than a store or a mall. I know for a fact because I was thrown out of a church and told by a police officer never to return or I would be arrested for criminal trespass. All I did was start to question where the money was going. I questioned why homeless people were asked to take services away from the congregation. I asked why the kitchen was in a shambles and unable to operate as a soup kitchen. We would witness in poor neighborhoods but I questioned why certain people we did not talk to and certain other people we did. All that earned me the boot. It was then I was told by my attorney and by the police that places of worship do not have open door policy and can have removed anyone they choose.
You can make any limitation you want to for attendance. You can say anyone who is not a member cannot attend. You can say anyone who is not Muslim cannot attend. It is considered a private club that can regulate any way they want to. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts do this. Men's clubs do this.
Just a quick question...I know the two are many degrees of separation, but what if someone told you that you could not build a shed or a swingset? What if people started telling everyone what they can and cannot do with their land. If you can do it on one thing you can do it on anything. It should be 100%. You don't tell people what they can do with their property unless they agree to it in writing. That's my issue. Property rights. They should not be infringed upon at all. Farid is not infringing anyone's rights.
speakerguy
07-04-2008, 10:08 AM
You can turn away anyone from your church for any reason. A church is private property and you can be asked to leave and not come back for any reason. Church is no different than any other private property. No different than a store or a mall. I know for a fact because I was thrown out of a church and told by a police officer never to return or I would be arrested for criminal trespass. All I did was start to question where the money was going. I questioned why homeless people were asked to take services away from the congregation. I asked why the kitchen was in a shambles and unable to operate as a soup kitchen. We would witness in poor neighborhoods but I questioned why certain people we did not talk to and certain other people we did. All that earned me the boot. It was then I was told by my attorney and by the police that places of worship do not have open door policy and can have removed anyone they choose.
You can make any limitation you want to for attendance. You can say anyone who is not a member cannot attend. You can say anyone who is not Muslim cannot attend. It is considered a private club that can regulate any way they want to. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts do this. Men's clubs do this.
Just a quick question...I know the two are many degrees of separation, but what if someone told you that you could not build a shed or a swingset? What if people started telling everyone what they can and cannot do with their land. If you can do it on one thing you can do it on anything. It should be 100%. You don't tell people what they can do with their property unless they agree to it in writing. That's my issue. Property rights. They should not be infringed upon at all. Farid is not infringing anyone's rights.
You are confusing the issue. The CHURCH can turn away anyone they want, but the GOVERNMENT cannot turn them away. You are asking the town to put in a clause that is totally unenforceable. I would agree to that limitation any day if I were the applicant. Just try to enforce it! That would in no way limit the number of attendees. It would be like enacting a law that said that there is too much traffic on Leigus Road, so effective immediately, only people whos last names start with A-M can use the road on Monday's, Wednesday's and Friday's, only people whos last names start with N-Z can use it on Tuesday's, Thursday's and Saturday's. It's rediculous and totally unenforceable. The only true limit to attendance is the physical size of the structure. That is why the parking regs are always based on the physical properties of the proposal and not promises from the applicant.
Your statement that "if you can do it on one thing you can do it on anything" frightens me. Are you referring to only the building of sheds and swingsets or can the "it" be anything and can the "anything" be anywhere? If the latter, then, that my friend, is anarchy. The government isn't perfect, but as Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is....except for all the others."
I never said that Mr. Farid was infringing on anyone's rights. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not his proposal meets the criteria set forth in the Zoning Regulations.
Let's stick to that issue. I do not wish to have a philosophical discussion about Zoning.
You are confusing the issue. The CHURCH can turn away anyone they want, but the GOVERNMENT cannot turn them away. You are asking the town to put in a clause that is totally unenforceable. I would agree to that limitation any day if I were the applicant. Just try to enforce it! That would in no way limit the number of attendees. It would be like enacting a law that said that there is too much traffic on Leigus Road, so effective immediately, only people whos last names start with A-M can use the road on Monday's, Wednesday's and Friday's, only people whos last names start with N-Z can use it on Tuesday's, Thursday's and Saturday's. It's rediculous and totally unenforceable. The only true limit to attendance is the physical size of the structure. That is why the parking regs are always based on the physical properties of the proposal and not promises from the applicant.
Your statement that "if you can do it on one thing you can do it on anything" frightens me. Are you referring to only the building of sheds and swingsets or can the "it" be anything and can the "anything" be anywhere? If the latter, then, that my friend, is anarchy. The government isn't perfect, but as Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is....except for all the others."
I never said that Mr. Farid was infringing on anyone's rights. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not his proposal meets the criteria set forth in the Zoning Regulations.
Let's stick to that issue. I do not wish to have a philosophical discussion about Zoning.
If Farid and the town signed a contract that would be enforceable.
I think he meets Zoning regulations for traffic and parking. If not, then just tell him how big of a mosque he can build there. If I am not mistaken isn't there a parcel for sale right across from this one that is already commercial? It looks like farm land and it has a big blue sign on it.
What I meant is that that if you can dictate what another can do with their land when it comes to what one can build, eventually the town will dictate whether or not you can build a swing set. Some towns have very restrictive zoning rules. They limit the height of commercial signs. They limit how much of your land you can cover with buildings.
We do not have a democracy in this country. When any town can take your land for economic development and make a residential neighborhood commercial, we have no property rights in this country. What happened in New London is a perfect example. We allow government to dictate what we can cannot do with our land.
leigusite
07-05-2008, 11:39 AM
Interesting article in today's New Haven Register-Saturday July 5--Local Section Page 1--'Guilford PZC to hear plan for Chabad Center'--- A jewish group wants to build a 'chabad' which is a religious building for a sect of Hasidic Judiasm had applied to build a synagogue in the center of town at 181 Goose Lane, in a residential neighborhood that sits near Exit 59 of Interstate 95. Neighbors opposed the appication on the grounds that the new center would be too large compared to nearby buildings and bring too much traffic to a residential area. If I lived in Guilford, I would also oppose this plan based on traffic. According to the logic of some bloggers here, I guess the residents of Guilford are probably anti-jewish for opposing a synagogue and have a hidden agenda, also not wanting 'people other than them' in their neighborhood. But it's based on traffic concerns----Sounds like the plight of Wallingford residents---TRAFFIC--not religious affiliation.
doughageman
07-05-2008, 11:47 AM
>>.............of Guilford are probably anti-jewish for opposing a synagogue and have a hidden agenda
They'll surely appear so; and a large percentage undoubtedly are.
I wouldn't be caught dead opposing it.
Fit 2 Print
07-05-2008, 03:06 PM
I agree with Doug. I wouldn't oppose it on Goose Lane, or Leigus. (I'd like to see any goose get safely across Rt. 68 on foot!)
The issue of increased traffic is a tempest in a teapot, at best. We're talking relatively few cars here, especially in relation to Rt. 68's relentless press.
In the absence of extending a warm welcome to Muslims in Wallingford, a "traffic smokescreen" is being used in desperation by those opposed. C'mon!
leigusite
07-05-2008, 11:41 PM
>>.............of Guilford are probably anti-jewish for opposing a synagogue and have a hidden agenda
They'll surely appear so; and a large percentage undoubtedly are.
I wouldn't be caught dead opposing it.
Why wouldn't you be caught dead opposing it?
speakerguy
07-06-2008, 06:42 AM
I agree with Doug. I wouldn't oppose it on Goose Lane, or Leigus. (I'd like to see any goose get safely across Rt. 68 on foot!)
The issue of increased traffic is a tempest in a teapot, at best. We're talking relatively few cars here, especially in relation to Rt. 68's relentless press.
In the absence of extending a warm welcome to Muslims in Wallingford, a "traffic smokescreen" is being used in desperation by those opposed. C'mon!
Dear Fit to Print,
Your "traffic smokescreen" comment intrigues me. You must have information about the traffic issues (or lack thereof) that I do not have. Therefore, please provide the comprehensive traffic study and parking calculations that you used to support such a statement. Please be sure to include the data that shows that the Leigus Road proposal will not lead to the parking problems that currently exist at the mosques in Berlin, New Haven and West Haven. And be sure to include the Curriculum Vitae of the Licensed Professional Engineer who performed the traffic study and parking calculations.
Once you provide this information we can put this issue to bed once and for all.
I patiently await your response.....
I read through this again and I was thinking. I can understand that parking on the street would cause a line of sight issue and visibility issue. So the parking lot and the building capacity should match. I get that now.
Still trying to figure out the traffic issue. I guess I just don't understand. Maybe I didn't get it the first time, but how is increased traffic a problem? What is the nature of the problem? I didn't see that explanation. Maybe I missed it.
What is the threshold for a proper amount of traffic? Since you are a PE maybe you could explain just what "too much traffic" means. Perhaps you did explain this previously but I may not have understood it. Explain it again if you will then.
Start in the beginning. In the beginning we started out with just a forest. No buildings, no houses, and no roads. Then people built houses, and they built roads to get to them. They cleared the forest and traffic increased. Then they built more houses and built bigger houses. They built more roads, expanded existing roads and traffic increased. They expanded the roads some more and built shopping centers and malls. Traffic increased. At some point along the way, traffic increased more. What confuses me is that if we keep saying traffic will increase as reason not to build, then nothing will get built. Every single place where we have large commercial development, was once farmland and open space. Every highway, every strip mall all were built in areas that then experienced traffic increases. How will development and expansion continue if we keep saying that traffic will increase?
speakerguy
07-06-2008, 08:55 AM
I read through this again and I was thinking. I can understand that parking on the street would cause a line of sight issue and visibility issue. So the parking lot and the building capacity should match. I get that now.
Still trying to figure out the traffic issue. I guess I just don't understand. Maybe I didn't get it the first time, but how is increased traffic a problem? What is the nature of the problem? I didn't see that explanation. Maybe I missed it.
What is the threshold for a proper amount of traffic? Since you are a PE maybe you could explain just what "too much traffic" means. Perhaps you did explain this previously but I may not have understood it. Explain it again if you will then.
Start in the beginning. In the beginning we started out with just a forest. No buildings, no houses, and no roads. Then people built houses, and they built roads to get to them. They cleared the forest and traffic increased. Then they built more houses and built bigger houses. They built more roads, expanded existing roads and traffic increased. They expanded the roads some more and built shopping centers and malls. Traffic increased. At some point along the way, traffic increased more. What confuses me is that if we keep saying traffic will increase as reason not to build, then nothing will get built. Every single place where we have large commercial development, was once farmland and open space. Every highway, every strip mall all were built in areas that then experienced traffic increases. How will development and expansion continue if we keep saying that traffic will increase?
Traffic, just like electricity (which is my area of expertice), flows like water. The study of the movement of water is called Hydraulics. This is the analogy they use early on in engineering school to give you an very basic understanding of what is going on. Many of the formulas used to do electrical calculations also work for hydraulics. And I remember from engineering school that hydraulic formulas can also be used to do traffic flow calculations.
Now the cars are the water. More cars equals more water. The roads are the pipes. The bigger the road the bigger the pipe. If you try to put more water through a pipe than it is designed to efficiently flow, then the water backs up. Traffic engineers can look at the size of the road and figure out how many cars the road can handle before traffic will become unreasonable. They actually assign a grade, A-F, based on the amount of time it takes to travel a certain distance, how long it will take to get through a traffic light, etc.
