Nov. 8, 2008: Mosque ruling upheld

[Record-Journal]

WALLINGFORD — The founders of Edible Arrangements have submitted plans to construct what would be the town’s first Islamic mosque.

“There’s actually a nice-sized population (of Muslims) in this area, so we decided to help and build a mosque,” said Kamran Farid, chief operating officer of Edible Arrangements.

Farid, his brother Tariq, who is the chief executive officer of the fruit basket company, and his two other brothers are working together to build the mosque. The mosque is being planned in honor of their mother, Salma Khatoon Farid, who died two years ago, Farid said.

The 4,900-square-foot building would be located at 109 Leigus Road, at the intersection with Route 68. Plans call for 36 parking spaces.

Farid said the building would receive the most use on Fridays, when Muslims are obligated to attend a mosque for a prayer known as Juma. Farid expects 80 to 90 people to attend the mosque on Fridays while five to 10 people would attend on other days.

The building must face the holy city of Mecca.
The mosque, 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.

There is a need for a local mosque, Farid said, since there are many Muslims in the area who must travel to Islamic institutions in Berlin or Hamden to pray. The location is ideal, he said, because of easy highway access.

The Farids must obtain a special permit approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to construct a religious building, said Town Planner Linda Bush. Because the parcel at 109 Leigus Road is zoned residential, the commission will have to determine whether the building would “negatively impact” the neighborhood character, Bush said.

She said the proposed mosque is “not much larger than some houses in Wallingford. ” Traffic generated by the mosque, she said, would be minimal compared to traffic created by the upcoming 305,000-square-foot office building across the street.

Bush noted a number of religious buildings have been approved for residential zones, such as Our Lady of Fatima Church on Hope Hill Road.

The first mosque in Meriden was recently started by the state chapter of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The Baitul Aman Mosque is in South Meriden.

[David]

Isn't it often the case that residential neighborhoods are at peace with a building created for worship in their midst?

[wallingfordnative]

As a former Wallingford resident, I would urge the town to be very cautious about allowing this 5000 square foot mosque to be built in a residential area.

With regards to the reference to Our Lady of Fatima, that church has been on Hope Hill Road for more than 50 years. Times have changed.

While most Muslims are probably peaceful, how can you be sure that there will be no "quiet" terrorist planning going on? You can't. Historically, these groups have all the time in the world to plan before they execute. What you may permit today may have long-reaching effects on the future.

[jma]

C'mon, terrorist activity in a neighborhood mosque?!? Since there are pedophiles in Catholic churches, should we stop them as well? Southern baptist churches may be holding KKK rallies in secret, too!! Sorry, enough sarcasm. I wish them well, and hope they are allowed to practice their religion in peace. Sounds like that may be more difficult than it should be.

[kimbie724]

Well Wallingford is now joining the ranks of other towns that are building up the Islamic Faith. Ya most of us Christians aren't perfect but whoever said we were??
The Islamic goal is to convert all of us in the world to join that religion and now it will easier for them to do. I am sure you women want to wear those long black dresses and become the property of your husbands and do as he says. Freedom is something that CAN NOT be taken for granted. Also women aren't worthy to worship God in the Mosques, Talk about going backwards in time!
I'd be very careful what you wish for and take heed in what is happening in your surroundings.
I WILL NOT SURRENDER TO THEM AND AM A DEVOTE CHRISTIAN WHO WILL FIGHT AGAINST WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY.

[wallingfordnative]

Regarding JMA's response...wake up and open your eyes. Is it any coincidence that the terrorists all happen to be Muslims??? Kimbie724 is correct. The Muslim's "duty" and goal is to convert the world to their fundamentalist religion.


No thank you.

[David]

We must not let fear rule reason. To say that "ALL terrorists are Muslims" is, at best, an assumption of vast proportion.
There are Roman Catholics and Protestants fighting to the finish in Northern Ireland in the name of God. War, hate and fear are not limited to any one religion but, sadly, are the manifestations of humankind's lower propensities.
The world will never know lasting peace unless the seeds for the same are planted wherever there's fertile soil. If that soil is for Muslims in Wallingford to have a place of worship, let's practice charity and display the virtues of our national and individual beliefs -- the ones which bring out the best in our collective natures.

[jma]

Do you two actually know any muslims? I do, and they are very peaceful, loving people. Some muslims are terrorists, so you assume they all are? If that's the case, since some priests are child molesters, aren't they all? I suggest you try to open your hearts and minds a bit more. Life is much better lived when you reach out to others with an open hand, rather than reaching at them with a closed fist. By the way Kimbie, if you read your bible a bit more, you'd realize that the woman's role in Christianity isn't much better. Women are still 2nd class citizens--just dressed a bit better.

[wallingfordnative]

Yes, I happen to know and work with several Muslims...as well as many people from all religious beliefs and from all parts of the world. Just because the people you know present themselves as peaceful (and may very well be just that) does not mean someone with terrorist ties is going to admit that to you. How do you distinguish? Are you willing to take that chance? I'm not.

Extreme Muslims do not value human life. They volunteer for suicidal bombings in the name of their religion. They hate Americans for everything we value and they will continue their mission to convert everyone whether it takes a few years or generations.

The article failed to mention that there is a new mosque on Diamond Hill Road in South Meriden. For the few people in Wallingford who are requesting another mosque in a residential neighborhood, is there a reason they can't travel to South Meriden to worship?

It's time Americans took back their country. If you're prepared to let members of one of the most dangerous extreme religions establish themselves in Wallingford, I wish you good luck.

[David]

The lack of logic in the last commentary astounds me! Saying that Wallingford's Muslims should travel to Meriden for worship doesn't cut it. When Catholics in Yalesville, for example, built their new church about 51 years ago, how would they have felt if not allowed to do so because "there's already a church very nearby in S. Meriden"?
People of all faiths deserve to have a spiritual home. Yes, the location needs to be appropriate and approved for reasons of planning and zoning, but not because of some people's irrational fear that Muslims will take over the town or threaten neighbors.
As I stated earlier, Roman Catholics have been killing Protestants, and vice-versa, in N. Ireland in the name of religion for many years. How does this make Christian Catholics/Protestants any less "suspect" than Muslims? Understanding, please!

[jma]

David, you're not the only one astounded. I give up. If Kimbie and Wallingfordnative want to live in a world of fear, distrust and hatred, let them. It's not my world. If the mosque ever gets built, I plan on visiting it, and welcoming the members to the community. Let the other two hide in their homes. Clearly they have nothing to offer the world.

[Eastside Bill]

I always wonder why those who loudly proclaim themselves as devout Christians have no tolerance for those different from them. Like the phrase says "what would Jesus do?" Would He react with such fear and xenophobia? Somehow, I think not. I think He would reach out a welcome hand.

Regarding the post that said all terrorists are Muslims, I don't think Timothy McVeigh was Muslim as just one example that such a broad statement is wildly inaccurate.

[David]

"...and let it begin with me." That familiar refrain should also be sung thus:

"...and let it begin with US." (Even in Wallingford . . .)

[UNiRAC]

While most Muslims are probably peaceful, how can you be sure that there will be no "quiet" terrorist planning going on? You can't. Historically, these groups have all the time in the world to plan before they execute. What you may permit today may have long-reaching effects on the future.
:o I think your thinking is Right and [as said later] Not SARCASM! it is a major issue since ISLAMIC org.s don't denounce this JIHAD !
as alwayz, all Flamez welcom :cool:

[wallingfordnative]

Thank you, UNiRAC. I'm relieved to hear at least 3 of us have common sense and knowledge of current world events.

To JMC and David, I don't live my life in fear of anyone. I also don't intend to let terrorists or anyone else threaten our American way of life. Please travel to the Middle East - any Muslim country will do - and spend 1 year or more living there spreading your "peace" message.

You will both note that I have not responded to your unrelated comments about pedophile Catholics, Irish religious wars, nor have I been sarcastic, quoted the Bible, or insulted anyone. The issue at hand is building a 5000 square foot mosque in a local residential neighborhood in 2007 for a group that supports (and does not denounce) extremist terrorism against Americans.

Perhaps you should both exercise the peace you're preaching and be more tolerant of those whose opinions differ from yours in these postings.

[David]

Please explain WHY it's okay to have a mosque in a S. Meriden residential neighborhood, but NOT in Wallingford.

[wallingfordnative]

In response to David's question, I never said it was fine to have a mosque in South Meriden but not in Wallingford. A mosque already exists in South Meriden...so why not worship there? It's not a long drive from Wallingford. The article stated that the Wallingford Muslims currently have the choice of driving to Berlin or Hamden...both farther than South Meriden. Is there a different sect in South Meriden?

I am actually very tolerant of all religions and cultures. As I previously mentioned, I'm lucky to work with people from all over the world and my family and I travel extensively world-wide. I've also said most Muslims are peaceful people. It's previous and future terrorism on American citizens that I don't tolerate and if you've read anything about terrorist attacks on Americans in the past decade, you'll note that the planning took place over long periods of time by people who appeared to fit right into the neighborhood.

[collie]

Wallingford native - you sound really sarcastic to me and that crack about people spending a year in the Middle East sounds remarkably like the old America Love It or Leave It slogan used to denounce Vietnam war protestors in the 1970's. Not wanting a mosque in Wallingford reminds me of the time Jesse Jackson and CNN came to town and the state legislature had to pass a law if I remember correctly, to force Wallingford to observe Martin Luther King's Birthday. That attracted hate monger Matt Hale, probably because he thought his racist rhetoric would be welcomed by a municipality that scandalized itself by refusing to honor MLK Day.

[David]

In response to the previous post: <quote>

"In response to David's question, I never said it was fine to have a mosque in South Meriden but not in Wallingford. A mosque already exists in South Meriden...so why not worship there?"

I repeat: following this illogic, what if Roman Catholics in Yalesville wanted to build Our Lady of Fatima church today in its same location (a residential neighborhood on Hope Hill Road) and were told the following:

"There's already a Roman Catholic church very nearby in S. Meriden . . . you can drive there with ease. We don't want your proposed church in OUR residential neighborhood in Wallingford." ???

[wallingfordnative]

To Collie - none of my postings were sarcastic. They were factual. JMA (?) was sarcastic and insulted those of us who disagree with building a mosque in Wallingford. Several others were intolerant of the person who said they are Christian. I suppose their thinking is, it's not acceptable to be Christian but THEY can quote the Bible and rejoice that the Muslims have arrived. I don't get it. Yes, if you don't love the freedom we have in this country, feel free to travel elsewhere. I have and I can assure you, this is the best country in the world.

I answered David's question several times, but since he doesn't understand my answer, I'll change the subject and answer his question pertaining to Our Lady of Fatima directly. (By the way - just what do you have against that church, David? There are many Catholic churches in both towns, all to my knowledge, built many years ago by ethnic groups...St. Stanislaus, St. Laurent, St. Mary's, St. Rose, etc. and yet for some reason, you continually mention Our Lady of Fatima)

I would question building any house of worship or any other business in a residential neighborhood. They are all businesses - have you been to the Vatican and seen the wealth of the Catholic church? I only mention this particular location and religion because you seem to have a vendetta against Catholics.

Regardless of your inability to understand logic, current politics, and reason, I am against building this in Wallingford. Period. What part of that don't you understand?