The new office building across the street will generate a certain amount of traffic. There will be peak traffic in the morning and the evening. And there will be lunch traffic. A traffic study was done for the new office building that determined that Leigus road could handle the traffic of the new office building. I attended the meetings at P&Z and the concensus was that, yes, Leigus road could handle the traffic, but just barely.
Now the mosque proposal comes along. They will hold their service on Fridays at 1 pm. So the attendees of the mosque will be arriving at the same time that people will be returning to the office building from lunch. Not to mention that the Kingergarten buses come through the area at that same time. Can Leigus road handle all this traffic at this time? Frankly, I don't know. But since the office building has already pretty much maxed out Leigus road, we better do a good traffic study to find out. Basically, that was the conclusion of the peer review traffic study.
Now it is easy to increase the traffic capacity. Just make the road bigger, ie use a bigger pipe to move more water. However, in the case of Leigus road, in order to do that you would need to condemn people's property under eminent domain laws in order to get the land you need to make the road bigger. Is that what we really want to do here if the traffic study shows that Leigus road isn't big enough to support this application? I say no.
If the studies show that either there would not be enough parking, or that the traffic doesn't pass muster, then the application should be denied and the applicant should search for a more suitable location.
Fit 2 Print
07-06-2008, 02:13 PM
Pish-posh!
leigusite
07-06-2008, 03:10 PM
Pish-posh!
Why do you say pish pot?????????????????
So what you are saying is that Leigus is at capacity after ML building traffic and that the extra, say, 300 cars on the road from the mosque during services which coincide with Friday lunch hour would push that road over the limit during that time, correct? How would the residents there be affected during that time since they are at work elsewhere?
They are currently widening Route 7 from Brookfield to New Milford for just that reason. What are the dimensions of Leigus currently and how much would it have to be widened if the road were to be widened to accomodate the mosque traffic? I would guess 4 feet on either side.
Eminent domain would apply if the town could justify a common or greater good for the community. Anything can be justified. That said, New London justified their economic development plans just that way. I don't personally agree with that decision as I think that is not what eminent domain should be used for. A large interstate, a school, that is fine. But private enterprise should front private money to buy out the land or the homeowners willing to sell if that is what is decided.
speakerguy
07-07-2008, 09:18 AM
So what you are saying is that Leigus is at capacity after ML building traffic and that the extra, say, 300 cars on the road from the mosque during services which coincide with Friday lunch hour would push that road over the limit during that time, correct? How would the residents there be affected during that time since they are at work elsewhere?
They are currently widening Route 7 from Brookfield to New Milford for just that reason. What are the dimensions of Leigus currently and how much would it have to be widened if the road were to be widened to accomodate the mosque traffic? I would guess 4 feet on either side.
Eminent domain would apply if the town could justify a common or greater good for the community. Anything can be justified. That said, New London justified their economic development plans just that way. I don't personally agree with that decision as I think that is not what eminent domain should be used for. A large interstate, a school, that is fine. But private enterprise should front private money to buy out the land or the homeowners willing to sell if that is what is decided.
The traffic limits are not set just for the local residents but also for the people using the road. And not all the residents are at work. If the traffic is shown to exceed the capacity, where is the hardship that would justify condemning property, widening the road, etc. to accomodate this proposal? There are plenty of other suitable locations in Wallingford that would not require extensive modifications, should this be shown to be the case.
In any case, proper traffic studies will determine what is necessary.
Fit 2 Print
07-07-2008, 09:56 AM
Below is a copy of my previous post. I did not say "pish-pot"! I said, "pish-posh!" I said it because that's what "Speakguy's" convoluted reaction amounts to ... So many "stipulations" to hide behind, so little reality. Oh, well . . .
I agree with Doug. I wouldn't oppose it on Goose Lane, or Leigus. (I'd like to see any goose get safely across Rt. 68 on foot!)
The issue of increased traffic is a tempest in a teapot, at best. We're talking relatively few cars here, especially in relation to Rt. 68's relentless press.
In the absence of extending a warm welcome to Muslims in Wallingford, a "traffic smokescreen" is being used in desperation by those opposed. C'mon!
Dear Fit to Print,
Your "traffic smokescreen" comment intrigues me. You must have information about the traffic issues (or lack thereof) that I do not have. Therefore, please provide the comprehensive traffic study and parking calculations that you used to support such a statement. Please be sure to include the data that shows that the Leigus Road proposal will not lead to the parking problems that currently exist at the mosques in Berlin, New Haven and West Haven. And be sure to include the Curriculum Vitae of the Licensed Professional Engineer who performed the traffic study and parking calculations.
Once you provide this information we can put this issue to bed once and for all.
I patiently await your response.....
speakerguy, I really can't say without understanding the current width of the road and by how much it would need to be widened.
If it's only 2 feet...what's the big deal? The town owns about 15-20ft from the center of the road anyway. At least that's what they own on my street per city code for sidewalks etc. Has the town used up this distance? If not it may not need any permission.
The other suitable locations would also increase traffic so I would imagine residents in those areas would also complain about that too. Would the other locations be able to handle the traffic? What are these other locations, anyway?
speakerguy
07-07-2008, 10:51 AM
Below is a copy of my previous post. I did not say "pish-pot"! I said, "pish-posh!" I said it because that's what "Speakguy's" convoluted reaction amounts to ... So many "stipulations" to hide behind, so little reality. Oh, well . . .
I agree with Doug. I wouldn't oppose it on Goose Lane, or Leigus. (I'd like to see any goose get safely across Rt. 68 on foot!)
The issue of increased traffic is a tempest in a teapot, at best. We're talking relatively few cars here, especially in relation to Rt. 68's relentless press.
In the absence of extending a warm welcome to Muslims in Wallingford, a "traffic smokescreen" is being used in desperation by those opposed. C'mon!
Dear Fit to Print,
Your "traffic smokescreen" comment intrigues me. You must have information about the traffic issues (or lack thereof) that I do not have. Therefore, please provide the comprehensive traffic study and parking calculations that you used to support such a statement. Please be sure to include the data that shows that the Leigus Road proposal will not lead to the parking problems that currently exist at the mosques in Berlin, New Haven and West Haven. And be sure to include the Curriculum Vitae of the Licensed Professional Engineer who performed the traffic study and parking calculations.
Once you provide this information we can put this issue to bed once and for all.
I patiently await your response.....
So little reality????? Reality is based in FACTS. All I ask is that if you are going to make broad blanket statements about our alleged smokescreen that you have some FACTS to back it up. I STILL patiently await your FACTUAL response.....
doughageman
07-07-2008, 09:40 PM
Why wouldn't you be caught dead opposing it?
Because to give the members of any bona-fide religion a difficult time regarding their form of worship; or where & when that worship might occur is, I think, the most unAmerican thing one can do.
Personally, I think such behavior is horrific; as to second guess the Founders of the United States is too akin to treason itself for my taste.
Had the Founders intended for freedom of religion "for the following:" or "with the exception of..." they would have written the 1st Amendment accordingly.
They didn't.
The early settlers
The Mayflower Pilgrims first moved to Holland in order to pray without fear of arrest as they had been repeatedly in England after being found praying together in their homes. (Having been turned in by the Puritans.)
One might assume that had zoning yet existed, their homes would have been located in a residential zone.
In Holland, their children began speaking and acting more Dutch than English; that displeased the parents and they returned to England, regrouped, and set upon building an American colony of their own. They received funding a two boats (Another entire story but I'm sure most of you are aware the Mayflower was supposed to set sail with a sister ship the Speedwell.)
The Settling & Founding of Connecticut
Indeed, Connecticut itself was founded by members of the original Plymouth Colony who felt threatened by the wholesale arrival of Puritans (which began in 1629) as that group set up what became the Massachusetts Bay Colony nearby and immediately began harassing the Plymouth Pilgrims.
Note the historic hypocrisy:
Having been chased out of their native homeland of England, and now out of their own colony; the Congregationalist founders of Connecticut eventually codified the church as the very owner of Connecticut and banned the construction of any other house of worship at all. (see Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists where he effectively tells them they can move to another state).
(It wasn't until 1843 when a synagogue was proposed in Hartford, and then *after* a court ruling that actual freedom of religion arrived in Connecticut.)
We should not perpetrate the mistakes of our forbearer's.
For us, now centuries later, to fail to acknowledge the very roots of the nation and specifically this states cause for foundation by continuing to behave in such a hypocritical fashion is pure folly.
The right to assemble and worship was clearly the first priority; the very essence of freedom and liberty begins there.
Others should be granted the same and without any remarks, persecution, protests, or any subtle or not so subtle barriers.
To utilize land-use regulations in this fashion reeks to high heaven.
Side note - Pilgrims not Puritans
Many are confused and think that the Mayflower carried Puritans; that's wrong. http://www.sail1620.org/discover_myth_pilgrims_not_puritans.shtml
BTW - I'm not some whiny hand-wringing liberal, quite the contrary. (http://authentic-connecticut-republican.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-are-these-characters-calling.html)
leigusite
07-07-2008, 09:50 PM
[QUOTE=doughageman]Because to give the members of any bona-fide religion a difficult time regarding their form of worship; or where & when that worship might occur is, I think, the most unAmerican thing one can do.
NOBODY is giving the members of a religion a difficult time reagarding their form of worship---it's the location of the mosque---as we have said many, many times- Just like the people in Guilford that want to build a synagogue in town--residents don't want more traffic--A more suitable location is on the other side of Rte 68 by the Courtyard Marriott---parking would not be a problem and the mosque could be built as LARGE as Farid had originally planned and it's still in 'our' neighborhood and in 'our town' of Wallingford--and traffic would NOT be coming into a residential neighborhood-----
leigusite
07-07-2008, 09:53 PM
Because to give the members of any bona-fide religion a difficult time regarding their form of worship; or where & when that worship might occur is, I think, the most unAmerican thing one can do.
Personally, I think such behavior is horrific; as to second guess the Founders of the United States is too akin to treason itself for my taste.
Had the Founders intended for freedom of religion "for the following:" or "with the exception of..." they would have written the 1st Amendment accordingly.
They didn't.
The early settlers
The Mayflower Pilgrims first moved to Holland in order to pray without fear of arrest as they had been repeatedly in England after being found praying together in their homes. (Having been turned in by the Puritans.)
One might assume that had zoning yet existed, their homes would have been located in a residential zone.
In Holland, their children began speaking and acting more Dutch than English; that displeased the parents and they returned to England, regrouped, and set upon building an American colony of their own. They received funding a two boats (Another entire story but I'm sure most of you are aware the Mayflower was supposed to set sail with a sister ship the Speedwell.)
The Settling & Founding of Connecticut
Indeed, Connecticut itself was founded by members of the original Plymouth Colony who felt threatened by the wholesale arrival of Puritans (which began in 1629) as that group set up what became the Massachusetts Bay Colony nearby and immediately began harassing the Plymouth Pilgrims.
Note the historic hypocrisy:
Having been chased out of their native homeland of England, and now out of their own colony; the Congregationalist founders of Connecticut eventually codified the church as the very owner of Connecticut and banned the construction of any other house of worship at all. (see Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists where he effectively tells them they can move to another state).
(It wasn't until 1843 when a synagogue was proposed in Hartford, and then *after* a court ruling that actual freedom of religion arrived in Connecticut.)
We should not perpetrate the mistakes of our forbearer's.
For us, now centuries later, to fail to acknowledge the very roots of the nation and specifically this states cause for foundation by continuing to behave in such a hypocritical fashion is pure folly.
The right to assemble and worship was clearly the first priority; the very essence of freedom and liberty begins there.
Others should be granted the same and without any remarks, persecution, protests, or any subtle or not so subtle barriers.
To utilize land-use regulations in this fashion reeks to high heaven.
Side note - Pilgrims not Puritans
Many are confused and think that the Mayflower carried Puritans; that's wrong. http://www.sail1620.org/discover_myth_pilgrims_not_puritans.shtml
BTW - I'm not some whiny hand-wringing liberal, quite the contrary. (http://authentic-connecticut-republican.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-are-these-characters-calling.html)
as far as all your other writings--why don't you ask the Native Americans that were thrown off their land by your ancesters what they think about Planning & Zoning regulations---that who the REAL racists were---- To quote from a blogger on Sullivan one on one 'I do have a Solomonic solution to the proposal - Allow the mosque on Leigus road if Mr. Farid will allow a synagogue in his residenial neighborhood.' I'm sure there would be signs in his neighborhood stating 'No synagogue on *********** Street'
doughageman
07-07-2008, 10:14 PM
as far as all your other writings--why don't you ask the Native Americans that were thrown off their land by your ancesters what they think about Planning & Zoning regulations---that who the REAL racists were----
I have no, zero, zip Puritan ancestors; the Plymouth Pilgrims however, offered those they met no trouble at all which is why they (the Indians) helped them survive.
Citing the poor behavior of others fails to justify our own by the way.
doughageman
07-07-2008, 10:47 PM
>>Just like the people in Guilford that want to build a synagogue in town--residents don't want more traffic--
Suuure...it's always "the traffic" isn't it?
I think that might have come up in the Litchfield Synagogue hearing too; never mind that there the site is right off the Town Green and there's scads of nearby parking.
Litchfield however has other, "Historical District" concerns like...
"...the Star of David may not comply with the District..."
Read more about it here. (http://authentic-connecticut-republican.blogspot.com/2007/11/litchfield-protests-acr-post.html)
So while Litchfield has pretty much signed up for the whole treatment; and sooner or later will lose millions in federal court, (enough to build the whole synagogue with plenty to spare) we watch as a handful of Wallingford residents line their town up for the same treatment.
Yeah....it's the traffic alright.
Marc Syrah
07-08-2008, 01:28 AM
And now for something completely different!
Go here -
http://forums.ctrecord.com/showthread.php?t=1983
Just another viewpoint...
:D
speakerguy
07-08-2008, 07:08 AM
speakerguy, I really can't say without understanding the current width of the road and by how much it would need to be widened.
If it's only 2 feet...what's the big deal? The town owns about 15-20ft from the center of the road anyway. At least that's what they own on my street per city code for sidewalks etc. Has the town used up this distance? If not it may not need any permission.
The other suitable locations would also increase traffic so I would imagine residents in those areas would also complain about that too. Would the other locations be able to handle the traffic? What are these other locations, anyway?
In order to increase the traffic flow you must add lanes. So Leigus would need to change from one lane in each direction to two in order to increase its capacity. The road would need to be widened a minimum of 24 ft. to do this.
Guess we'll have to wait and see...
speakerguy
07-08-2008, 09:01 AM
And now for something completely different!
Go here -
http://forums.ctrecord.com/showthread.php?t=1983
Just another viewpoint...
:D
Editors,
I request that you remove this post as it is biased and inflammatory. It diminishes those of us that are here to have an intelligent debate on the zoning issues of the application.
Marc Syrah, shame on you!
doughageman
07-08-2008, 09:30 AM
Editors,
I request that you remove this post as it is biased and inflammatory. It diminishes those of us that are here to have an intelligent debate on the zoning issues of the application.
I disagree and think it should be left online.
Most of us have or have had, similar fears that the post in question confronts.
Indeed, after watching the actions of terrorists it's difficult to not want to blame someone, or some group; and it's easy to simply blame the Muslims.
It's not right, but it is easy.
Circumstances in my own life changed pretty dramatically a few years ago and I found myself calling on retailers for the first time in a couple of decades.
Now I must know around 100 guys named "Ahmed", more Mohummad's than that, plus a large number of other new-Americans.
In all candor my perspective prior to my current occupation was not that far from the writers' of the offensive post in question.
The past few years have been an illuminating experience for me, to say the least.
I have come to one conclusion; if someone is working, paying their own taxes and speaking English they should be treated with the same respect as everyone else.
Period.
David
07-08-2008, 05:26 PM
Here's a copy of an apology from Marc Syrah (see several posts earlier):
I would like to sincerely apologize to the good citizens of Meriden for the reference I made to their town. My friends and I used to shop downtown Meriden when I was growing up. Hubbard Park and Black Pond are two of the best places I have ever spent time at. And of course there’s the steamed cheeseburgers at 1 in the morning.
Again, I sincerely apologize.
Marc Syrah
Marc Syrah
07-08-2008, 05:33 PM
Thank you David! That particular part of my post was uncalled for and un-neccessary. I am going to re-read the original Mosque Issue post and make a few notes. And I will be more thoughtful about future replies.
Again, I apologize.
collie
07-08-2008, 06:51 PM
What a shame the R-J settled for only an apology for calling Meriden a toilet! This post equates Muslims as terrorists, it's pretty clear. I'm used to people from Wallingford calling Meriden a toilet; big deal. But these comments about Muslims were over the top, as far as I'm concerned.
Marc Syrah
07-09-2008, 01:30 AM
I just finished my third re-read of the entire post...
:confused: No... Really :confused:
Hey eds!... when this mess clears up we should open a bottle of something from Romnee Conti... or perhaps a nice Marsanne... since it is Summer... if this mess ends before Summer ends... :)
Sure why not...you wouldn't happen to know of any good wine stores in Wallingford, would you?
From our Managing Editor, Ralph Tomaselli's Blog
http://imagesource.zwire.com/local/Z/Zwire2755/zwire/images/Ralph75.jpg
An "other side" perspective on the Wallingford mosque controversy (http://www2.myrecordjournal.com/content/an-other-side-perspective-wallingford-mosque-controversy)
oldnickel
07-09-2008, 05:09 PM
Great post Ralph.
I predict that no one will be happy here.
I do not think Farid has played the "race" card since we are talking about religion.
I think if you go back & read the first three or four pages of this thread, you will find many prejudicial comments made about muslims and Mr Farid.
I think that some of the later posts contain nasty comments directed at Mr Farid which have nothing to do with traffic, congestion or parking (there are some exceptions).
I think Farid will be able to build there as a solution will present itself, basically a ratio of parking spaces to square footage.
speakerguy
07-09-2008, 06:09 PM
Great post Ralph.
I predict that no one will be happy here.
I do not think Farid has played the "race" card since we are talking about religion.
I think if you go back & read the first three or four pages of this thread, you will find many prejudicial comments made about muslims and Mr Farid.
I think that some of the later posts contain nasty comments directed at Mr Farid which have nothing to do with traffic, congestion or parking (there are some exceptions).
I think Farid will be able to build there as a solution will present itself, basically a ratio of parking spaces to square footage.
I agree that the crux of the issue for me is the ratio of parking spaces to square footage of the building. The problem is, there is no generally accepted formula to determine this ratio. The existing regs call for 3 spaces for every 8 seats in a church or 1 space for every 50 square feet gross floor area in an assembly hall. I contacted the Institute of Transportation Engineers (they are the group that publishes the manuals and handbooks used by traffic engineers) and they confirmed that there is no published formula for a mosque and that the published formulas for churches and assembly halls may not work well. Therefore, it is going to be up to the traffic engineers to determine the proper parking ratio for this application. Due to the parking problems at other area mosques, I feel I have a legitimate concern about making sure that enough parking can be provided on the proposed site, especially since the proposed site is 68% protected wetlands that cannot be developed. Also, given the incomplete traffic study provided by the applicant for the first application, I feel that a peer review traffic study is warranted for the new application. If the peer review confirms that the traffic study was accurate and the site can provide enough parking, then I will welcome Mr. Farid and his mosque to Leigus Road.
Fit 2 Print
07-10-2008, 04:50 PM
I wouldn't wait until a "peer study" of "facts" was done to extend a warm and sincere welcome to Wallingford Muslims . . .
speakerguy
07-10-2008, 06:00 PM
I wouldn't wait until a "peer study" of "facts" was done to extend a warm and sincere welcome to Wallingford Muslims . . .
I just LOVE being misquoted. I never said that I wouldn't extend a warm welcome to Wallingford Muslims, or any Muslims for that matter. I used to live in the New York City region and understand and support diversity. But I will not welcome any proposal to the Leigus Road parcel until it is shown to meet the zoning regulations. And if you think that is wrong, then we will have to agree to disagree.
http://imagesource.zwire.com/local/Z/Zwire2755/zwire/images/mosque_new.gif Check out Managing Editor Ralph Tomaselli's new blog, Sharpening my point. (http://www2.myrecordjournal.com/content/sharpening-my-point)
To read all of Ralph's blogs regarding the mosque proposal, check out the Special Coverage Section (http://www.myrecordjournal.com/site/tab1.cfm?brd=2755&dept_id=659614&nr=1&nostat=1).
The next Planning & Zoning Meeting will be TONIGHT July 14th at the Wallingford Town Hall @ 7:30pm.
Fit 2 Print
07-14-2008, 01:20 PM
I'm wondering if tonight's meeting will be free of rancor so that a calm, reasoned discussion might ensue.
It'll be interesting to learn of the results, yes?
oldnickel
07-16-2008, 09:34 AM
surprised there have not been more postings after the last P & Z meeting?
Fine Whine
07-16-2008, 09:58 AM
surprised there have not been more postings after the last P & Z meeting?
Something that strikes me which is unrelated to either side of this issue, is the fact that James Seichter has not recused himself. Unless he has moved recently, I believe he lives on Grieb Road abutting Fieldstone Farms.
To avoid any appearance of impropriety, he should not sit on this application.
speakerguy
07-16-2008, 10:35 AM
Something that strikes me which is unrelated to either side of this issue, is the fact that James Seichter has not recused himself. Unless he has moved recently, I believe he lives on Grieb Road abutting Fieldstone Farms.
To avoid any appearance of impropriety, he should not sit on this application.
At the meeting, Mr. Seichter was very up front and had it noted for the record that he lives on Grieb Road near the proposed site. I do not see the need for him to recuse himself. I believe he will be impartial.
If you missed Monday's meeting, take a look at George Moore's Article and Video Highlights (http://www.myrecordjournal.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19850693&BRD=2755&PAG=461&dept_id=592754&rfi=8) from the meeting.
Fine Whine
07-16-2008, 11:58 AM
At the meeting, Mr. Seichter was very up front and had it noted for the record that he lives on Grieb Road near the proposed site. I do not see the need for him to recuse himself. I believe he will be impartial.
Jim may believe that and you may agree with him, but in reality, one cannot judge internally whether they have acted impartial or not. I know Jim personally and he is a fine and upstanding individual and commissioner, but regardless, he should stand down on this.