I'm also against other extremists arriving such as the KKK years ago. Therefore, Collie, you are also mistaken and are misreading my postings. JMA was the person who associated Baptists with the KKK. He was, I hope, being sarcastic. I'll certainly give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's clear to me that only the ultra-liberal, stoned out hippies are welcome in this forum. Any conservatives need not write again.

Signing off - I've had enough debate with close-minded (or should I say naive) people.

[David]

My, oh my! There's a saying: "Keep an open mind, something might fall in." In any case, let's move on from this point.

For the record, I have nothing against any church, and, in fact, I'm a supporter. I was simply mentioning Our Lady of Fatima Church in particular because it's closest to S. Meriden (where the mosque under discussion exists) and also because it's the newest church to be built in a residential Wallingford neighborhood bordering S. Meriden. Period. What part of that isn't clear?!

[Eastside Bill]

It's clear to me that only the ultra-liberal, stoned out hippies are welcome in this forum. Any conservatives need not write again.

Signing off - I've had enough debate with close-minded (or should I say naive) people.

Ultra-liberal stoned out hippies? Come on, Wallingford native. Just because not everyone agrees with you doesn't mean you have to use such intolerant labels like that. However, I'm glad that you recognize that freedom is a key value of this country. including freedom to worship where one pleases. Like you said in an earlier posting, perhaps "you should be more tolerant of those whose opinions differ from yours in these postings.'

[David]

Thank you, Bill. Well said!

[Wallyworldite]

Back in the fall, I thought this plan was abandoned. I was in Town Hall the other day, and saw this notice:


PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The Wallingford Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission will hold a public hearing on April 2, 2008 at 7:00p.m., Robert Early Auditorium, 2nd Floor, Town Hall, 45 South Main Street, Wallingford, Connecticut, to consider:

SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY Application # A08-2.1 / 105 & 109 Leigus Road - Kamran Farid - (industrial development - Islamic Center) relative to the development of two parcels (Map 66, Lot 57 and Map 66, Lot 58), entailing two institutional buildings, parking are facilities (135 spaces), and associated stormwater management facilities with drainage to a regulated area.

Application plans and documents are available for view at the Environmental Planning Office, Town Hall.

Signed,

James E. Vitali, Chairman

The re-raising of this issue took me by surprise... Did anyone else realize that this was going on? How come we haven't seen any coverage in the RJ? :confused: I thought this was over... Now the plan is even larger. Like the neighbors don't have enough problems with flooding on that side of the street, now there is a plan to drain into the wetlands? Plus, now that the Mortgage Lenders building is anticipated to be rented out to multi-tenants, how can Leigus Road (or better yet Route 68) handle all this traffic?

I'm perplexed...

[collie]

I knew it was going forward; perhaps I saw it on the posted agenda for a commission meeting in the Record Journal want ads. Either that or through the coalition for unity. Funny, we just had a forum on "race relations" here in Meriden last night in which I guess people thought things were "better"- hope the opposition to this project is truly because of parking and environmental concerns and not because people don't want a mosque in Wallingford.

[Wallyworldite]

I knew it was going forward; perhaps I saw it on the posted agenda for a commission meeting in the Record Journal want ads. Either that or through the coalition for unity. Funny, we just had a forum on "race relations" here in Meriden last night in which I guess people thought things were "better"- hope the opposition to this project is truly because of parking and environmental concerns and not because people don't want a mosque in Wallingford.

I was just surprised. With all the opposition that there was to the mortgage lenders project, I thought there would be some coverage of this as I don't think that the residents over there are going to be too happy. It has nothing to do with the Mosque. Its the general negative of the neighborhood by a commercial entity, added traffic, affecting the wetlands (because the commission has apparently already determined that the activity is taking place within a wetlands area and that the activity is significant. Additionally, as to the diversity issue it is funny that when the neighborhood opposed the mortgage lenders construction (nka fiasco) they weren't accused of being bigoted against bankers, but now that there is opposition to this "Islamic Center" that any opposition is seen as being hateful. I just hope that our citizens are not afraid to speak out, in fear that the "p" (prejudice) tag be placed on their back(s).

[jma]

No one will be accused of being predjudiced if they give specific, clear examples of how the added traffic, etc will negatively affect their neighborhood. When they start to mention terrorist activity, as some in this forum have, it's clear what the real issue is.

[Wallyworldite]

No one will be accused of being predjudiced if they give specific, clear examples of how the added traffic, etc will negatively affect their neighborhood. When they start to mention terrorist activity, as some in this forum have, it's clear what the real issue is.

I understand. Personally, I think that it is a bad location for anything commercial. Route 68 gets very congested at times, and once tenants start moving into the old mortgage lenders building, the traffic on Leigus Road and Route 68 will be horrible. In the RJ article that originally started this thread it was indicated that the facility would be mostly used on Fridays. That, combined with the mortgage lenders traffic? What a headache... :(

[Wallyworldite]

I heard that there is supposed to be a meeting at the Wallingford Courtyard Marriott on Tuesday April 15 @ 7p.m. for the supporters of this project to hear (and maybe address) the neighbors concerns. Has anybody else heard about this? Is it just a rumor? I would like to go just to see what is going on, but I don't want to travel there unnecessarily. If anyone has any insight as to this can you post here? Thanks.

[collie]

I haven't heard anything on the grapevine. Seems like there would be something in the paper; haven't read today's yet.

[whalers44]

I understand everyones concern about the power plant. Some councilors are going on the sympathy of the people without hearing out the Arena group. The power plants that are built today are safe, under strict laws, are beutified by the agreement of the city with the company, and is a big asset for the city. Everyone says, "NOT IN MY BACKYARD." But don't give up before the process even starts. Right now the city is in the final phases of the budget process. Everyone complains about the school budget and the increase in taxes. Well, don't complain about them when you turn down this plant. This plant will bring in much needed tax $$$ that this city really needs. Don't complain when you turn this down and other industries look elsewhere instead of coming to Meriden. A peaking plant is a plant that will operate only during peak periods when the Grid needs power. So, this plant will not be running all the time but it will bring in alot of Dollars for taxes. If the taxes go up anymore, people, especially our seniors who helped build this city, will all be leaving for places where taxes are lower. That is if they can sell there homes because people have a bad image of Meriden because of the taxes and school system. Well, if without this power plant, we either get a higher tax base or our school systems will suffer with a decrease in funds. We can't have our cake and eat it too...so, wake up citizens and lets give this plant a chance and lets move forward and say "Yes to new industry coming into the city.....Oh, and one more thing, the plant on the hill is too expensive to purchase and the insides have to be starting to rust. So, don't say that they should buy that one. Nobody will be doing anything with that one I can guarantee you that. Thanks and I know that I am one of the few in favor but we all have too thing positive about this. Thanks

[Wallyworldite]

Obviously the message above belongs elsewhere. Does anyone know if there was a meeting at the Marriott with regards to the proposed mosque? Did anyone attend? What was said? Thanks.

[CMNSNC]

Have any of us bothered to read it?
My wife has, and she told me while other than being repetative, it is very similar to our Christian Bible. Many of the prophets are mentioned as well as Jesus. They believe He was a prophet and not Our Savior.
We discussed the Koran and what we found out that there is no Jihad called for. This interpretation is left up to individual Imams who are the spiritual leaders of each sect of Islam. Now therein lies the problem with the middle east. We have the two different sects, each with their own beliefs about a certain prophet. One believes he is still to be born, and the other that he has already been born. Does this sound familiar to Christians and Jews?
Yet they can't tolerate the others beliefs. In this country Jews and Christians live in harmony. Why is this? Education.
In the middle east women and most men are illiterate. They cannot read Arabic let alone any other language. Therefore they are fodder for any one who holds a book in their hands and says "This is the truth"!
Once upon a time the Christian Church had the same hold on the population. People couldn't read so they just let the so-called elite tell them what they 'needed' to know.
I beleive that in order for Islam to get into the real world and not the middle ages once again, it needs a central leader. It has now become the worlds most populous religion, but somehow the most fragmented. This is sad for all Muslims. Christianity, be it Catholic, Protestant, Baptist all have the belief in one God and Jesus. We tolerate our differences, at least in this country. If Islam can do this as we all believe in the one God, maybe we can all live in peace. Perhaps for the first time in human history! I would die before I converted to Islam as they would before they converted to Christianity!
So let us all believe in God as we feel we should and not force any belief upon another!

[eds]

I've read it. And I've read Muslim clerics interpretation that Jesus was only a prophet and subservient to Mohammed and to God, in that order. That is fundamentally incompatible with Christian beliefs, hence the war. Religions, all of them, have to have some fundamental, albeit, ever so slight, difference between them to garner paying customers, i.e. members. I am pretty much against any organized religion that runs as a business. Not against the religion mind you, against the business surrounding the religion. The multi-billion dollar organizations that do nothing for anyone but themselves. I have no problem with the people, no problem with the religion, just the money part and the business part. Essentially, how it's run.

Please understand this subtlety before you flame me...As I have said, I am a Hebrew Christian. Now figure that one out!

[Carolyn]

The following article appeared in the Record-Journal on Monday, April 28.


Plans moving forward for Islamic mosque

By George Moore
Record-Journal staff

WALLINGFORD — Plans to build what would be the town’s first Islamic mosque are back before the zoning and wetlands commissions.

The mosque, which will be at the corner of Leigus Road and Route 68, was first proposed last summer, but the plan was withdrawn in order to make revisions.

The Salma K. Farid Islamic Center is being proposed by brothers Tariq and Kamran Farid, founders of Edible Arrangements. The mosque is named after their mother, who helped the brothers start Edible Arrangements, a company that has franchises nationwide. She provided the seed money to start the business, said Tariq Farid.

“She was our first banker, our first educator, our first motivator, who made us what we are today,” Farid said.
Farid also wants to build the mosque because he and other Muslims in town need a place to pray, he said. The Islamic Center would primarily be a family mosque, he said, though it would be open to the Wallingford community.

Last year’s plans called for building the project on one residential lot. The new plans have an additional lot to provide more space for parking. The Farids want to build the parking in phases. Forty spaces would be built before the mosque opens. Land would be available to construct more parking if the need arose. The site accommodates up to 135 spaces, according to plans submitted to the town.

The Farids expect that 80 to 90 people would attend the weekly religious services, slated for Fridays from 1 to 2:30 p.m. About five to 10 people would attend the mosque each day for the rest of the week, according to the plans.
While the home on the corner would be torn down to build the 4,900-square-foot mosque, the home on the neighboring lot would be kept as a temporary place of prayer while the mosque is in construction. Once the mosque is finished, the home like*ly would be used as office space.

“We don’t want to change the look of the area, because we understand there are residents in the area,” Farid said. “We don’t want to start tearing things apart.”

Leigus Road resident Brenda Rode said she is concerned about the traffic issues the project would generate.
“I think it’s going to be a little bit too crowded on Leigus Road,” she said.

She noted that the 309,000-square foot office building on one side of Leigus soon will be occupied, putting more traffic on the residential road. The mosque is being pro*posed on the residential side of Leigus Road.

Religious buildings are allowed in residential areas. There are a documented 16 religious buildings in town that are in, or adjacent to, residential zones.

The Farids recently held a community meeting with neighboring residents about the mosque plan. Farid said he called the meeting after hearing comments at a wetlands meeting that were incorrect about the Islamic religion. He wanted the meeting, he said, to “reach out to the community” and give residents a better sense of the plan.

The Planning and Zoning Commission’s public hearing on the plan will be May 12. The wetlands commission will hold a public hearing on the plan May 7. Erin O’ Hare, the town environmental planner, said the project is in compliance with wetlands regulations.

gmoore@record-journal.com (203) 317-2275

[Carolyn]

From Friday's (5/2/08) Record-Journal:


Wallingford citizens should be proud to welcome plans for a mosque out on the east side of town, near the intersection of Leigus road and Route 68.

Of course, as with any other religious group, the people hoping to build there must satisfy all the varied rules and regulations which apply to anyone else. There will be wetlands concerns, parking concerns, traffic concerns and all the rest.

But this is where it needs to stop. It is important that Wallingford, as a town in the cradle of American democracy, accommodate itself to religious bodies of any and all sorts. The American Way — not always lived up to in the fullest sense, but the ideal — is to welcome views and worshippers of all sorts (or of none whatever). That is what brought many Americans to this part of the world in the first place, and religious freedom, to be able to worship as they chose: without official interference and under the protections of law.

It isn’t always easy. It wasn’t easy for early Congregationalists — often referred to as Puritans — to accept the strange ways of Anglicans (modern Episcopalians), Anabaptists (Baptists) and other Protestant denominations as they branched and developed. Mormons were severely persecuted for misconceptions which went beyond polygamy. Jews were often not made welcome, even in the 20th century. In many communities Roman Catholics had to wait decades before full acceptance as commonplace worshippers.

People of many faiths have come to this country. They work hard, earn a living, establish reputations and respectability — and they found places for worship in accordance with their own unique traditions. Zoning laws are generally friendly toward houses of worship, often, as in Wallingford, making exceptions to allow them in residential zones.

Americans do get used to differences and even, eventually, to enjoy them. There’s another mosque on the Berlin Turnpike that we’ve noticed. There’s a Buddhist Temple near Middlesex Community College in Middletown.

The diversity represented by this proposed mosque should best be seen as a feather in Wallingford’s cap — a feather of a different style, perhaps, but a fine feather all the same.

[Modica]

Hope there are not any problems with some ignorant bigots.

[Anna]

I'm not sure how many people posting here live in the designated neighborhood, I for one do. The corner of Leguis and Rt 68 is already dangerous. Trucks come off exit 15 and don't want to slow down as it is. I have had a number of near misses, as have all of my neighbors. The entrance to the Mosque will be opposite the now defunct and unoccuipied entrance of Mortage Lenders. No one I know of is saying not to build the mosque. We just think that this is a bad location. We don't even know the impact the Mortgage Lenders traffic will have. This mosque is to have 135 parking spaces, that's alot of cars. To say people are closed minded and racist is quite wrong and serves more to shut down the discussion and minimize our concerns.

[jma]

Anna, racism was mentioned only after previous posters claimed they were worried about terrorist activity due to the mosque being built. Traffic concerns are legitimate. Terrorist concerns are not.

[Fit 2 Print]

Do you suppose folks in Wallingford are more worried about the mosque being a center to promote a particular religious doctrine or, perhaps, a perceived political agenda?

[eds]

Technically, there are certain Islamic "charities" which funnel money to terrorist groups. That's a proven fact. That is where the people are coming from when they cite possible terrorist activities within Islamic mosques and non-profit organizations. That and the news reports of mosques overseas being HQ for storing materiel and running operations.

Would this mosque be that way? Highly unlikely. I think the reaction which involves perceived racism is mainly a reaction to fear stemming from the hurt we all feel from the war and from the 9/11 attacks. I would not go as far as to call these people racists or bigots. It is not without justification that these people fear all that is Islamic. It is not understood by many people and what does not help is the constant extremists who are given air time.

There is a legitimate traffic concern as well. I have friends who live in that area who can see the ML building from their house.

[Anna]

Taffic is a legitimate concern. Also entering this neighborhood and seeing a huge office builing and a mosque on the corner is not going to help house values. We pay a lot of taxes here, I hope our concerns are addressed. ML had every right to go on the corner. It was zoned for that and at the end of the day, it would bring tax dollars to the town. You don't sacrafice the majority for the few. We didn't like it, but it made sense at the time to do it. The mosque serves a very small group of people and will negatively affect many more. It should be somewhere where its' impact is minimal. The Berlin mosque traffic is horrible. They want to re-route some of it here. People will come from the south and the north. Once it is up they can add more services and have traffic at all different hours of the day. Mr. Farid said it would be a small family mosque serving 40 families. Is that why he needs 135 parking spaces? He's a buisness man. You anticipate growth, if you have the market. He sees this as a larger Islamic Center. It should be elsewhere.

[Fit 2 Print]

Why is 125 a bad number for parking spaces? Think of all the Catholic churches around Wallingford, some in residential neighborhoods, which have parking for many, many more parishioners!

What is Wallinlgford's honest problem with this mosque proposal, anyway?

[Anna]

Why are people assuming that our concerns about traffic are not "honest"?
Did you attend any of the meetings for Mortgage Lenders? We were worried about traffic then. Again, there is an implication that we fear Muslims. Again it stops the debate. 125 parking spaces next to someone's backyard swing set ,is alot of spaces. There has not been a church built in Wallingford since the 60's. Many were established before the neighborhoods grew. Find another spot, not in a neighborhood.

[Carolyn]

From today's (5/8) Myrecordjournal.com Local News section:

Mosque vote postponed
By George Moore, Record-Journal staff

WALLINGFORD - While wetlands officials initially appeared satisfied with plans for a mosque on Leigus Road, they postponed voting Wednesday after nearby residents voiced criticisms and questions on a number of points.

The Salma K. Farid Islamic Center is being planned for the corner of Leigus Road and Route 68 by Tariq and Kamran Farid, the founders of the Edible Arrangements franchise. Some residents in the area are opposed to the plan, stating that they do not want to see another non-residential building in the area. Many residents in the area were opposed to the large office building that was built on the other side of Leigus Road.

Residents objected Wednesday that changes were made to the project's wetlands plan within the last few days without adequate notice to the neighbors.

"The committee might think the changes are minor, but I think there's a notice problem," said Craig Fishbein, a local attorney and Grieb Road resident who has become an intervener in the application process.

But commissioner James Heilman said the changes are only minor revisions made in response to comments by town staff.

"This is truly a revised plan," he said. If the alterations were major, he said the application would have been considered a new plan and the public hearing process would have to start over.

But commission Chairman James Vitali called for the vote to be postponed to give neighbors a chance to re-view the updated plans. He also wanted David Juliano, the engineer for the mosque, to re-examine land elevations in response to a neighbor's concerns about water runoff.

Leigus Road resident David Guzzo, who lives next to the site, posed questions about runoff from the proposed parking lot and other areas and whether it would end up on his land. Juliano said the water management system is meant to channel water away from Guzzo's property.

"I guarantee you, we're not going to pond water on somebody else's property," Juliano said.

Vitali suggested that Juliano seek permission to go onto Guzzo's property to expand his survey data. Guzzo, when asked for the permission at the meeting, said he would a need a few weeks to consult with someone before having an answer.

Guzzo also raised concern that oil booms planned for the project might not be used correctly, because they would not always be suspended in water. The booms are intended to soak up oil flowing from the parking lot during rain storms. Vitali replied that the booms, to be located in a basin, would be floating during rainstorms and would therefore fulfill their function.

The builders hope to accommodate the 4,500-square-foot mosque with 40 parking spaces, but the site could hold up to 135.

gmoore@record-journal.com<BR>
(203) 317-2275

[eds]

Whatever the reason for wanting or not wanting a mosque...vote and be done with it. Whenever the voting is ready that is...

[Fit 2 Print]

Is the "issue" really water? It's a minor point in this case, I think (unless residents see water run-off as a terorist threat!).

[Wallyworldite]

Is the "issue" really water? It's a minor point in this case, I think (unless residents see water run-off as a terorist threat!).

Funny, when there were signs all over Wallingford that said "No Walmart here" there were no claims that the residents were prejudiced against the Chinese (who apparently make approximately 85% of the non-food products sold in Walmart stores).

When those signs were replaced with those saying "No cell towers" it was merely described as "free speech" by concerned citizens. There were no claims that the residents were unnecessarily against big business or that they were hiding some secret ulterior motive.

Similarly, when those signs changed to "No Auto Auction" there were no claims that the opposition was really against whatever nationality the proponents came from, but merely expressing their opinion as citizens and, we must remember that those voices were eventually heard and there is no auto auction.

Remember Wooding Caplan? The town officials wanted the plan, but the residents didn't and we showed them through our "voice of the lever."

From reading this thread, I get the distinct opinion that, those that question the "motives" of the Leigus Road neighborhood, are really the ones that have prejudged this matter, and that is sad. This is still America, no matter what the media would have you believe.

[4wallingford]

It really bothers me that the proposal has so many inconsistencies. Its easy to begin to doubt the honesty of the proposal. They say its for family and in August 2007 said they estimate 80-90 people would attend on Fridays, but its larger than a mosque in Berlin that gets more than 300 cars each Friday for services. They also said though that it would be open to all muslims so shouldn't they expect big crowds if they put it next to an interstate highway? Why would it need to be so big if its just for family and why build it so large? If you haven't seen the traffic mess the Berlin mosque creates you should see for yourself. The video the local residents showed at the P&Z meeting the other night was very troubling to me.

Their first phase is to only build 40 parking spaces, but at maximum there is only room for 135. If the mosque is almost 5,000 square feet and is built to accomodate well in excess of 300 worshipers (based on the Berlin attendance for a smaller mosque), where will the other 200+ park? Leigus Road is very narrow and tough to get down without cars parked on even one side of the road, let alone 200+ cars crammed in.

Farid said that he wants to build it so that he and other muslims in town have a place to pray. I understand he lives in Cheshire. He doesn't seem to want the mosque in Cheshire though. If its primarily for Wallingford muslims, why put it next to an interstate highway? The video shown at the P&Z meeting showed a lot of out of state license plates in attendance and a very large # of cabbies attending in their cabs.

Nothing about this proposal seems to hang together.

[eds]

Boy, that sure makes me concerned. :rolleyes:

I can understand the traffic argument. But that's where the understanding ends for me. When we start looking at cab drivers, license plates, and start digging in to the residency and kinds of attendees that seems to me to be somewhat misguided.

The man is creating a business. Religion is a business. Every religion is a business and a business needs to make money to pay its bills. Non-profit organizations do make profits. Otherwise they would not survive, be able to pay salaries and bills, and grow the business. The non-profit status means the government does not tax it because the venture is something the benefits the community 100%. In this case, how will the mosque use it non-profit status to benefit the community? Seems like that question has no answer.

When you look at a business, you at their business plan. What is his business plan? Obviously growth and profit are key factors in that pursuit. Just like the Internet flower basket business he owns. My distrust in religious organizations involves those organizations that pop-up overnight, lack total and complete funding, have no involvement with the neighborhood, exist in places which keep legitimately funded businesses from entering a neighborhood, and then disappear with the parishioners money. Seems to me the only reason those kinds of organizations exist is for illegal shady activity or just to take people's money.