If you study ethics, there is a point that there should never be even an "appearance" of a conflict. In this case where Jim is potentially affected by an increase in traffic as cited by you and other opponents AND where his neighbors both vocally and visually (by the posting of lawn signs) are opposing this application, there is clearly a conflict.
speakerguy
07-16-2008, 02:03 PM
If you missed Monday's meeting, take a look at George Moore's Article and Video Highlights (http://www.myrecordjournal.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19850693&BRD=2755&PAG=461&dept_id=592754&rfi=8) from the meeting.
The video highlights in no way represent what transpired at the meeting. They left out Mr. McManus's comments regarding the inadequate parking. Of the four Zoning Board members that spoke concerning the parking, Mr. Fitzsimmons was the ONLY one that was satisfied with the proposed parking, yet that is the only sound bite provided by the paper. Mr. Moore is generally balanced in his reporting but the editing of the video, in my opinion, is not balanced.
speakerguy
07-16-2008, 02:41 PM
Jim may believe that and you may agree with him, but in reality, one cannot judge internally whether they have acted impartial or not. I know Jim personally and he is a fine and upstanding individual and commissioner, but regardless, he should stand down on this.
If you study ethics, there is a point that there should never be even an "appearance" of a conflict. In this case where Jim is potentially affected by an increase in traffic as cited by you and other opponents AND where his neighbors both vocally and visually (by the posting of lawn signs) are opposing this application, there is clearly a conflict.
I disagree. The issue of the traffic and the parking will be decided by the traffic studies and peer review, not by the board members. The Town Engineer will give his professional opinion. If the town engineer gives it a "thumbs up", it will get approved. If "thumbs down", it will get denied.
Fine Whine
07-16-2008, 06:16 PM
I disagree.
This is not the forum to begin a debate on ethics in government. As someone who insists on facts rather than opinion, you would probably be interested in obtaining some basic information on ethics either from a library, bookstore, or other sources. It is readily available and in it's own way both enlightening and refreshing.
collie
07-16-2008, 06:16 PM
Board members won't be voting on this? Then why is the issue before them?
Is the Ethics Board up and running now in Wallingford?
leigusite
07-16-2008, 07:06 PM
Something that strikes me which is unrelated to either side of this issue, is the fact that James Seichter has not recused himself. Unless he has moved recently, I believe he lives on Grieb Road abutting Fieldstone Farms.
To avoid any appearance of impropriety, he should not sit on this application.
He voted on the Mortgage Lenders application--so that negates your view=
Fine Whine
07-16-2008, 07:49 PM
He voted on the Mortgage Lenders application--so that negates your view=
I understand your point, but that misses the point.
He should recuse himself on this application to avoid even the appearance of possible bias and if as you state, he DID vote on the MLN applcation, he should have recused himself from that hearing as well.
Rather than banter around opinion on this subject, it would be in the forum's interest if you would do some research on ethics as it applies to public officials.
I'm not going to respond further on this. I stand by my statements and ethics principals support those statements.
leigusite
07-16-2008, 10:15 PM
I understand your point, but that misses the point.
He should recuse himself on this application to avoid even the appearance of possible bias and if as you state, he DID vote on the MLN applcation, he should have recused himself from that hearing as well.
Rather than banter around opinion on this subject, it would be in the forum's interest if you would do some research on ethics as it applies to public officials.
I'm not going to respond further on this. I stand by my statements and ethics principals support those statements.
Interesting point of view----have you suggested that to Mr. Seichter at the P&Z hearings?? and do you feel that any of the board members in the future should recuse themselves from voting in a similar situation???? i.e. the dog kennel being proposed if they live near it???? according to your logic--no one living near the proposed mosque should be allowed to voice any opinion because we have a vested interest or maybe we shouldn't speak publicly at the P&Z meetings.--maybe you should also recuse yourself from submitting your views if you also live near the proposed mosque---maybe the mayor shouldn't run for office because he lives
near Mr. Seichter----if someone on the P&Z is ETHICAL then it will not be a problem. Don't pontificate to me about doing research on ethics as it applies to public officials---- Ethical behavior should be directed at Mr. Farid. It was said best by many residents at the P&Z hearing that if he wants to be a good neighbor, he should listen to the affected residents and move his mosque to an adjacent parcel in wallinford that is not in a residential zone. He is quoted as saying that it is non-negotiable. That is truly the person lacking ethics, and how ethical can Farid be if he also states he wants just a small family mosque of maybe 30 people, but contradicts himself at the June P&Z meeting as saying 'he wants to build his family here in Wallinford'---i.e. add more members to his mosque and grow it'
wallyworld resident
07-16-2008, 11:56 PM
Think of what a great thing it would be if Mr Farid decided to consider building on Rt 68 near the I-91 northbound exit, on the site that now contains a house that has been abandoned since the bridge was widened several years ago. There is plenty of room there for a mosque, with easy access and very few neighbors close enough to be severely impacted. He would be doing the town a huge favor by replacing the eyesore that sits there now with something that could present a much more favorable first impression of the town. A site on Miles Drive, near the motel and day care center, would also work better in my opinion than the current proposal.
It's been almost a year since this proposal was submitted and it looks like it'll be a while before an agreement is reached. If Mr Farid gets his way his mosque will have a lot of unhappy neighbors for a long time. If he thinks carefully he will realize that choosing the right site for his mosque will benefit everyone in the long run.
leigusite
07-17-2008, 07:43 AM
Think of what a great thing it would be if Mr Farid decided to consider building on Rt 68 near the I-91 northbound exit, on the site that now contains a house that has been abandoned since the bridge was widened several years ago. There is plenty of room there for a mosque, with easy access and very few neighbors close enough to be severely impacted. He would be doing the town a huge favor by replacing the eyesore that sits there now with something that could present a much more favorable first impression of the town. A site on Miles Drive, near the motel and day care center, would also work better in my opinion than the current proposal.
It's been almost a year since this proposal was submitted and it looks like it'll be a while before an agreement is reached. If Mr Farid gets his way his mosque will have a lot of unhappy neighbors for a long time. If he thinks carefully he will realize that choosing the right site for his mosque will benefit everyone in the long run.
Finally an entry on this blog that MAKES SENSE---it's still in wallingford and would make EVERYONE happy----
collie
07-17-2008, 08:46 AM
Considering there were some recent "problems" exposed and corrected with the Wallingford Ethics Commission, perhaps zoning members should not be routinely voting on matters that directly affect the neighborhood they live in.
oldnickel
07-17-2008, 10:09 AM
Collie, the ethics committee in wallingford is not fully operational. The Mayor has routinely ignored the charter provision by letting appointments lapse. just recently he submitted names to the town council to fully fill out the committee. The town council approved the new members and rejected the returning members so I do not think it is fully operational.
To those posters that are offering alternative sites closer to I-91. I have heard this from several people, what I have not heard even though I have asked several times is what do these parcels cost? Do not offer this as a reasonable alternative unless you do your homework.
Even if Farid and the P & Z figure out a way that the Mosque will work ( meet all the requirements, solve all the issues) the opponents will never be happy because they do not want anything built there.
I saw some of the P & Z meeting on public access the other night. some of the people speaking against the mosque could not have been more annoying. It wasn't good enough to provide a CD of the Berlin mosque to all the commissioners for their review, it need to be shown at the meeting because the speaker would be providing important narration. Apparently the commissioners are not smart enough to figure it out on their own, even though most have already seen it.
Be prepared to loose.
Fine Whine
07-17-2008, 12:02 PM
the opponents will never be happy because they do not want anything built there.
That will hold true for a small percentage, but for most opponents in cases like this, after the application is approved and the area is developed, they grow accustomed to the change.
It happened with the recent development of big box stores on Route 5, it will happen when the MLN building is occupied and functioning, and believe it or not, it happened with the development/loss of the farms on Grieb and Leigus Roads.
Many did not like the change from farmland to subdivision, but it was developed and people now live with it.
speakerguy
07-17-2008, 02:05 PM
Collie, the ethics committee in wallingford is not fully operational. The Mayor has routinely ignored the charter provision by letting appointments lapse. just recently he submitted names to the town council to fully fill out the committee. The town council approved the new members and rejected the returning members so I do not think it is fully operational.
To those posters that are offering alternative sites closer to I-91. I have heard this from several people, what I have not heard even though I have asked several times is what do these parcels cost? Do not offer this as a reasonable alternative unless you do your homework.
Even if Farid and the P & Z figure out a way that the Mosque will work ( meet all the requirements, solve all the issues) the opponents will never be happy because they do not want anything built there.
I saw some of the P & Z meeting on public access the other night. some of the people speaking against the mosque could not have been more annoying. It wasn't good enough to provide a CD of the Berlin mosque to all the commissioners for their review, it need to be shown at the meeting because the speaker would be providing important narration. Apparently the commissioners are not smart enough to figure it out on their own, even though most have already seen it.
Be prepared to loose.
Are you implying that the board members decide which way to vote based on how annoying the the speakers are at the public hearing of an application?
oldnickel
07-17-2008, 02:30 PM
speakerguy, I wasn't implying that the board members would vote based on how annoying the speakers were. I was pointing out that the speakers were in fact annoying and in some cases condescending. Even when speakers claimed that it was about the facts, they still managed to use loaded words and insults.
As Mr fitzsimmons pointed out, there have been instances in the past where the board has approved construction based on less than max occupancy. This does not bode well for you. If the board said that the parking = max occupancy is strictly adhered to with no exceptions then you are ok. Once exemptions are made the board needs to develop written criteria as to how & why exemptions are granted. Without that, exemptions seem subject to the whims of the board, and fertile grounds for an appeal.
Speakerguy, can you find out any info on how much the other parcels of land offered as an alternate cost?
speakerguy
07-17-2008, 03:04 PM
speakerguy, I wasn't implying that the board members would vote based on how annoying the speakers were. I was pointing out that the speakers were in fact annoying and in some cases condescending. Even when speakers claimed that it was about the facts, they still managed to use loaded words and insults.
As Mr fitzsimmons pointed out, there have been instances in the past where the board has approved construction based on less than max occupancy. This does not bode well for you. If the board said that the parking = max occupancy is strictly adhered to with no exceptions then you are ok. Once exemptions are made the board needs to develop written criteria as to how & why exemptions are granted. Without that, exemptions seem subject to the whims of the board, and fertile grounds for an appeal.
Speakerguy, can you find out any info on how much the other parcels of land offered as an alternate cost?
If you study the zoning regs for parking (Section 6.11), you will see that mosque is not listed. The closest you will find is either Church or Assembly Hall. There is also a "catch all" for "other than the above" which states that the Commission determines the parking requirements. The Town Attorney will be providing the legal opinion as to whether this will be a church, assembly hall, or "other". If it is determined to be "other", then it is up to the engineers to determine what is appropriate. What has been done for other applications will have no bearing, in my opinion.
We did look at the other parcels and determined that it was about $100K-$200K more to get a commercial property. I do not believe this would be a financial hardship for the applicant.
The next P&Z meeting is in September. It should be interesting....
oldnickel
07-17-2008, 05:31 PM
speakerguy: A financial hardship depends on the individual. It is always easier for us to spend someone else's money.
I appreciate your prompt and reasoned responses.
Some opponents are basing the number of parking spaces to equal the max occupancy. I was merely pointing out that the board has not always followed that formula. Since they have made exceptions before, they should have something in writing as to what criteria go into an exception. without that they are in trouble because any action would seem arbitrary.
speakerguy
07-17-2008, 06:30 PM
speakerguy: A financial hardship depends on the individual. It is always easier for us to spend someone else's money.