That said, this organization's only problem is the location is not suitable for the types of traffic it will generate. I can understand that. But my concern is that we as a society take it further than that.

[Anna]

Mr Farid at the meeting said that he expects this mosque to service Wallingford, Durham and Meriden( 90 people). I don't see why it has to be off 91 to accomodate this group of worshipers, unless he has other intentions. I know someone who works with Muslims in Hamden and they say they can't wait till the mosque opens up here in Wallingford. The Berlin mosque had 40 spaces on its original plan and now look at it. What a traffic nightmare. It is smaller than this building also. I think planning and zoning, needs to anticipate growth. It is their charter to plan and forsee potential problems. This isn't a close call. It is a bad choice at this intersection.

[eds]

What about creating a different intersection layout or whatever traffic engineers do? If, for sake of argument, the mosque would be willing to make the intersection so that it didn't create a traffic nightmare, and for sake of argument that were to be accomplished, then what, if any, gripe would you have Anna?

Currently today, when a Christian church has Sunday services, in many towns, police officers are there when they end services to prevent traffic issues. The police direct traffic during those times to prevent hang ups. That's a way to make it work.

In other words, are you willing to try to work with this organization to create a win-win situation for residents and parishioners? I think it can done. Instead of just throwing out the issue, offer up a solution so that the mosque and residents can co-exist. If you are not willing to work with them, try to make this happen so all can co-exist peacefully, then what are your motives, really? Traffic issues can be solved if you really wanted to.

We have two churches on Main St in S. Meriden. One is non-denominational and one isn't. When they have services, traffic is heavy there. But it's not all the time. Only Sundays. When will this mosque be in session, so-to-speak? Only once a week, or every day? I don't recall the answer to that question. If the traffic issue is only once a week, what's the big deal? If this were a Chrisitian church, what's the difference?

[Anna]

Eds, Are you at all familiar with this intersection? There have been some 37 accidents here, and the Mortgage Lenders building doesn't even have occupants yet. Did you attend the meeting and hear the facts presented? It has nothing to do with the mosque. I would hate to see any religios building there. Friday afternoon traffic, at lunch time, opposite a 3000 employee building. If this mosque draws the traffic that Berlin does, and it is a reasonable assumption that in the future it will, it will be a disaster. We even suggested an alternative location that brings the building a little more off 68 and is still in our neighborhood. There are other locations that would work well without road work, police traffic assistance etc. What tenant looking at the Mortgage Lenders building will want to deal with this? We are dealing with this white elephant already; don't do anything that might give someone pause about renting space. The arguments for the mosque, in this location, pale compared to the problems it will create. I would be very surprised if the council approves it.

[eds]

Very familiar. I travel 68 past Leigus and I have friends who live there and can see ML from their house.

My perspective is not that you don't have a legitimate complaint, but that the community try harder to work towards a resolution so that both sides win.

Mosque traffic will not be drawn at the same time as ML traffic. Most people that would attend the mosque, do so after work hours. The traffic complaint is legitimate but the examples and facts used to support that claim do not make sense to me.

My understanding is that this place of worship will have it's peak usage after normal business hours. The two do not conflict. If you're argument is that traffic at that time, after normal business hours is a problem, that is what you arguments should support.

My question is that if an office building that supports 3000 people during the day is OK, why then is a mosque supporting under 1000 people an issue?

If people are at work, they are not at the mosque, and vice-versa.

That is the issue I have. You're complaint is valid, but the supporting evidence you cite seems to not support it. Do have anything stronger to support the traffic issue?

[Anna]

I ask you again. Did you attend the meeting? Watch the video? Hear the police report? I had people, not from our neighborhoood, say thaey were shocked after seeing the video and hearing the presentation on our local cable channel. The traffic evidence was compelling. The counsil even expressed concern based on traffic. The mosque' main service is Friday afternoon 1p-2p not after the work day. During the lunch hour and when afternoon buses bring kids home. There are 175 children in this neighborhood. People are coming on their lunch break and then rushing back to work. People will be doing the same at Mortage Lenders. Many people also take 1/2 days on Friday and usually at lunch time. It is the job of planning and zoning to make sure that all regulations are met and that no unsafe situation results from their action. I tell my kids to "keep your eye on the rabbit". The problem is traffic, only traffic, as much as people want to bring politics into it.

[eds]

No I did not view or attend that meeting or video presentation. But if you are implying that my opinion is any way meaningless because of that fact, may I remind you that I am not negating your argument, but merely ask that you have an open mind toward the goal of mutual inclusion within your community.

You mention the main service hours to be Friday 1-2p.

I looked up the Berlin Mosque which I believe to have a web page at this address: http://www.berlinmosque.org/index.htm in an attempt to ascertain that time in general for Islamic organizations.

If the mosque were willing to alter that time in exchange for consideration of allowing the proposal to go through, to a time more conducive to the unique traffic situation you mentioned, would that help to make this a mutual arrangement. Say to perhaps 6pm? If that is even possible, perhaps, some tenent may prevent that.

All I am saying is that rather than shut down, open up and try to at least negotiate with this people. Unless of course, there is some other issue of which I am not aware.

[Anna]

I am in no way your negating your comments. I do think however, that if you did see the information provided you would understand better the physical contraints of the site. Mosque traffic must turn left across Legius to get to
68. The distance from the intersection to the purposed entrance and exit is extremely short, cars would back up in both directions onto 68, when coming and leaving the service. The light on Legius is a long red and a short green. People become inpatient and push through all the time. This is why there are so many accidents. A 6 pm prayer time doesn't really help. Rt 68 at 6pm is no picnic either. Go to the town hall, look at the purposed site plans. This is a bad place for any structure besides a house. And we still don't know what impact the tenants of Mortgage Lenders will have. The original traffic study was based on a single occupancy building. It will most likely have at least 5 buisinesses now. I can't see any logical reason put it here when they can put it in other areas that are very close to this site( off 91), that are for sale and are not in a neighborhood. Wouldn't this be the logical compromise, where all parties involved get what they want. A mosque to worship in and a safe enviornment for the neighborhood and town.

[Anna]

One quick note. Friday afternoon prayer is called "Jumma" it is compulsory for all muslims. I don't believe they could change the time.

[eds]

I've been to that site. In fact, I'll be by there this afternoon.

It sounds to me like new lights and/or timings needs to be adjusted on the lights to allow side road traffic priority over 68. 68 is a state road. These talks should involve the town and state as well. Are state traffic people involved? I don't know. But I know if it were made so that more priority was given to Leigus Road users coming and going onto 68, it might be better for all, even if the mosque weren't built.

My idea is to make it so that when a car pulls to the end of the driveway of the mosque, sensors in the road change the lights to green to give a green light all the way to 68. The rest of the time the mosque traffic waits in the parking lot for another green light. I think it would work.

Whether there is five or one business in ML still the amount of employees is the same.

Thanks for the info on jumma. I was looking for that as a way to change.

[Prejudice]

As a resident of Wallingford, I find the opposition to this religious institution embarrassing. This is just another factor that will continue the perception that Wallingford is a racist and prejudiced community.

The argument about traffic is spurious. Those presenting this argument all voluntarily reside in an area not only abutting a major state thoroughfare but also across from a large parcel that is commercially zoned.

Absolutely shameful.

[eds]

Something will end up on that parcel. It won't be housing. Too much of that on the market. It will be another commercial building. A mosque, an office park, something will go there. A mosque is probably the best option. It would be ironic if some other establishment ends up there that's even worse.

[Anna]

This area is zoned residential. Not commercial. They can't put an office building there. They need a special permit to even put a religious building there. Bringing up the race card is a distraction. Yes, we bought knowing that the other side of Legius was commercial ,where ML is, but the other side is not. There are many other sites in town where it will not pose a traffic danger. Mr, Farid in his article admitted that ML would be a traffic nightmare once it was occupied. He sees no problem adding more problems to the area. If he truely thought Wallingford were a prejudice town, would he put the headquarters to his buisiness here, would he go into the schools, would he want the mosque dedicated to his mother here? I wouldn't and I don't think he believes it. Calling us prejudice is disingenous at best, don't be be distracted by it.

[David]

It may be of interest to read the "Letter of the Week (http://forums.ctrecord.com/showthread.php?t=1790)," 5/18/08 by Brian Sabia on this subject.

[Prejudice]

I read Mr. Sabia's letter in the Record-Journal and find it hypocritical that he would buy a home across from land in a commercial zone and then complain as to it's use.

Mr. Sabia's singling-out of the town planner has nothing to do with the fact that th Mortgage Lender's Network parcel WAS and HAS BEEN commercially zoned for quite some time and long before Mr. Sabia's housing development was constructed.

[Ben]

From the Record-Journal on Sunday, May 17, 2008:

Opponents of Wallingford mosque cite impact on traffic
By George Moore, Record-Journal staff


WALLINGFORD - The clash between a proposed Islamic mosque on Leigus Road and nearby residents has intensified in recent weeks, making the future of the plan uncertain. Even if the mosque receives approval from wetlands and zoning authorities, legal appeals would likely ensue to overturn the decisions.

At a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last week, more than 100 residents showed up with signs reading, "No mosque on Leigus." Many residents say they oppose the mosque because it is a non-residential building being proposed for residential property. Two houses sit on the proposed site.

"We're definitely not against any mosque in Wallingford," said Joe Celotto, of Coventry Court. "We're just against anything being at the end of Leigus."

Tariq Farid, who is proposing the mosque, said the opposition has become absurd and he fears there is a "sad agenda" at work.

"I think there is a motive that is a little more than just traffic," he said.

One neighbor, in a letter to zoning officials and the mayor, raised fears about Islam's stance on women after voicing concerns about traffic and parking.

"I foresee many worshipers parking in front of my house or walking through my yard to attend worship," wrote Beth Kennedy. "I would prefer my daughters not be presented with ill treatment of me or any other woman in this neighborhood."

Dr. Reza Mansoor, president of the Muslim Coalition of Connecticut, said Muslims around the state are trying to combat stereotypes that are heightened by sensational media accounts. He said the proposed mosque is receiving biased opposition.

Craig Fishbein, an attorney who lives near the site, said the sole issue is that a non-residential building does not belong in the area. A mosque or any other religious institution on the corner presents traffic safety issues, he said.

The driveways for the mosque would open onto Leigus Road near the intersection with Route 68. Fishbein said cars queuing at the mosque driveway will present a dangerous traffic buildup at the intersection, especially when the 300,000-square-foot office building across the street begins to house tenants. Friday worshippers attend mosques shortly after noon, he said, the same time that people would be on their lunch break at the office building.

He suggested that the mosque be built elsewhere in town. There have been 37 accidents near the Leigus-Route 68 intersection within a five-year period, according to Celotto, who obtained local police statistics.

The two lots on which the mosque would be built are residential. Religious buildings are allowed in residential zones with a special permit approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The commission must consider the effect of the building on the neighborhood, the "size and intensity" of the building, traffic impact and a number of other factors. The commission would also consider whether there are similar uses in the neighborhood.

Farid said the mosque's traffic impact is being exaggerated. In the first year of operation, he expects the mosque would have 25 people worshipping on Friday, the obligatory day of worship in Islam. That number, he said, would max out at around 80 after the mosque is open for a couple of years.

"We are a drop in the bucket compared to what that corner is already going to face through that (office) building," he said.

Fishbein, Celotto and other neighbors argue that Farid's planned maximum of 135 parking spaces is not enough to accommodate the building. They compared the planned building to a well-attended mosque on Route 15 in Berlin, at which there were 306 cars counted on a Friday last year for a traffic study. Residents videotaped and photographed the Berlin mosque recently to make the argument that the parking problems there could happen in Wallingford. The videotape showed that it took more than a half hour for worshippers to leave the crowded parking lot. It also showed two instances in which people leaving the mosque confronted the camera operator.

Farid called the comparison with the Berlin mosque "ridiculous." A town cannot reasonably decide on a building proposal simply by looking at other similar buildings in operation, he said. The Berlin mosque, he said, is on a busy highway - the Berlin Turnpike - and serves many different communities, while the mosque on Leigus would serve mainly Wallingford Muslims. At three other area mosques, seven, 18 and 84 cars were counted by a traffic engineer on separate Fridays. Opponents fear that a mosque on Leigus Road would become regional because of its easy access to Interstate 91.

Farid's traffic study rates peak traffic conditions at the Route 68-Leigus intersection at a B (the rating system mirrors an A-F report card). The study rates the eastbound departure from the proposed driveway during peak hours at a C. The Planning and Zoning Commission has ordered a peer review of the study.

Fishbein has also raised questions as to whether the mosque would include a loudspeaker system for a call to prayer and whether a school would be housed at the site. Farid denied both.

"I am not going to build a mosque in my mother's name only to become a lightning rod to the town," he said.

Mansoor, head of the Muslim Coalition of Connecticut, said there are about 15 mosques in the state. While most of the older mosques are in the larger cities, he said, they are starting to appear in the suburbs as the Muslim population grows and branches out.

"As the Muslims are going out into the suburbs, they're building mosques so they don't have to travel a long distance," he said.

The increasing number of mosques, he said, "adds to the beautiful fabric of America."

The first substantial Muslim communities appeared in America in the late 1960s with changes in immigration policy, said David Roozen, director of the Hartford Seminary Institute for Religion Research. Almost 60 percent of mosques in the country were opened between 1966 and 1989, he said, but another 30 percent were built between 1990 and 2000. Unlike mosques in Muslim countries, he said, mosques in America take on a congregational structure in which they become a "place of fellowship" for communities in addition to their role as places of prayer.

The mosque will be reviewed again by the wetlands commission on June 4 and the zoning commission on June 9. Both meetings will be held at Town Hall.

[Ben]

Managing Editor Ralph Tomaselli has written about the proposed mosque in his blog (http://www2.myrecordjournal.com/). Share your thoughts with Ralph about the mosque or the Record-Journal coverage of the developing story.

[eds]

It may be zone residential now, but that will change. It's inevitable. It might even be condo development in the future.

[Fit 2 Print]

Tariq Farid, who is proposing the mosque, said the opposition has become absurd and he fears there is a "sad agenda" at work.

"I think there is a motive that is a little more than just traffic," he said.

Well, then...is he saying that Wallingford residents are racists? Let's not re-visit the MLK debacle, please!

[Anna]

My understanding about the MLK holiday issue, was that it had more to do with another paid holiday for town employees, than the desire not to honor MLK. Is this correct? Playing the race card in most arguments usually serves to shut down discussion and put people on the defensive.

[collie]

It took the state legislature passing a law that forced Wallingford to observe MLK Day as the legal holiday it was. Jesse Jackson coming to town also helped!
When you bring up that old sorry story and seem to defend Wallingford's stance, I think that is why people are suspicious the opposition to the mosque is limited to parking concerns.

[Anna]

I didn't live in CT at the time of the controversy, but was that "sorry old" story at all true.? It seems that whenever "race" is brought up, it becomes the only "truth" in the debate. I'm not saying it wasn't in this case, but I don't see any evidence of any real racism in this town. And by the way I don't think Jesse Jackson adds to any discussions, he just pushes his agenda.

[eds]

It is a fact that at least one resident wrote to complain about Muslim treatment of women as a reason to disallow the mosque. There are others I am sure. To some it really is just about traffic. But I find it easy to believe that to others it is more than just that. I can understand their viewpoint though I don't agree with it.

I, like others, was very disappointed to learn that our general kissed the Koran as a offering of apology for a soldier shooting the Koran. Were that to have happened on say 9/12/2001 that general would probably be labeled a traitor. The people in Iraq burn our flags, burn the Israeli flag, make a mockery of Christianity and Judiasm, and write all sorts of anti-American sayings on their walls. Where's the apology there? But that has nothing to do with this person here in Wallingford trying to make a mosque.

Why are our soldiers held to a higher standard? Osama has already called for an all-out war against Zionism. Since the 2nd century A.D. when the Romans kicked out the Jews from their Holy Land, that land has always belonged to the Jews. For two thousand years it has belonged to the Jews. Today people don't attack Judiasm as a religion, they don't attack Jews, they attack the very existence of their country.

My point is that with all that is in the news, it is easy to hang a stereotype on Muslims in general. But this individual here, in Wallingford, already owns a business in Wallingford and seem fairly patriotic to me. But like Japanese after WWII no one trusts anyone who remote resembles terrorists.

[Anna]

If you take one resident's comment about Muslims and use it to paint all of the residents in the neighborhood with the same brush, then using that premise; you can say that all members of the mosque are like the two men who threatened the people taking video of the traffic. Neither represents the actual truth. Traffic is the issue. Sometimes it really is, just as it appears.

[Fit 2 Print]

I've read Anna's comments and appreciate her point of view. And yet, I remain convinced that it IS something beyond "traffic," something beyond "square feet."

My sense is that people are just plain "afraid" of the unknown...wondering what the long-term "mission" of the mosque might be. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm all for it, but I detect a thinly-veiled fear going on that has NO basis in reality. Does anyone agree?

[eds]

If you take one resident's comment about Muslims and use it to paint all of the residents in the neighborhood with the same brush, then using that premise; you can say that all members of the mosque are like the two men who threatened the people taking video of the traffic. Neither represents the actual truth. Traffic is the issue. Sometimes it really is, just as it appears.

Not just one resident. One resident that was reported. There are many others who say one thing and yet think another. Look at the history. Then you tell me.

[Anna]

Obviously people will continue to think what they wish and that's fine. But, at the end of the day this corner remains unsafe and that will hopefully be what the decission is based on. The facts are the facts, the traffic accidents aren't made up nor was the video. Speculation, on what "might " be going on in peoples' head is not helpful.

[Wallyworldite]

I've read Anna's comments and appreciate her point of view. And yet, I remain convinced that it IS something beyond "traffic," something beyond "square feet."

My sense is that people are just plain "afraid" of the unknown...wondering what the long-term "mission" of the mosque might be. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm all for it, but I detect a thinly-veiled fear going on that has NO basis in reality. Does anyone agree?

Please, please please get your agenda straight. The only ones that are using prejudice here are the ones that are apparently in favor of this proposition. I have been to Wallingford Town Hall, and I have looked at the plans. I must please ask you and eds to do the same before you continue to accuse the residents from having a hidden agenda.

How you can possibly fathom that a commercial entity within a residential area that will be visited by approximately 350 cars (yet only having 135 parking spaces, and then when they exit the site, all 350 cars have to cross a heavily traveled intersection and then plod onto Route 68 is beyond me. This plan is akin to raising an elephant in a closet. It is so grossly inappropriate for this site that it is laughable. It is also laughable that some of the commenters are happy to throw out the race card instead of analyzing the facts of the situation. All of the points brought up at P&Z by the residents have to do with the factors that are listed in the special permit application regulations. Please "fit to print" and "eds", explain to the residents of Wallingford and the readers of this messageboard why THIS site is appropriate for this use. There are plenty of other sites in Wallingford that this facility can be located on. The simple fact of the matter is that ANY proposed use of this site that will generate all of the estimated activity of 350 cars is inappropriate. That goes for a church (of ANY denomination), a store (even a discount liquor store would be infeasible), or a school.

However, the public await your arguments as to why this site is appropriate. I don't foresee any real response from either of you as there is NO reason that this application should be granted. The prejudice slant is just one of distraction. A distraction precipitated not be the opponents of the plan but perversely to the proponents of this plan. Yes, all persons should be able to worship freely but that is why we have the special permit rules of religious entities.

Given the evidence presented at the last P&Z meeting the right thing to do would be for the applicant to withdraw his application but, that probably won't happen. I guess Farid's plan is to continue to infuriate the neighborhood with his preposterous plans and representations (the fact that their traffic study person says that the users of this facility would not use Interstate 91 is so indicative of the applicant's credibility it is once again, laughable, as the applicant was quoted in the RJ newspaper as saying that the site was ideal because of its location to the highway).

So, once again, I invite you, "fit to print" and "eds" to please explain why this the Leigus Road site is at all appropriate for this use. I would just request that you look at the plans before you make your assumptions.

[eds]

Ok...here goes. It's what I have said before.

Install new lights. Make the timing of the new and existing lights coincide with the Friday mass they have. If you stop 68 traffic long enough, you can let these folks out of their mosque and into their mosque. Let the backup fill the mosque parking lot when trying to get out. Let the backup trying to get into the mosque from 68 backup there. Make the lanes wider and longer if necessary. Put a light at the entrance to the lot. All these things could be done in some manner.

Where is the traffic study that shows what can be done to make it happen instead of what can't be done? Instead of saying "This won't work" say, "Let's see how this can be done." It's called working together. That way when Muslims come to the mosque, you can greet them with open arms instead of closed doors. Maybe even some of those Muslims might like the neighborhood and decide to move there. If you are cringing at the very thought, then perhaps there is something more than just traffic. That's where the issue is coming from. The fact that people don't see you trying to help. It's just, "No! It will never work. Go away!"

I have been to shows at the Oakdale and I believe that is in a residential neighborhood and area. Lots more than 350 cars. And they make it work with traffic enforcement.

Now you tell me why changing the lights, and traffic enforcement won't work? Lots of places have lots more traffic problems than this and that were solved with proper signaling.

No one has said yet why this won't work. And not just subjective opinions either. Anyone can say it won't work. Prove it with some facts like a traffic study. Take it to the state traffic board. 68 is a state road. If the only solution is traffic signals and road improvements and those can't be done because a traffic official feels it can't be done, then you've tried your best to allow it to happen. Instead of just saying no.

Perception is reality. And the perception of poor race relations stems from this unwillingness to look at the situation objectively.

[Anna]

eds, you're right! We should do everything possible to accomodate people who don't even live here. We should disrupt the area we live in and make sure that we don't give the appearance of intolerance. Who cares if 200 families are affected? Who cares if there is a safety issue as long as we look politically correct. What's a few more accidents at this corner, we've already had 37? Who really cares about the facts? They really do just tend to get in the way. Wallingford is ~40 square miles, is this the only location possible? Making something "work" doesn't mean it works well. We have suggested an area up 68, still in our neighborhood, that will have little, if any traffic issues. Let's make that "work"; or is this the only location we can use to prove to the world that we are not racist? I hope P&Z has more common sense and does the right thing.