I appreciate your prompt and reasoned responses.
Some opponents are basing the number of parking spaces to equal the max occupancy. I was merely pointing out that the board has not always followed that formula. Since they have made exceptions before, they should have something in writing as to what criteria go into an exception. without that they are in trouble because any action would seem arbitrary.
The action would not be arbitrary because the town engineer will need to perform an engineering analysis to determine the proper parking formula. There is plenty of data available to do this determination, ie, review of other mosques in the area, proposed location and access, proposed building size, growth rate of the worshipping group, etc.
The max occupancy argument has merit based on the occupancy vs. parking of other mosques in the area. The traffic engineer will need to determine what the parking requirement is based on the data he or she has. And typically in zoning matters, if you have conflicting data, the more restrictive data takes precedence. So if half of the area mosques are packed full and parking requirements correlate to the max occupancy, proper planning would dictate that you use that formula, and not some formula that would generate a smaller parking requirement.
My concern with the parking issue is that if we get this wrong, the parcel in question will not offer any room for additional parking. The protected wetlands on the site won't allow it. If this site was all buildable, this issue would have been decided already. Start with 96 parking spaces and if you eventually need 200 or 300 or 400, just add the parking to the site. But given the limited ability to expand on the site, we really need to make sure we get the parking correct from the start. Many of the arguments have been "prove to me that you will need 250 or 300 parking spaces". I think that, given the small buildable area of the lot, the better statement to make is "prove to me you WON'T need 250 or 300 parking spaces."
The applicant has issued a "Statement of Use" where he indicates that it will be used by no more than 125 worshippers. But this statement does not control the number of worshippers that could attend. There is no way to control that. And it would be irresponsible, in my opinion, to calculate parking and traffic demand based on this statement.
The financial argument really doesn't apply to this discussion. The zoning regs are the same, regardless of your checkbook balance. All I am saying is that if it is determined that this site is not suitable, I am very certain that the applicant would have no problem choosing and purchasing another more suitable site, even if it is more expensive.
leigusite
07-17-2008, 06:58 PM
.
I saw some of the P & Z meeting on public access the other night. some of the people speaking against the mosque could not have been more annoying. It wasn't good enough to provide a CD of the Berlin mosque to all the commissioners for their review, it need to be shown at the meeting because the speaker would be providing important narration. Apparently the commissioners are not smart enough to figure it out on their own, even though most have already seen it.
Be prepared to loose.[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't the opponents want to narrate what is being shown on the CD---I don't think many of the P&Z commission have physically visited the mosques in West Haven & Berlin---Do you watch a sporting event with no sound or do you watch it and listen to the sportscasters explaining & enhancing what you are seeing??? As far as your quote 'be prepared to loose' shouldn't that be directed to Mr. Farid??
I promised myself I wouldn't post here again. I'm sure some of you will be disappointed I have returned. :rolleyes: It's kind of like a drug habit. (Not that I’ve ever had one) You know you should stop, but something keeps drawing you in.
oldnickel, I did not see "some" of the meeting. I got the full three hour version. I have sat through all the meetings, as have many others in that room. Mr. Fitzsimmons wanted us to get to the point and not get personal. The problem is that this is very personal to us. These are our homes, the place we raise our children, where our hearts are. I think we were successful for the most part, presenting facts, being respectful to Mr. Farid and the commission. Occasionally emotions did come to the surface. I believe our founding fathers engaged in far more "emotional" exchanges. It is, to some extent, part of the process.
That being said... This is a new application. Everything we presented at the previous meetings must be resubmitted if it is to be considered. The papers, documents, videos, pictures etc. must once again be obtained or copied. Some documents were originals and we now have to pay the town, to get copies of our papers from them. (Go figure).
All board members wanted to see the videos. 2 or 3 members were not at the previous meeting when one was showed. The consensus was since it was shown at the last meeting, it should be allowed again. Time did not permit at this one, but the next one should.
We only have one shot to get our point across. We better be persistent and make sure everything is on the table. If you consider this annoying, so be it. The P&Z may even consider it annoying. I believe I was told in an earlier post, that this wasn’t a popularity contest. It has no bearing on the outcome.
The reason this video does need to be narrated, is because it is clearer when talked through. The traffic study and the peer review are discussed, even though it is in written form; the architect describes his drawing even though the commission can certainly read plans. Questions can be asked and clarification given. This is not a made for TV movie, it is video tape of traffic at the West Haven and Berlin Mosques. A third video is a simulation of sorts. They have not seen two of these before, only one. It really has nothing to do with the intelligence of the committee. I respect all of them. I do believe they will be fair. It’s about making sure our concerns are heard and maybe bringing something to light they haven't considered. I also think that if you or anyone else opposing us saw both mosques on a Friday afternoon, you might better understand our concerns. Berlin isn’t an isolated occurrence, as Mr. Farid’s attorney would lead you to believe. It is also not unique to CT.
I think a huge problem here is that there is nothing like a mosque in any planning and zoning regulations. It isn’t a church, synagogue or an assembly hall. It is a unique entity. Nothing has usage like a mosque, but a mosque. Towns have not caught up with this population. This is the trouble other towns have gotten into, because they didn’t understand capacity. I would hate to see our neighborhood and the town of Wallingford deal with similar hardships.
leigusite
07-17-2008, 10:20 PM
[QUOTE=Fine Whine]That will hold true for a small percentage, but for most opponents in cases like this, after the application is approved and the area is developed, they grow accustomed to the change.
It happened with the recent development of big box stores on Route 5,
Please find me ONE sane person that has grown accustomed to the increased traffic on RTE 5----Have you ever traveled Route 5 near B.J.'s , Home Depot & Lowe's especially on a Saturday---Please put down your crack pipe now!!!!!!!!!!!!
wallyworld resident
07-17-2008, 10:43 PM
To those posters that are offering alternative sites closer to I-91. I have heard this from several people, what I have not heard even though I have asked several times is what do these parcels cost? Do not offer this as a reasonable alternative unless you do your homework.
I do not claim to be an authority on real estate values, however, I was able to find out that Edible Arrangements is a very profitable business, doing almost a million dollars a week in sales. Less costly lots could probably be found too, but at this point I cannot believe that cost is the only factor involved. It would seem that Mr Farid could build his mosque almost anywhere he wanted. It's not a business decision any more, it's gotten very personal for both sides. Yes, some of the other lots in that area are no doubt priced higher but they would accomodate a bigger, better mosque with fewer limitations than those at the current site.
At some point a mosque could probably be built on the proposed site that would satisfy all of the zoning, parking and legal requirements. Mr Farid would then have a mosque in a hostile neighborhood that he wouldn't be able to expand if he needed to. For the extra cost that a different location might require, a much more peaceful and welcoming atmosphere would prevail, in a building as large as he originally wanted, and still better suited to accomodate future growth. Why would he want anything less?
speakerguy
07-18-2008, 01:04 AM
[QUOTE=Fine Whine]That will hold true for a small percentage, but for most opponents in cases like this, after the application is approved and the area is developed, they grow accustomed to the change.
It happened with the recent development of big box stores on Route 5,
Please find me ONE sane person that has grown accustomed to the increased traffic on RTE 5----Have you ever traveled Route 5 near B.J.'s , Home Depot & Lowe's especially on a Saturday---Please put down your crack pipe now!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calm down, Leigusite, calm down......
leigusite
07-18-2008, 07:25 AM
[QUOTE=leigusite]
Calm down, Leigusite, calm down......
thanks for the reality check---
Fit 2 Print
07-21-2008, 05:32 PM
I keep reading the posts while endeavoring to keep an open mind. (It is said, "Keep an open mind, something might fall in.")
I'm not sure I get Anna's point in her previous post. The mosque is no more unique than a typical parish church or synagogue. People come and go from worship and to-be-expected meetings as a matter of course.
The volume of traffic the mosque would contribute is but a fly on a bull's carcas in light of overall Rt. 68 traffic. It saddens me that Wallingford residents in the Leigus area prefer to act provincially rather than to embrace those different from themselves.
As I've stated several times, but to no avail, if Holy Trinity can make a splendid go of it at perhaps THE busiest, most traffic-problematic intersection in town (i.e. Rt. 5 and Center Street), the mosque can surely do likewise, but on a far smaller scale and, by comparison, in a relatively uncongested area.
leigusite
07-31-2008, 08:09 PM
has everyone gone on vacation????? no new blogs have been written--------if that's how you feel--what to you think of Boston trading manny or new york getting I-Rod
As a Sox fan, I'm torn about it. I'm glad to see him go, due to the friction he was causing on the team. On the other hand, the entertainment alone will be missed! He was a blast to watch during spring training this year.
Marc Syrah
08-14-2008, 12:03 AM
:eek: Plans to build the Wallingford Mosque moved one step closer to Approval tonight...
Read all about it in the MRJ tomrrow... But remember...
You heard it here First! :D
LOL!
Wallyworldite
08-14-2008, 12:23 AM
:eek: Plans to build the Wallingford Mosque moved one step closer to Approval tonight...
Read all about it in the MRJ tomrrow... But remember...
You heard it here First! :D
LOL!
Q: Isn't this where this poorly planned project was back in May?
A: Yes.
Q: Have they ever addressed the issues of the Planning & Zoning Commission?
A: No.
I guess if you walk backwards for two months and then forward for two months, some may claim that you moved a step closer..., when in fact you are at the same place that you were to begin with... :D
See ya September 8..., its gonna be fun.:p
Marc Syrah
08-14-2008, 01:01 AM
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r139/Wineguys/dogintoilet.jpg
LOL!
sorry...
Hi
Farid said, would be open to all Muslims. Farid is hopeful for community support, he said. While the media often associates Islam with violence and radicalism, he said, true Islam promotes peace.
================================================== ====
tom
Connecticut Drug Treatment (http://www.drugtreatments.com/connecticut)
Wallyworldite
09-08-2008, 11:40 PM
It was pretty obvious at the Planning and Zoning meeting tonight. The Commission members are seeing through Farid and his multi-faceted representations. One month its this then another month its that, and then we have something completely different. Lets see what they try to get by the Commission NEXT month, its obvious that there is no credibility where this application is concerned. :rolleyes:
leigusite
09-09-2008, 09:19 PM
How about that Linda Bush----'we need more mosques in Conn'---I wish Jim Fitzsimmons had told her to keep her mouth shut and then removed the on switch to her microphone---or better yet--physically removed her larynx----she is an embarrassment to the town of walligford----I wouldn't be surprised if she got a large Edible Arrangement from Faird himself after her antics at the P & Z meeting
Fine Whine
09-09-2008, 11:58 PM
How about that Linda Bush----'we need more mosques in Conn'---I wish Jim Fitzsimmons had told her to keep her mouth shut and then removed the on switch to her microphone---or better yet--physically removed her larynx----she is an embarrassment to the town of walligford----I wouldn't be surprised if she got a large Edible Arrangement from Faird himself after her antics at the P & Z meeting
Another Fair and Balanced contribution from one of the loving folks of the Leigus Road/Fairlawn Farms area.
speakerguy
09-10-2008, 02:20 PM
Another Fair and Balanced contribution from one of the loving folks of the Leigus Road/Fairlawn Farms area.
Fine Whine,
Did you attend the P&Z Meeting? I can understand leigusite's frustration.
Ms. Bush's comments were inappropriate, to say the least.
The clear implication of her statement is that because Connecticut needs more mosques, we should ingnore the zoning laws and give the applicant whatever he wants.
Prejudice
09-10-2008, 08:43 PM
The clear implication of her statement is that because Connecticut needs more mosques...
Earlier in this thread members of your group were upset that people were assuming that the implications of the Fairlawn Farms residents were that they were prejudice and racist.
Welcome to the other side.
speakerguy
09-10-2008, 10:44 PM
Earlier in this thread members of your group were upset that people were assuming that the implications of the Fairlawn Farms residents were that they were prejudice and racist.
Welcome to the other side.
What other side?
When Planning & Zoning Board President James Fitzsimmons asked Town Planner Linda Bush for her comments, he was asking her to comment on the application at hand as it related to Town Planning. Ms. Bush, instead of doing her JOB, chose to make a Political statement. What possible motive could she have other than I described? Even if she had no motive and I am completely wrong, it is not her job to make Political statements. Remember, she is a PUBLIC SERVANT. Her salary is paid for by all us taxpayers. I would prefer that she do her job and quit wasting MY money on Political Statements.
06492er
09-11-2008, 12:57 PM
I have been following this story pretty closely, but this is my first post on the subject. Regarding the Linda Bush comment, she hit the nail on the head. She stated that the reason there is over crowding at Mosques was because there are not enough in the state. She did not say there are not enough Mosques on Leigus road. If there was only one church in Wallingford, do you think that they would have an issue with to many people attending?
I am pretty nutral on this topic. I understand both sides. I think the majority of the residents in this area don't want it becuase of traffic. Also, the Farid family is just trying to honor their mother the best they know how. Hopefully a compromise will be made and both side will get what they want, whether that means a different site or limiting the number of people that can attend the Mosque.
speakerguy
09-11-2008, 05:03 PM
I have been following this story pretty closely, but this is my first post on the subject. Regarding the Linda Bush comment, she hit the nail on the head. She stated that the reason there is over crowding at Mosques was because there are not enough in the state. She did not say there are not enough Mosques on Leigus road. If there was only one church in Wallingford, do you think that they would have an issue with to many people attending?
I am pretty nutral on this topic. I understand both sides. I think the majority of the residents in this area don't want it becuase of traffic. Also, the Farid family is just trying to honor their mother the best they know how. Hopefully a compromise will be made and both side will get what they want, whether that means a different site or limiting the number of people that can attend the Mosque.
I agree with you. However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to limit the number of attendees of any church. You can limit it on paper, but it is totally unenforceable. Therefore, the only other alternative is the one the we have all been stating from day one: Another site in Wallingford that is more suitable.
RC12L4
09-11-2008, 05:18 PM
I agree with you. However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to limit the number of attendees of any church. You can limit it on paper, but it is totally unenforceable. Therefore, the only other alternative is the one the we have all been stating from day one: Another site in Wallingford that is more suitable.
Wouldn't firecode dictate the maximum amount of occupants allowed in a building?
Prejudice
09-11-2008, 07:37 PM
IHowever, it is IMPOSSIBLE to limit the number of attendees of any church. You can limit it on paper, but it is totally unenforceable. Therefore, the only other alternative is the one the we have all been stating from day one: Another site in Wallingford that is more suitable.
Interesting land use concept.
Adopt that principle and every application would be denied.
06492er
09-12-2008, 08:19 AM
Fire code does dictate the occupancy of the room, but if the fire marshal isnt there sitting at the door, it cant really be enforced. At the PZC meeting Linda stated that the occupancy of the council chambers was 500 something. I went to the auction of the Yankee Silversmith at the Knights of Columbus. I bet that room was packed well past the fire code capacity.
With Churches it is much easier to forecast the number of attendees, or at least the parking. I belive its 1 car for ever 3 seats. Unfortunately the only parking regulation that can be applied to a Mosque is an assembly hall with no fix seating.
One thing is apparent, regulations for Mosques must be writen up. As time goes on and more and more Mosques get constructed, a reasonable calculation for parking must be formulated.
RC12L4
09-12-2008, 08:26 AM
Fire code does dictate the occupancy of the room, but if the fire marshal isnt there sitting at the door, it cant really be enforced. At the PZC meeting Linda stated that the occupancy of the council chambers was 500 something. I went to the auction of the Yankee Silversmith at the Knights of Columbus. I bet that room was packed well past the fire code capacity.
With Churches it is much easier to forecast the number of attendees, or at least the parking. I belive its 1 car for ever 3 seats. Unfortunately the only parking regulation that can be applied to a Mosque is an assembly hall with no fix seating.
One thing is apparent, regulations for Mosques must be writen up. As time goes on and more and more Mosques get constructed, a reasonable calculation for parking must be formulated.
You want a specific regulation for Mosques?
06492er
09-12-2008, 09:22 AM
Well it seems as though the town needs one. I really doubt that this will be the last Mosque proposed in Wallingford. If there are no regulations regarding mosques, then this debate on parking will go on and on. They tried using the parking regulation for and assembly hall with no fix seats, but Mr. McManus did not like that even though the town attorny said that was the correct regulation for this application.
Record-Journal
10-17-2008, 01:21 AM
By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
WALLINGFORD — There will be no mosque at the intersection of Leigus Road and Route 68.
In the last of five scheduled public hearings on the issue, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to deny Tariq Farid’s petition for a variance to build a mosque at 105 and 109 Leigus Road.
Citing traffic and parking concerns, James Fitzsimmons, James Seichter, Stacey Voss, Marci Baxter and Patrick Birney all voted to deny Farid’s request for a special permit to build the facility Thursday, which Farid had planned to dedicate to his late mother. The vote brought a chorus of cheers from a large crowd of worried neighborhood residents who have been vocal about their misgivings over the proposed location since the process began last year. Many carried red and white signs reading “No More Development on Leigus.”
“We’re just here because we’re concerned about the location of the building, the size of the building and the traffic,” said Don Boisvert, who lives on Trailside Drive, a nearby street. “We don’t need any more non-residential development on Leigus. We don’t care what it might be; we just want residential.”
Boisvert’s concern was echoed by many of the commission members, even after Fariq and his attorney, Bernard Pellegrino, had once again revised their proposal, this time limiting maximum occupancy to 115 people, which they argued would make the 96 proposed parking spaces more than adequate and would not significantly affect traffic.
But none of the commission members seemed to share that view.
“My concern is with respect to parking,” Seichter, vice chairman of the commission, said. “I’m looking at the enforceability of that 115 people, and I don’t really see that as being enforceable.”
“I have a strong belief that this mosque would be popular,” Birney added. “I’ve got grave concerns about the effect that this mosque will have in terms of the appropriateness of its location. The people in the audience are the ones who are going to have to live with us trying to enforce the 250 or 300 people going to this mosque when it was only approved for 115.”
It was not a question of denomination, it was a question of location, commission members said over and over again Thursday night, citing the mosque’s proposed location, on the edge of a quiet residential neighborhood, as simply being the wrong area for a venue of that sort.
“Although I commend you for wanting to do this, and I really do hope that you will be able to do this, I really don’t think that this is the appropriate location,” said Voss, an alternate who voted in the absence of David Fritz.
Afterwards, Farid left with Pellegrino and a dozen or so supporters without comment.
“I really can’t make any comment,” he said.
Fariq and Pellegrino have 20 days to appeal the decision, but Craig C. Fishbein, an attorney who has been one of the strongest opponents of the mosque’s proposed location, didn’t think Farid had much ground for appeal.
“Basically, what the commission said is that they didn’t prove their case. They would have a lot of problems with an appeal from here, in my opinion,” Fishbein said. “Right now, I feel cautiously optimistic. In 20 days or thereabouts I will be in a different position.”
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Wallyworldite
10-17-2008, 02:11 AM
I am happy to see that the Commission based its decision on the facts before it rather than the spectre of prejudice that the applicant tried to paint upon the residents of Leigus Road. I was at the meeting tonight and it was apparent that the Commission was wholly frustrated by the applicant's changing representations, failure to address the Commission's questions, and their general "guesswork" that underlied this application from the beginning.
Perhaps now the applicant can look to a suitable site for the project as I do not oppose a mosque being in Wallingford. Apparently neither do the Leigus Road residents nor the Commission, as it was apparent that the applicant had merely failed to prove that they were entitled to this special permit.
Of course, the applicant and probably some readers of this forum will probably just claim prejudice, but that is just a smokescreen. As pointed out from the beginning, this proposal is inappropriate for this site, given the zoning regulations that apply to this area.
Username01
10-17-2008, 02:04 PM
I applaud the commission for having the testicular fortitude to rule accordingly. They could have easily buckled under the weight of the idea that to not approve it would paint them as prejudiced and such and they didn't. Now perhaps Mr. Farid can take a look at the feasibility of revitalising any one of the number of vacant properties around town that are actually zoned for his planned use without the need for an exception.
I will find a certain amount of solace in the fact that Mr. Juliano's dog and pony show turned out to bite him in the rear.
-01
speakerguy
10-17-2008, 02:26 PM
I applaud the commission for having the testicular fortitude to rule accordingly. They could have easily buckled under the weight of the idea that to not approve it would paint them as prejudiced and such and they didn't. Now perhaps Mr. Farid can take a look at the feasibility of revitalising any one of the number of vacant properties around town that are actually zoned for his planned use without the need for an exception.
I will find a certain amount of solace in the fact that Mr. Juliano's dog and pony show turned out to bite him in the rear.
-01
I am also pleased that the zoning board ruled based on the facts. However, I do not think that Mr. Juliano put on a dog and pony show. He has a very difficult client and I think he did a great job given that fact.
leigusite
10-21-2008, 10:42 PM
Wouldn't it be ironic if the 'racists' from Fairlawn Farms were on hand to help Mr. Farid if he does build his mosque elsewhere IN WALLINGFORD. As has been stated many, many, times before--it was about traffic and parking--NOT RELIGION---I also thought it was ironic that at the P & Z meeting, on a quilt behind the commissioners are the four freedoms which our country stands for--which include Freedom of Speech (the Fairlawn Residents voiced their LEGITIMATE concerns) and Freedom of Religion (Muslims have the right to practice their religion). If Mr. Farid planned his mosque for an appropriate neighborhood, it would already be up & running---he gambled and LOST!!! and the denial vote was UNANIMOUS---the editorial in the Record Journal (Oct 21, 2008) should have been printed in the National Enquirer--it was that believable. The only ones that would 'rue the day' would be the impacted residents that would have had traffic & parking up the wazoo. A wise man once said 'don't argue with someone that is dumber than you' This applies to the editorial--it should not be replied to-----They just wouldn't understand unless they have 'walked a mile in our shoes' and seen what the big picture truly is.
Boy4Dreamz
10-23-2008, 10:15 PM
If I walked "a mile in those shoes" I' d be embarrassed by the cow chips of bigotry and narrow-mindedness the path had taken.
Sure, the Wallingford "protectors" of all that's not conforming according to their provencial and insular values can gloat and REJOICE in the victory of defeat.
Truth is, being smug and employing self-justification to deny American citizens (yes, even Muslims) the right to worship in peace in a location which wouldn't have made one iota of difference on busy Rt. 68 goes beyond shame -- it's a monument to abuse of local power structure, willful manipulation and abject exclusivity.