[Prejudice]

I am confused why anyone would live near this treacherous intersection that you describe.

But seriously, as someone familiar with planning & zoning, traffic issues are often nothing more than a red herring and raised as a last resort when the real objections are invalid because they have no basis in zoning.

For some reason, Wallingford residents do not like churches in their neighborhoods. Similar objections were raised when a church was approved at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Route 68.

Most people dislike change and want to close the barn door after their development in built.

People objected to the Fairlawn Farms development and abutters objected to the condominiums built on the former Self Farm on Leigus Road. Fairlawn Farm residents objected to further development of their own subdivision.

Within this blog, Fairlawn residents complain about the ML project built on land that had been built on commercially zoned land.

Churches are allowed in residential zones by Special Permit. This is not use of land by a variance.

In this particular instance, the parcel in question abuts Route 68, a thoroughfare designed to handle large volumes of traffic. There is much land to be utilized in the IX zone on the other side of Route 68.

It is illogical for residents in this immediate to object to traffic when it was their own choice to live adjacent to a four lane State road and other commercially zoned property.

Continue your feeble traffic argument, but there is no valid reason that this application should be denied.

[Wallyworldite]

In this particular instance, the parcel in question abuts Route 68, a thoroughfare designed to handle large volumes of traffic. There is much land to be utilized in the IX zone on the other side of Route 68.



Obviously you have not looked at the plans for this project, as well. There is no direct access from the parking lot to Route 68. If that were the case then perhaps this would be a different story. The fact of the matter is that for exiters to get to Route 68, they would have to cross the traffic on Leigus and then get into the line of traffic to turn onto Route 68. The only reason to approve this application is to foster the poor planning and a lack of common sense that has been burdening the Leigus Road area since the MLN debacle.

[Anna]

Prejudice, you say you're confused, but you don't take the time to see the plans, watch the video or look at the accident reports. You're not confused, you're simply taking a stance and refusing to move. The red herring is the "prejudice" argument, not the traffic. You ignore the facts with out making a effort to actually review them. Your opinion of us is that we are winers and racist. Have you ever heard the line, " Don't confuse me with the facts." No one in their right mind could look at the traffic video and look at Leguis, a narrow 2 lane road, and think that this would be a dandy spot for ANY structure besides a house.

[Prejudice]

One fact that you twist is describing Leigus Road as a "narrow two lane road". Leigus Road was upgraded when the Fairlawn Farms subdivision was constructed. It is a modern road built to the modern standards.

The site in question is on the corner of Rt 68, the END of Leigus Road. Reading the traffic arguments in this blog one would be led to believe this was a substantial distance from Route 68.

Many religious institutions are located within residential districts. They are limited use facilities and offer no conflict.

I hope this applicant gets a fair hearing.

[RC12L4]

Is this the intersection in question?

http://members.cox.net/rc12l4/rt68.jpg

[Wallyworldite]

Is this the intersection in question?

http://members.cox.net/rc12l4/rt68.jpg

Yes, although the right hand side is a bit more developed at this point. That parcel houses a 400,000 square foot office building that is yet to be occupied. The proposal is to put the mosque on the other side of the street. The entrance/exit will be 140 feet from the corner and given that they will have about 350 cars for 135 parking spaces, the cars will be EVERYWHERE!

[Anna]

Thanks for the view. I think it shows I wasn't "twisting" the facts. Only the very beginning has been widened. It's a residential road.

[4wallingford]

Someone showed me the editor's opinion in the Sunday paper. I know several people that live in that area and not a one is even close to being a bigot. Not only should the people that live in that area be terribly offended by that letter, but everyone in Wallingford should be.

Mr. Editor, why don't you disclose to all the readers of your paper how much Edible Arrangements pays in advertising every year so that they can better understand that your views may be influenced by all those $$$? Now there's some bias that should be reported.

[eds]

eds, you're right! We should do everything possible to accomodate people who don't even live here. We should disrupt the area we live in and make sure that we don't give the appearance of intolerance. Who cares if 200 families are affected? Who cares if there is a safety issue as long as we look politically correct. What's a few more accidents at this corner, we've already had 37? Who really cares about the facts? They really do just tend to get in the way. Wallingford is ~40 square miles, is this the only location possible? Making something "work" doesn't mean it works well. We have suggested an area up 68, still in our neighborhood, that will have little, if any traffic issues. Let's make that "work"; or is this the only location we can use to prove to the world that we are not racist? I hope P&Z has more common sense and does the right thing.

Look at any church on any given Sunday and you will see tons of traffic in residential areas. The proposed use for this land is not that different.

You still haven't said how changing the intersection and the signal lights won't work. The safety issues can be solved with proper traffic controls. Accidents can too. You've had 37 accidents because the lights are not timed right to give enough time to cross 68, and therefore many people try to beat the light. And also the speed limit is set at 45 on that road when it should be 35. I love how you say to just pick another area. And what will those neighbors say? Its a property rights issue. And in reality you cannot control what another does with their own property. What will you do when someone suggests building condo's there? Or a large planned community. Will you complain about wetlands issues, open space issues, or again traffic issues? These are common ways to prevent development when you can't afford to purchase all the land around your home. Why do people think they can dictate what another does with their property?

Disrupting your neighborhood? With a mosque? I could see that argument against the ML building. But it's there already. You let that one in. Why didn't you stop that one from being built? You're neighborhood, by your logic, is already disrupted so what's a little more? What's the difference between 3000 and 3300 cars?

No has yet made a good enough case to prove any traffic or safety issues. No one has addressed the argument of changing the traffic controls. You're logic doesn't add up so far. You've got ML. You've got basically an area that will eventually become commercial. What other conclusion can one draw when you have only weak argument of traffic safety and nothing to disprove traffic signals won't work? Must be something else. So prove otherwise...

[Anna]

eds, Please attend the next Planning and Zoning meeting. Listen to both sides and then decide. I guess I am unable to make my case clear and this is unfortunate.
I don't believe your suggestions will work because, I travel this road everyday and live here. The lights have yet be be timed, because ML isn't occupied yet. Who knows what these buisinesses will require? We did fight ML for many months. But you don't sacrifice the many for the few. ML was supposed to bring taxes to the town and I understood that. Tax revenues are important. Granted, it hasn't worked out yet. We expected a commercial buiding would eventually go on this corner; it was zoned as such. We also had a reasonable expectation that the opposite corner would stay residential. It is zoned as such and a house exsists there now.
We are not bad people here. I am offended that some are trying to make us look that way. People from other countries live here, and our children play together. It is a kind and freindly place. We would certainly welcome Mr. Farid as our nextdoor neighbor. We are just concerned about the impact of his Islamic Center at that corner. We have that right.

[collie]

I agree with EDS and I enjoyed Eric Cotton's editorial this Sunday. Glad to see he hasn't lost his touch. The barb re advertising and a conflict of the newspaper was rather strange. Equate the situation to all the ads Midstate runs in the paper and consider the articles they ran re long waits in the ER and the sneaky proposed closing of the psych ward. The R-J is a newspaper and Cotton is an editorial editor, for God's sakes.

Unless you can prove that Fahid bribed Cotton, you are the one walking a thin ethical line and not Cotton, in my opinion.

Also, I think EDS raises an excellent question re how much opposition all those writing raised when the ML company was before the zoning board. Living in Meriden, I'm not going to attend a Wallingford zoning meeting over this issue. I did come out here in Meriden opposed to the car auction over east and anticipate coming out to oppose the power plant on the north side of Meriden but the mosque I think should go in.

[Anna]

Many people from the neighborhood came to the ML meetings. There were numerous meetings all attended well. Planning and Zoning is well aware of the oppsition to that building. This is why they are sensitive to our concerns now. Mortgage Lenders did not turn out the way it was supposed to and the original plans have had to be changed a few times (and not for the better) because of it's failure. What was promised to this neighborhood has not and will not materialize. If you lived here you would know that, and maybe you wouldn't be so quick to jugde.
I personally, wouldn't take such a strong stance on something being built in a Meriden neighborhood without knowing all the facts. I would think that all those who are debating those of us who oppose it, would be sure they are as well informed as possible. It certainly is not the case here.

[Prejudice]

I live a short distance from this site. I travel Leigus Road regularly. (Have traveled it all my life actually.)

The aerial picture illustrates the new road that was constructed after the development of Fairlawn Farms.

I agree that all concerned should attend the next hearing. I would expect that the applicant and the town planning office, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission will deal in facts rather than the inflammatory claims and numbers bandied about as fact in this blog.

The residents along Leigus Road are apparently going to whine about this small application the same way they did when a proposal was made to the commercial site that abuts their development where they all bought homes - after the fact - after it was already zoned Commercial.

The opponents want to close the barn door and prevent further development, just like everyone else.

People don't like change.

Fairlawn Farms was not a popular subdivision when it was proposed and neither was the condo complex on the Self Farm.

[Fine Whine]

Many people from the neighborhood came to the ML meetings. There were numerous meetings all attended well. Planning and Zoning is well aware of the oppsition to that building. This is why they are sensitive to our concerns now. Mortgage Lenders did not turn out the way it was supposed to and the original plans have had to be changed a few times (and not for the better) because of it's failure. What was promised to this neighborhood has not and will not materialize.

It took me awhile to get around to submitting this comment because I had to go out to the barn and get a shovel large enough to hold all of that bs.

P&Z meetings aren't popularity contests and they aren't elections. Just because a bunch of misinformed neighbors show-up to cry about a new building doesn't mean ca-ca.

If the P&Z board decision doesn't conform to the regulations, their vote can be quickly and easily overturned in court.

Whether they are "Sensitive to your concerns" is irrelevant.

You people have been crying about the ML building ever since it was proposed because you didn't want anything built there. And the only thing that "changed" over there is that the parking has been moved closer to the building. Big deal.

Why did you buy houses next to the IX (Industrial Expansion) zone???

And a claim that 350 cars are going to be driving in and out of Leigus Road for services at the proposed Temple? 350? I'm LOL.

[Anna]

WOW! I find this amazing. I 'm a person who could be affected by this building and you guys have more anger than I do. When I said they (P&Z) were sensitive, I meant they were listening to us. And hopefully will listen to the facts with an open mind. Why all the anger at our neighborhood? And, by the way, it isn't just the additional parking now entering Leguis from ML. Other things have also been changed. This is a reasonable debate, just like the power plant in Meriden and the Auto store. Things will turn out the way they turn out. I don't see why people here are getting so nasty. Not one person at the P&Z meeting was rude or disreapectful to Mr. Farid or his mosque. Not one. We stressed many times that he should have a place to worship and in Wallingford. We each have an opinion and we disagree. Everybody take a breath and let the merits of each side play out. :)

[Fine Whine]

Relax Anna, it's just another entertaining episode of nimby.

The P&Z listening to you? Of course they will listen to you. They may even vote to deny the application. But whatever they decide must conform to their regulations, so you're arguments must be based on those regulations and you must provide hard facts not just wild claims mislabeled as "facts".

I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome a mosque on the remotest corner of your area, adjacent to a large state thoroughfare, that more than anything else, would only be used a few days a week.