As for the R-J's editorial, I commend the broader and more inclusive/caring view it sets forth. The closed-ears in Wallingford won't hear it otherwise, according to this dialogue.
For God's sake, and for the betterment of America, be OPEN and embracing, loving and inclusive. Try it, please. It really won't detract from Wallingford's lofty standing.
Wallyworldite
10-23-2008, 11:06 PM
If I walked "a mile in those shoes" I' d be embarrassed by the cow chips of bigotry and narrow-mindedness the path had taken.
Sure, the Wallingford "protectors" of all that's not conforming according to their provencial and insular values can gloat and REJOICE in the victory of defeat.
Truth is, being smug and employing self-justification to deny American citizens (yes, even Muslims) the right to worship in peace in a location which wouldn't have made one iota of difference on busy Rt. 68 goes beyond shame -- it's a monument to abuse of local power structure, willful manipulation and abject exclusivity.
As for the R-J's editorial, I commend the broader and more inclusive/caring view it sets forth. The closed-ears in Wallingford won't hear it otherwise, according to this dialogue.
For God's sake, and for the betterment of America, be OPEN and embracing, loving and inclusive. Try it, please. It really won't detract from Wallingford's lofty standing.
It is quite apparent that you have never attended any of the hearings on this matter and have no knowledge of the evidence before the Commission. The applicant changed his representations so many times that he lost all credibility before the Commission. The P&Z members asked repeatedly for more information and for the basis of his representations and there were no answers offered. It was clear that his own engineering firm and traffic expert sandbagged him. Don't blame the residents. They did their job and it was commendable, not laudable. Fortunately for them, the residents' lawyers were better and more organized. They presented more credible evidence through video, still photos, land records, maps and other documents. You probably don't know but, in addition to the traffic and parking problems anticipated by the Commission, they determined that the applicant's parking plan violated the zoning regulations because it planned for parking where the regulations directly forbid the same. You would think that the engineering firm would know this. Nonetheless, if the applicant REALLY thought that the decision was not based upon the law, then he has the right to appeal. Please take the time to get informed before you further embarass yourself with your ignorance. Prejudice is to pre-judge something, based not upon facts but upon baseless perception. At this point the only one being prejudiced is... YOU. :D
Prejudice
10-24-2008, 12:40 AM
Please take the time to get informed before you further embarrass yourself with your ignorance. :D
Your critics can say "Likewise".
Please read prejudicial comments in this very blog by opponents and residents of the Fairlawn Farms neighborhood and the published letters to the Mayor and Planning & Zoning Commission.
"Traffic" was used as a smokescreen. So far, it has been a successful argument in the forum of the Planning & Zoning Commission but an unsuccessful smokescreen in the public arena because of the loose lips of members of your group.
In addition, there has been a "whispering campaign" conducted by leaders of your group. You can deny it here, but it would be a dishonest denial.
I reiterate, go back in this blog and view the comments of people of the Leigus Road area. You should be embarrassed, rather than smug.
Wallyworldite
10-24-2008, 10:02 AM
Your critics can say "Likewise".
Please read prejudicial comments in this very blog by opponents and residents of the Fairlawn Farms neighborhood and the published letters to the Mayor and Planning & Zoning Commission.
"Traffic" was used as a smokescreen. So far, it has been a successful argument in the forum of the Planning & Zoning Commission but an unsuccessful smokescreen in the public arena because of the loose lips of members of your group.
In addition, there has been a "whispering campaign" conducted by leaders of your group. You can deny it here, but it would be a dishonest denial.
I reiterate, go back in this blog and view the comments of people of the Leigus Road area. You should be embarrassed, rather than smug.
As stated above, to be prejudiced is to pre-judge something, based not upon facts but upon baseless perception. The determination by the commission had nothing to do with religion. It was based upon the facts, and conclusions made by the applicant's experts that were not supported by fact. Yes, on a daily basis many people pre-judge many issues, some issues as trivial as whether or not the car in the other lane will cross over and hit yours but, in the end the point of the matter is that the decision of the commission was right, and it had nothing to do with what was to go on INSIDE the building, rather, it had to do with what was to go on OUTSIDE the building. No, I am not being smug, just realistic. I went to all of the hearings, sat in the back and watched... with an open mind. At first I was skeptical, but still open to the plan. Eventually I came to realize that there was no way that the plan was going to be approved. It appeared by the time of the vote that the applicant and his experts had lost most of their credibility with the commission, as they were caught in many misrepresentations and it seemed that they made up stuff to support conclusions. The commission decided this based upon the facts and evidence. Facts that, based upon the changing representations of the applicant, there was no way that a reasonable board could approve this plan. :)
Leigusite, many of you claimed to be concerned only about traffic. Others were concerned about "terrorist activity", because they posted those comments here. Those of us who supported the mosque wonder which of you are truly being honest?
leigusite
10-28-2008, 07:32 PM
Leigusite, many of you claimed to be concerned only about traffic. Others were concerned about "terrorist activity", because they posted those comments here. Those of us who supported the mosque wonder which of you are truly being honest?
How many STUPID pills did you take--I have said it' ad nauseum' it's about traffic and parking---NO ONE IS OPPOSED TO A MOSQUE IN WALLINGFORD IF IT CAN HANDLE TRAFFIC AND OVERFLOW PARKING IN AN APPROPRIATELY ZONED AREA.
Wallyworldite
10-29-2008, 12:18 AM
How many STUPID pills did you take--I have said it' ad nauseum' it's about traffic and parking---NO ONE IS OPPOSED TO A MOSQUE IN WALLINGFORD IF IT CAN HANDLE TRAFFIC AND OVERFLOW PARKING IN AN APPROPRIATELY ZONED AREA.
Its o.k., Leigusite, some people just have to be prejudiced in their opinion of this matter, no matter the evidence. The neighbors said it was traffic and parking, the lawyers said it was traffic and parking, and THE COMMISSION said that the traffic and parking, AND that Farid's parking plan (designed by his own hired experts) VIOLATED the zoning regulations but, nonetheless, the uninformed will continue to claim prejudice. Its sort of like when someone falls off a swing, and they blame the wind. One must wonder where the ignorants were at the hearings because you an I both know that NO ONE from the public spoke in support of this project. How fitting..., they sit on their couch, don't do anything to help the applicant and then claim prejudice... The applicant had an engineering firm, a traffic consulting firm, and two large law firms from New Haven (Wiggin & Dana and Pellegrino Law Firm) The residents had a grassroots effort and a couple local lawyers. The fact of the matter is that the residents proved a better case, were more organized and had better lawyers. Simple. :p
speakerguy
10-30-2008, 08:48 PM
Its o.k., Leigusite, some people just have to be prejudiced in their opinion of this matter, no matter the evidence. The neighbors said it was traffic and parking, the lawyers said it was traffic and parking, and THE COMMISSION said that the traffic and parking, AND that Farid's parking plan (designed by his own hired experts) VIOLATED the zoning regulations but, nonetheless, the uninformed will continue to claim prejudice. Its sort of like when someone falls off a swing, and they blame the wind. One must wonder where the ignorants were at the hearings because you an I both know that NO ONE from the public spoke in support of this project. How fitting..., they sit on their couch, don't do anything to help the applicant and then claim prejudice... The applicant had an engineering firm, a traffic consulting firm, and two large law firms from New Haven (Wiggin & Dana and Pellegrino Law Firm) The residents had a grassroots effort and a couple local lawyers. The fact of the matter is that the residents proved a better case, were more organized and had better lawyers. Simple. :p
It is unfortunate that some have chosen to ignore the facts and accuse us of bias. But as my Dad always says, "Accusing is one thing.....proving is quite another.....". I predict that no facts will be presented to prove bias because none exist.
But you have to give the Record-Journal credit for continually attempting to make a story out of this. They are a persistent bunch......
Wallyworldite
11-03-2008, 07:38 PM
Found this elsewhere on this site. The link is here:
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=20177272&BRD=2755&PAG=461&dept_id=596291&rfi=6
Thought it might be of interest to those that read this thread, and seems to support my position that it was in part Farid's own people that caused his defeat.
10/24/2008
Mosque denial: The right decision
Craig C. Fishbein is a local attorney who resides close to the proposed site. He is one of the leaders of a coalition of Leigus Road area residents who are opposed to any further non-residential development of Leigus Road.
Recently it has been said that Wallingford will "rue the day" the P&Z Commission denied the recent mosque proposal. This could only be said by those uninformed as to the hearings before the Commission. Perhaps upon knowing some of the facts and evidence you will agree that, instead of blind ridicule, Wallingford should instead "herald the day" that the Commission denied the application.
From the beginning, questions were raised as to the applicant's proposed parking plan. Evidence was presented, in many forms, showing that similar facilities in Berlin, New Haven, Waterbury, West Haven, and Windsor were miscalculated and that the result is that those areas were plagued with hazardous parking and traffic problems.
Throughout, the applicant offered contradictions to the Commission and conclusions unsupported by facts. For example, the applicant had been quoted in local newspapers stating that the site was "perfect" because it is so close to the highway, but his traffic expert testified that patrons of the facility would neither arrive nor depart via I-91. When questioned by the Commission, the expert offered no explanation as to these conflicting statements.
The applicant proposed a 3,900-sq.-ft. facility with 96 parking spaces, representing that it would serve up to 90 persons, have a prayer area of 2,500 feet and, with each person taking up 10 square feet, that it would service a maximum of 125. But, as the Commission pointed out, 2,500 divided by 10 is 250, not 125. A month later, the applicant changed his representations as to prayer area (decreasing it), as well as the claimed space per person (increasing it to 14 square feet). Once again, when the Commission questioned the reasons for the changes, the inquiry went unanswered. However, the strong evidence before the Commission showed that, no matter the size of prayer space, the appropriate calculation is 7 square feet per person, a figure that could reasonably lead to occupancy by 325 persons.
There was also evidence of the Berlin mosque, and that during that facility's application process, it was represented to that town that the "maximum capacity is 50 persons." However that today, the facility regularly has over 300 cars and 400 people, and that the West Haven facility which is only 1900 sq. ft. is drawing very similar numbers.
The applicant's traffic expert proposed a timing change for the adjacent traffic signal, but failed to consult with state officials as to whether such a change was even possible. Further, he apparently did not factor in the projected lunchtime traffic from the former Mortgage Lenders site, once again offering no explanations. In fact, on the night of the vote, the applicant's traffic expert was absent without explanation, meanwhile the town's independent traffic expert concluded that the applicant's proposed parking plan would eventually create traffic and safety hazards in the neighborhood.
In addition to the applicant's contradictions and unsupported conclusions, the Commission determined that a significant portion of the applicant's parking plan violated the zoning regulations because he proposed to have parking in areas that the regulations expressly prohibit.
The decision by the Commission had nothing to do with religion; it had to do with rules. The applicant did not prove his case and he did not follow the rules - therefore, his application was denied.
Yes, the residents did work very hard to show the violations of the rules and to point out the many contradictions and baseless conclusions. That work and success should not be met with the pointed finger, but rather with a satisfaction that the right thing was done, not based upon anything other than facts and evidence.
Record-Journal
11-08-2008, 12:57 AM
By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
WALLINGFORD — It’s official: there will be no appeal of the decision to deny an application to build a mosque at the intersection of Route 68 and Leigus Road.