Apparently you prefer the dilapidated run-down eyesore that currently occupies that corner. The irony is that it is probably too far from all of your houses for it's poor appearance to be an issue.

I wonder how many of this application's opponents have read and understand the P&Z regulations, or just think because they show up and complain that the P&Z should count the number of people in the room and say "damn the regs" and just vote it down.

nimby, that's all this is. It's a Mosque, not another Bristol-Myers world headquarters.

[Anna]

Actually, we did look at the regulations and at the start his application was seemed poorly thought out. His set backs from the road didn't meet the requirements for a corner lot and he isn't listed as a non profit organization. Only a not for profit can go there. He has to file with the IRS. AT the P&Z meeting, there was no such entity listed. The traffic is another issue and is a real concern, even if people want to minimize it. If we win it will be on the facts. In the same token, if he wins, it should be on the facts and not the towns fear of appearing racist as many have tried to portray us. And by the way, I never whine! ;)

[Fine Whine]

Interesting coincidence.

This morning, I was speaking with a friend who lives on Leigus Road. He told me that he was approached by one of the neighbors who is opposing this Mosque. He stated that he was told that the neighbors didn't want a Mosque in their neighborhood but they couldn't publicly say that, so they were using traffic as a issue.

While some neighbors may not want something built on this property for what they perceive to be the "right reasons", there are others that are opposing this for the all of the wrong reasons.

Sad.

[Ben]

New Video & Local Documents: Check out MyRecordJournal.com's Video Coverage on the Wallingford Mosque: Special Coverage Section. (http://www.myrecordjournal.com/site/tab1.cfm?brd=2755&dept_id=659614&nr=1&nostat=1)

[jma]

The traffic is another issue and is a real concern, even if people want to minimize it. If we win it will be on the facts. In the same token, if he wins, it should be on the facts and not the towns fear of appearing racist as many have tried to portray us.

Can you go back to the first posts on this? Perhaps then you'll understand while many of us believe it's a racial issue more than a traffic issue. Your own neighbors are to blame for that reputation!

[Anna]

Fine Whine, I can say anyone said anything too. It's hearsay and forgive me if I'm not impressed.

The first few posts have some people expressing concerns about Muslims. I saw that. I can't tell you who these people are or where they live. They don't represent us. What you're telling me is that their views are likely our views. As I said before, using that logic, the muslim men from the Berlin mosque who hit our neighbors camera and then threatened to "Beat him senseless"( and it is a quote) are respresentative of the people worshiping at this mosque. Do you agree? Just for the record, I don't believe that.

[Prejudice]

Unfortunately, the good people of Wallingford and the reputation of our town have been hijacked by those afraid of anyone different from themselves.

Dark skin and religion not understood by the mainstream is unwelcome.

Despicable on any level.

Wallingford is seen by many as a racist town. Some residents may not see that as it is sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees. Travel outside of our borders and put your ear to the ground and you will hear concerns.

This new issue only heightens that perception.

-----

PS The videotaping hijinks in Berlin are deceptive. Photographing congregants leaving their place of worship was inciteful, especially in the context how Muslims have been maligned since 9-11. I wonder how many opponents of this issue would not be concerned if someone was videotaping their home.

[jma]

Anna, how can you claim that Wallingfordnative, and the others that spoke of terrorist activity don't represent you? I don't mean to come across as sarcastic, but did someone appoint you as spokesperson of the neighborhood? There may be many people who feel as you do, and many others who feel as Wallingfordnative does. We can only speak for ourselves.

[Anna]

Nice try prejudice. You really need to see the video in its entirety. You're making assumptions, that are not rooted in the truth. Again, I'm not saying they represent the muslim community, anymore than you should say the episode around MLK day represents us. Mr. Farid wants a mosque. We want a safe neighbothood. What do you want? You seem to be personally upset with us. Why is that?

[Anna]

jma, I like discussions so I participate in this forum. I don't speak for the neighborhood, but these are the views of the people I speak with and attend the meetings with. You said it well when you said, " We only speak for ourselves." And if you believe that, why do think wallingfordnative speaks for our neighborhood? In truth he just speaks for himself. Right? We should be judged on what we say. We say traffic. I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to keep the conversation on the facts that we presented to P&Z and not let things run off into a ditch. Although some people don't want to acknowlegde our concerns as legitimate or sincere. They are.

[leigusite]

Dear Prejudice.


How is videotaping traffic leaving a mosque inciteful????If you want to see inciteful-view the entire video and see how the videotapers were verbally and then physically threatened by some congregants of the mosque--the individuals were not being taped--just the traffic pattern--and NO ONE was having their home videotaped---

[eds]

Ironic. Hard was it for the parishioners to tell where the lens was pointed. Hard is it now for anyone to tell where the lens of Wallingford is pointed.

So why then would these Muslims get so offended at someone videotaping traffic in the area of their mosque? Have we as a country treated them fairly? Here is a perfect opportunity to extend the olive branch and Wallingford squanders it. Then people wonder why fighting still goes in the Middle East. No one will make the first move. Instead of saying no, say how. How can we work together to make this happen? There is more at stake here than traffic.

Its not just the mosque. I'll bet these same people would complain about property values were a developer to come and build simple, basic, and affordable one-family houses. Despite what people may understand about me, I am not against these kinds of houses. I am against large, ugly, 10-story apartment buildings, be they for the wealthy or low income families. I prefer single family homes, simple or fancy. Why not build in that area, say a dozen single family simple, clean and affordable houses? Oh no. That would never work because instead of traffic I know people would complain about their property values. When people came home from the Second World War, they built victory homes. Simple,small, and very much the same pattern over and over again. People could afford them. They bought them, improved them, and now we have many new communities because of them. Anyway...

Its funny that in some towns they have festivals which create loads of traffic for the residents. Pumpkin festivals, apple festivals, Christmas in village festivals, festivals honoring flowers. We put in malls and shopping centers and large box stores all across towns in Connecticut. Somehow they made it work. I am sure the traffic has increased in all those areas, and no one is worse for the wear.

Living next to a state route, what did you think would happen? Eventually development will take over.

[Fine Whine]

...We should be judged on what we say. We say traffic. I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to keep the conversation on the facts ...

"You" say traffic. The "We" you refer to also say they don't want Muslims in their neighborhood.

The "facts" are that your homes:
- border a 4 lane State road,
- abut a commercial zone, and
- are opposite the IX zone.

I haven't read any details from your group that specify "Why" the cars entering and exiting this religious building will affect the traffic at this intersection.

Citing the number of accidents over a 5 years period means little without "facts" to detail that statement. How does it compare with other intersections? How does it compare with other areas of Route 68? What were the severity of the accidents? Were these only accidents involving vehicles entering and exiting Leigus or does the number include the other (North) side of the intersection?

This application affects ALL of Wallingford. It is of concern to the ENTIRE community. Neighbors DON'T have a lock on the question of approval/denial because they live closer to the property than others.

"Traffic! Traffic! Traffic! If I say "Traffic" often enough, it will look like that's my real concern. Traffic Traffic. It's Traffic!"

People aren't stupid, Anna.

[Anna]

You're absolutely correct. It does affect they entire community. We'll see you at the next P&Z meeting. BTW, I can't recall ever saying anyone was stupid.

[RC12L4]

Sounds like a serious care of NIMBY going on in Wallingford.

[collie]

I wonder if the opposed neighbors have hired an attoreny and if they did so for the ML building as well?

[destination target leigus]

I've read through a lot of the threads and personally believe that
ANY building (Mosque or not) being added to this intersection will be a nightmare for this family driven neighborhood.

For those of you that do not reside in this surrounding area, please
try and understand what we've been through... with area building...

*we were shown (last year) drawings, pictures, dimensions, maps of what
the building across the street from the proposed area
(Failed MLN) was to be built as.. well guess what.....the building is not
what we were shown....not what we were told.....nor did anyone care
what we (the people whom attended the meetings) felt; as families
and tax payers of this community.

We (Area residents- to this day) are dreading when the security officers leave, the gate is torn down and thousand & thousands of cars start to
destroy our mornings, our lunchbreaks, our time with our loves ones,
in our homes that we've paid for and live in 24hours a day...not one
day for a few hours a week. 24/7 people.......this is our lives you're all
talking about so freely and our number one largest dollar asset that
we'll ever own.

Mosque, catholic church, Baptist church..post office...general store..
.....it just doesn't matter...........
enough is enough.....there are probably over a hundred vacant
properties in this town (in commercial zones ---where people
trying to get into their driveways and homes...won't be affected).

It has nothing to do with religion or prejudice ....and being ignorant
is no excuse for trying to portray that people in this area are
racist. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for saying otherwise.

Find another area to target....ask Wallingford P&Z to give you
a price break for one of these vacant properties. How many more
empty buildings are we going to have in this town; before someone
starts to use some "smarts" and offer attractive real-estate offers.

[Fit 2 Print]

Despite all the commentary from nearby neighbors, especially the previous entry here in this forum, I fail to see how the relatively minimal traffic associated with the mosque would have any noticeable impact on day-to-day living.
The writer says that it wouldn't matter what was planned there, it would still be a problem. Frankly, I don't believe that...I just don't. There are many churches in very residential neighborhoods (Our Lady of Fatima, Yalesville, comes to mind) where there's harmony and peace between church and neighbors.
Traffic is an excuse, not a real reason.
Why should the mosque be built elsewhere to accomodate such provincial thinking on this important issue?

[Prejudice]

...

For those of you that do not reside in this surrounding area, please
try and understand what we've been through... with area building...

*we were shown (last year) drawings, pictures, dimensions, maps of what
the building across the street from the proposed area
(Failed MLN) was to be built as.. well guess what.....the building is not
what we were shown....not what we were told.....nor did anyone care
what we (the people whom attended the meetings) felt; as families
and tax payers of this community.

We (Area residents- to this day) are dreading when the security officers leave, the gate is torn down and thousand & thousands of cars start to
destroy our mornings, our lunchbreaks, our time with our loves ones,
in our homes that we've paid for and live in 24hours a day...not one
day for a few hours a week. 24/7 people.......this is our lives you're all
talking about so freely and our number one largest dollar asset that
we'll ever own.

If I were in your position, and felt the way that you do, I not only would not have purchased a home bordering a commercial zone, but one so massive.

You are complaining about a commercial zone that existed long before your home was built.

No one forced you to buy your house.

YOU chose to live next to this large, -Very Large-, commercial property.

[leigusite]

To PrejuOriginally Posted by destination target leigus
...


Yes, we purchased our home in an area where the MLN building was already zoned for industrial use--but we also purchased our home where the proposed mosque would be built and that was zoned RESIDENTIAL---that's the way it should stay---again--NO ONE IS OPPOSED TO A MOSQUE IN WALLINGFORD---it could easily be accommodated on the parcel next to the Marriott and be EVEN CLOSER TO THE HIGHWAY, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY--IT IS STILL IN WALLINGFORD---plus keep in mind the proposed mosque site on Leigus has been on the market for over 3 years and the price has been drastically reduced--it is being offered for $195.000--that is a very compelling reason Farid wants to purchase that specific property---:cool:

[Prejudice]

Religious Institutions are allowed in residential zones by Special Permit. Read the zoning regulations. Special Permits are not a change of zone nor a Variance.