On Oct. 16 the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously rejected Tariq Farid’s request for a variance to build a mosque at 105 and 109 Leigus Road. Farid, founder and owner of multinational fruit bouquet corporation Edible Arrangements, had until Nov. 4, or 15 days from the decision’s publishing, to appeal.
Personnel at the town’s Planning and Zoning Department said Friday they had not received an appeal, and Edible Arrangements spokesman Jeff Alexander confirmed that none was filed.
“We’re not appealing,” said Alexander, who referred further questions to Farid.
Farid could not be reached for comment for this story, but he said after last month’s denial that he still intends to build a mosque somewhere in Wallingford.
His proposal was controversial from the start. Many residents in the Leigus Road neighborhood argued that the mosque would congest traffic and lead to parking problems in what they described as a quiet suburban community.
“When the process started, many people said that it was impossible to fight this,” said Craig C. Fishbein, an attorney who lives near the proposed site and organized a group of residents to rally against the proposal. “This was a real grassroots effort. It’s my position that we presented a better case than they did.”
Fishbein said that he finds the lack of an appeal vindicating.
“From the beginning of this process, people said that we were being prejudiced or bigoted,” Fishbein said. “I think the fact that the applicant isn’t filing an appeal shows that our actions were not based on prejudices but legitimate concerns with their proposal.”
Town Planner Linda Bush and planning commission Chairman James Fitzsimmons could not be reached Friday for comment.
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Wallyworldite
11-08-2008, 02:36 AM
Like Fishbein said, all along the naysayers claimed that the neighbors were prejudiced. They pointed to the signs and said "bigots". Now, after their stunning defeat they don't want to put their money where the mouth is and file an appeal. It is a great day for Wallingford and its residents. Farid's actions (or lack thereof) only serve to show that their prejudice angle was just a smokescreen. They were trying to have the Commission approve the plan not on its merits, but rather for sympathy. It is unfortunate that they had to stoop that low, but it is equally fortunate that the Commission saw through their tactics, and looked at the facts along with the regulations (as is their job).:p
On another note it is a sad commentary that the residents had to spend so much time and money uncovering the truth behind the applicant's representations.:(
Good luck Farid with your future plans to build in Wallingford, the tracks that you created in the sand will be there awaiting your next application... :eek:
Eastside Bill
11-08-2008, 07:03 AM
Still, you have to wonder if the objections to the mosque would be there were this a church with identical potential traffic issues.
Wallyworldite
11-08-2008, 11:58 AM
Still, you have to wonder if the objections to the mosque would be there were this a church with identical potential traffic issues.
Wonder all you want... the Commission ultimately said that there was too much traffic and that the parking plan VIOLATED the zoning regulations. Objections aside, that is what happened. Farid tried to get an illegal plan by the Commission and he was CAUGHT. The fact that he isn't appealing just underlines the fact that there was no prejudice here, just misrepresentations by the applicant, his traffic engineer, architect and site engineer. It is unfortunate that just a mile away there is objection to traffic from a proposed used car dealership, and no one there is hiding behind a smokescreen, where they find it necessary to do so with regards to Leigus Road. I wish that the naysayers and finger pointers would apologize as they were obviously wrong, but that won't happen, they'll just crawl back under their rocks, and appear another day with their baseless (although hurtful) accusations.
alwaysright
11-08-2008, 01:32 PM
Wonder all you want... the Commission ultimately said that there was too much traffic and that the parking plan VIOLATED the zoning regulations. Objections aside, that is what happened. Farid tried to get an illegal plan by the Commission and he was CAUGHT. The fact that he isn't appealing just underlines the fact that there was no prejudice here, just misrepresentations by the applicant, his traffic engineer, architect and site engineer. It is unfortunate that just a mile away there is objection to traffic from a proposed used car dealership, and no one there is hiding behind a smokescreen, where they find it necessary to do so with regards to Leigus Road. I wish that the naysayers and finger pointers would apologize as they were obviously wrong, but that won't happen, they'll just crawl back under their rocks, and appear another day with their baseless (although hurtful) accusations.
if some religeous zealot wanted a church in MY neighborhood you can bet I'd protest. Worship in the woods folks- don't put it in our faces.
oldnickel
11-08-2008, 02:06 PM
A response to wallyworldite, leigusite and others.
As I have said before, there is way too much emotion here for this to be just about traffic and parking.
Many responses from those against the Mosque had blatant prejudicial comments.
Many other responses contained, loaded, insulting, nasty personal attacks on Mr Farid and his business.
Wallyworldite you made the following statements:
Farid tried to get an illegal plan by the Commission and he was CAUGHT
Good luck Farid with your future plans to build in Wallingford, the tracks that you created in the sand will be there awaiting your next application.
Somehow, with statements like this I have doubts about your sincerity.
alwaysright
11-08-2008, 03:37 PM
A response to wallyworldite, leigusite and others.
As I have said before, there is way too much emotion here for this to be just about traffic and parking.
Many responses from those against the Mosque had blatant prejudicial comments.
Many other responses contained, loaded, insulting, nasty personal attacks on Mr Farid and his business.
Wallyworldite you made the following statements:
Farid tried to get an illegal plan by the Commission and he was CAUGHT
Good luck Farid with your future plans to build in Wallingford, the tracks that you created in the sand will be there awaiting your next application.
Somehow, with statements like this I have doubts about your sincerity.
please, I know many of you would like to send me a gift- just don't make it a fruit bouquet.
speakerguy
11-08-2008, 10:04 PM
A response to wallyworldite, leigusite and others.
As I have said before, there is way too much emotion here for this to be just about traffic and parking.
Many responses from those against the Mosque had blatant prejudicial comments.
Many other responses contained, loaded, insulting, nasty personal attacks on Mr Farid and his business.
Wallyworldite you made the following statements:
Farid tried to get an illegal plan by the Commission and he was CAUGHT
Good luck Farid with your future plans to build in Wallingford, the tracks that you created in the sand will be there awaiting your next application.
Somehow, with statements like this I have doubts about your sincerity.
Old Nickel,
I attended EVERY zoning board meeting. I met one of Mr. Farid's lawyers at the site to review the wetlands. And I would have attended Mr. Farids "community" meeting, if he had actually invited the community, instead of just the 4 or 5 neighbors with adjoining property.
Based on the incompleteness and lack of foundation of the proposal, I quickly came to the conclusion that Mr. Farid was COUNTING on the public and the zoning board to be a bunch of bleeding heart liberals and/or PC pansies that would approve anything he proposed. We neighbors countered this by being VERY vocal about the FACTS. We needed to be VERY vocal or the bleeding hearts and PC pansies would drown us out. The public, who lived up to Mr. Farids expectations FULLY, accused us (and is still accusing us) of bias, despite the MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary. All we did was provide the zoning board with the facts and the zoning board made the correct decision based on the facts.
We tried to help Mr. Farid find a suitable location. I pointed out several locations only several hundred yards from the Leigus Road site. Perhaps now he will consider them. If you want to help, why not call Edible Arrangements and let them know about suitable sites near you.
oldnickel
11-08-2008, 10:40 PM
speakerguy, I am very disappointed. You were one of the posters that actually had reasoned responses.
However, thanks for proving my point. If this was just based on the facts there would be no need for disparaging and insulting remarks. The facts that insults continue to be thrown about, is low on your part.
Farid applied for an exception and was turned down. There is nothing illegal or evil in that. It happens all the time. To imply other motives is just paranoid, but then again if we disagree with you we must be pc pansies.
speakerguy
11-08-2008, 10:59 PM
speakerguy, I am very disappointed. You were one of the posters that actually had reasoned responses.
However, thanks for proving my point. If this was just based on the facts there would be no need for disparaging and insulting remarks. The facts that insults continue to be thrown about, is low on your part.
Farid applied for an exception and was turned down. There is nothing illegal or evil in that. It happens all the time. To imply other motives is just paranoid, but then again if we disagree with you we must be pc pansies.
If I insulted you I apologize. It WAS just based on the facts and my pointed remarks are due to the fact that I have had it up to HERE with the bias remarks. Even after this thing is all over, 5-0 vote to deny from the PZB, no appeal, etc., the public STILL says "Well, yes we see all the facts but still think you are biased". I lost my cool and bet you might too under similar circumstances.
Wallyworldite
11-08-2008, 11:43 PM
Farid applied for an exception and was turned down. There is nothing illegal or evil in that. It happens all the time. To imply other motives is just paranoid, but then again if we disagree with you we must be pc pansies.
It amazes me how some people don't watch any of the hearings, (BTW, they are ALL available on the internet at http://www.wallingfordgovtv.blogspot.com/), and then attempt to pass judgment on what occurred. The Commission said that Farid's parking plan VIOLATED the zoning regulations. The zoning regulations are the legal language that the zoning commission is legally required to follow in addressing applications before it. For something to be (once again) in V-I-O-LATION of the zoning regulations, makes it I-L-LEGAL. Simple. No hidden agenda. No prejudice, no bigotry. Just simple facts.
How many times do you see a Commission tell and applicant that his plan "violated" the regulations? Never. Not before this, and apparently Farid already knew this, otherwise he would have filed an appeal challenging the determination. He did not. Actions speak louder than words, and his spoke loud and clear. P-L-EASE take the time to watch the hearings..., you obviously have not, and your comments prove that fact well beyond a reasonable doubt.:D You are looking foolish.
If some were truely so concerned about Mr. Farid being a victim, then why didn't you support him at the meetings? I remember seeing only one person, not a muslum, there in support of the mosque. She was a freind and she never came again. How can people be so outraged and disappointed and yet never stand up for this injustice? Not in 5 meetings did anyone attend with this concern. We presented a reasoned case why the location was poor. Mr. Farid fell short. To continue with this discussion is futile. The truth is lost here; as it is in many PC arguments. The important thing is Mr. Farid is looking elsewhere. I'm sure he'll be successful this time, if he picks a reasonable location. No one objects to a mosque in Wallingford. DONE.
oldnickel
11-09-2008, 01:09 PM
Anna
This is the perfect statement:
We presented a reasoned case why the location was poor. Mr. Farid fell short.
Next
To continue with this discussion is futile
Yet you keep coming back like a moth to a flame.
Finally Anna
The truth is lost here; as it is in many PC arguments.
Don't confuse a civil conversation based on facts with PC. When members of your group start tossing in loaded phrases and personal attacks, expect some return fire.
Wallyworldite:
Maybe, please type S-L-O-W-E-R. Your arguments are so complex they are difficult to follow.
Anna
This is the perfect statement:
We presented a reasoned case why the location was poor. Mr. Farid fell short.
Next
To continue with this discussion is futile
Yet you keep coming back like a moth to a flame.
Finally Anna
The truth is lost here; as it is in many PC arguments.
Don't confuse a civil conversation based on facts with PC. When members of your group start tossing in loaded phrases and personal attacks, expect some return fire.
Wallyworldite:
Maybe, please type S-L-O-W-E-R. Your arguments are so complex they are difficult to follow.
In reference to this forum, we were the only ones with the FACTS. That's why WE won!
DONE, again. :)
Wallyworldite
11-09-2008, 05:16 PM
Wallyworldite:
Maybe, please type S-L-O-W-E-R. Your arguments are so complex they are difficult to follow.
L-O-L
:)
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.1 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.