[Wallyworldite]

Religious Institutions are allowed in residential zones by Special Permit. Read the zoning regulations. Special Permits are not a change of zone nor a Variance.

What is your point? Yes, a special permit is necessary. Please notice the word "special," meaning something unusual or of extraordinary merit. The "special permit" regulation lists many factors that the Wallingford P&Z must take into account when considering this application. As of this point, other than, "if you build it they will come" there is NO reason that the "special" permit should be granted for this parcel.

I believe that the parcel around the corner is only about 1000 feet away, is already cleared of trees and features a flat topography. Further, that site is zoned commercial. Therefore the appllicant would not need special treatment to build there.

Mr. Farid's continual selfish refusal to recognize the considerations of the Leigus area residents is apparently all the proof that is needed as to his intentions as a neighbor.

[Prejudice]

My point is this.

Someone said religious institutions are not allowed in residential zones. They Are.

A further point is this.

You people have a 300,000 sq ft building on the other side of the street that you admit will generate traffic of several thousand cars daily and are complaining about this little application with requiring 135 parking spaces.

And finally you stated earlier that the proponents raised the issue of discrimination. Read the early posts in this blog from the OPPONENTS and listen to the residents soliciting further support from other townspeople. Their whispers contradict your statement as well.

Zoning approval or denial isn't based on what a neighborhood "likes'; it is based on zoning regulations already in place. Read them. If you don't like them. Take action to change them.

Your own subdivision, if you live in Fairlawn Farms, was the subject of some concern as it is more dense than others because it took advantage of zoning regulations that allow open space, even though it could be worthless wetlands.

So some of the density and TRAFFIC that the opponents complain about is due to their own making.

[RC12L4]

300,000 sq ft office building across the street and you guys are worried about another 300 parking spaces? Am I the only one that's confused?

[eds]

Boggles the mind, yes.

[Falls Plain Resident]

We can thank our current President and his cronies for encouraging this prejudice. He painted with such a large brush to get support for the war in Iraq that he made many of our citizens mistakenly believe that all Muslims are alike and believe the extremist views of the fanatics. This sowing of the seeds of hatred is perhaps one of the worst examples of the Bush mentality, where we are no longer tolerant of those whose opinions and religious beliefs differ from our own.

We should remember that many American Muslims died in 9/11. They are citizens of our country just as we are. If we are truly Bible scholars, we know that the founder of their religion is simply another brother of the one from whom Judaism stemmed and later, Christianity. Many of their beliefs are similar to those of the Jews and in the Christian Old Testament.

I grew up Catholic and actually cried at the thought of all my childhood Protestant friends going to hell like the nuns taught me because they were not Catholic. Proselytizing is common to most religions, all of whom believe they have the correct path to the Almighty.

I wish people could learn to not jump to hate-filled conclusions or fear out of their ignorance. We have as a nation become so intolerant of ideas different from our own that we seem not to be able to get along in the world anymore, or even with our own neighbors, should they hold an opinion other than ours.This is not what your Jesus preached, and he grew up among among many different people.

[destination target leigus]

There is a sign over at Exit#15S (I91)
that reads +56 acres for sale.
Is this an old sign? Would the land owner(s)
be willing to divide and sell smaller parcels?

Another Hotel is going up at that exit?
Maybe Mr. Farid could inquire with the contractor/developer
and see if he can get the same +5 acres for $195k.
It's certainly worth asking about and as someone wrote
earlier, the landscape is a lot better and the highway is
right there.

Another +130 cars (on paper only, of course--
-- as all of us -who took a look at the Berlin video
know better) is +130 cars too many, in my opinion!

The traffic pattern (from the Berlin Mosque) was in my opinion,
Non-stop (for quite a while) and it looked extremely aggressive.
*much like some of their behavior patterns I've seen*

Were there any local residents in their vehicles (that we could not see
on the video) waiting to get to that same stop sign; to
pull out on the turnpike? I'm certainly not accusing, just
asking.

[Fine Whine]

For all the people opposed to a Mosque in the neighborhood because of the "traffic" it might generate, you should read the Zoning Regulations and see all of the OTHER uses allowed in a residential zone in addition to residences.

You are screaming bloody murder over a place of worship at the farthest point away from your homes on a almost SIX ACRE site which borders Route 68.

You nshould watch what you wish for as this 6 acres could support many other uses you might find more objectionable.

[Ben]

Upcoming Meetings

Wednesday, June 4th - Review by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission
Monday, June 9th - Review by the Zoning Commission


Both of these meetings will be held at Wallingford Town Hall at 45 South Main Street.

[wallingfordian]

as a person who lives in wallingford, i believe that this has gone too far. Its a mosque, and the muslims are just people. they are peaceful people, and all the depictions of them have been ruined due to extremist attacks, and some crazy dudes that went just too much. those people are the ones you have to trash. if you think that only muslims have ideas of terrorism then that just shows that many people have been manipulated by the media, and what they are trying to convene to all of society. if you look at any islamic scriptures, and look at the time period, youll see that these ideas were considered as freedom for everyone, and also a call for peace, and why Muhammad PBUH did what he did. one last thing- muslim women are not subjected to hate and belittlement. they are considered free in the muslim law, and DO NOT HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING THEIR HUSBANDS SAY. THEY ALSO DO NOT HAVE TO WEAR A BLACK FLOWING DRESS. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO WEAR ANYTHING, JUST NOT REVEALING (SLUTTY, SKANKY, (anything that shows legs and shoulders)ETC.) CLOTHES. these ideas were introduced by the persians, as a symbol of royalty. therefore, that means that this was NOT muslim policy. thanks, and i hope this changed your mind.

[eds]

A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.

[Wallyworldite]

as a person who lives in wallingford, i believe that this has gone too far. Its a mosque, and the muslims are just people. they are peaceful people, and all the depictions of them have been ruined due to extremist attacks, and some crazy dudes that went just too much. those people are the ones you have to trash. if you think that only muslims have ideas of terrorism then that just shows that many people have been manipulated by the media, and what they are trying to convene to all of society. if you look at any islamic scriptures, and look at the time period, youll see that these ideas were considered as freedom for everyone, and also a call for peace, and why Muhammad PBUH did what he did. one last thing- muslim women are not subjected to hate and belittlement. they are considered free in the muslim law, and DO NOT HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING THEIR HUSBANDS SAY. THEY ALSO DO NOT HAVE TO WEAR A BLACK FLOWING DRESS. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO WEAR ANYTHING, JUST NOT REVEALING (SLUTTY, SKANKY, (anything that shows legs and shoulders)ETC.) CLOTHES. these ideas were introduced by the persians, as a symbol of royalty. therefore, that means that this was NOT muslim policy. thanks, and i hope this changed your mind.

Yes..., it is a mosque. But IMO, that does not matter. The fact is that it is also at the corner of a heavily trafficked intersection. You will see at the next P&Z meeting that the applicant has been less than forthcoming about his representations and that the traffic study that has been submitted on his behalf is a farce. The opposition is not approaching this issue any differently than if it were a catholic church or a school.

Their application calls for 135 parking spaces, and the evidence before the commission shows that they need (at least) 322 parking spaces JUST for the mosque.

Which brings up another point. The applicant has failed to disclose the uses that that will be employed for the remaining building at 105 Leigus Road.

Further, he has not told the public as to whatever other uses the mosque building will be used for such as weddings, funerals and that there is a 5,000 square foot basement area which they could rent out for other social activities. Blindly, some say that the majority of this traffic will take place on Fridays..., oh how wrong you all are. The simple fact of the matter is that this intersection and neighborhood cannot sustain this "special" use.

MY opposition to this plan has NOTHING at all to do with anyone's culture. NOTHING. I do not care about that. It is comical that the only ones that are using the prejudice slant are those that are in support of this project.

Prejudice is to decide a matter based upon no facts. I have given you the facts upon which I base my position. It seems that you support of this project has nothing to do with the facts of the application in conjunction with the site. Therefore, if anyone is being prejudiced with regards to deciding this matter, it is you and the proponents of this ill-advised and inappropriate project (for this site).

[RC12L4]

Yes..., it is a mosque. But IMO, that does not matter. The fact is that it is also at the corner of a heavily trafficked intersection. You will see at the next P&Z meeting that the applicant has been less than forthcoming about his representations and that the traffic study that has been submitted on his behalf is a farce. The opposition is not approaching this issue any differently than if it were a catholic church or a school.

Their application calls for 135 parking spaces, and the evidence before the commission shows that they need (at least) 322 parking spaces JUST for the mosque.

Which brings up another point. The applicant has failed to disclose the uses that that will be employed for the remaining building at 105 Leigus Road.

Further, he has not told the public as to whatever other uses the mosque building will be used for such as weddings, funerals and that there is a 5,000 square foot basement area which they could rent out for other social activities. Blindly, some say that the majority of this traffic will take place on Fridays..., oh how wrong you all are. The simple fact of the matter is that this intersection and neighborhood cannot sustain this "special" use.

MY opposition to this plan has NOTHING at all to do with anyone's culture. NOTHING. I do not care about that. It is comical that the only ones that are using the prejudice slant are those that are in support of this project.

Prejudice is to decide a matter based upon no facts. I have given you the facts upon which I base my position. It seems that you support of this project has nothing to do with the facts of the application in conjunction with the site. Therefore, if anyone is being prejudiced with regards to deciding this matter, it is you and the proponents of this ill-advised and inappropriate project (for this site).

How many parking spaces does the 300,000 sqft office building have?

[eds]

wallyworldite

You make a lot of claims about this.

1. Applicant has been less than forthcoming about intended use.
Exactly how? Its a mosque. What else do you think will happen at the mosque? Do you mean to imply that there might be other activities taking place and what activities do you refer if so? Hmmm...what are you getting at? Funerals and wedding are to be expected of any institution, enumerating that fact is obvious. So what else are you referring to?

2. Traffic study is a farce? A farce how? What makes it a farce?

3. What evidence is there besides comparative towards another mosque that there needs to be more parking? Are you using sq.ft as a guide, or what? You cannot assume a 1-to-1 relationship between cars and parishioners. What formula for parking did you use?

4. How would renting out a 5,000 sq ft basement affect traffic. The rental would occur most likely on weekends for oh I don't know, birthday parties and such, yes? What if someone built a home on this lot and invited friends over for a wedding party, a funeral reception, or even a birthday party. What if their friends wanted to have a party there too? 5,000 sq ft is the size of a nice house. I am sure the owners would have friends that want to borrow it for parties. This argument makes no sense.

You have not given us facts, but unclear derivation of fact. Please answer these questions with some hard facts. Not supposition masquerading as fact.

What if someone builds 4-5 houses on this lot, totalling about 15,000 - 20,000 sq ft. What about condos? Each house has 2-3 children, a husband and wife. You'll get the same traffic when they decide to have summer parties, graduations, and other get togethers that might total 300 cars between them.

There are many options that can work. The lights can adjusted to make the timing right. There can be police stationed at the entrances just like at every other church on Sunday in every residential neighborhood. Instead of saying why it can't be done, say how can it be done, and then if you have looked at all the options in trying to get it done then you can objectively say you tried.

That land will be used for something, a mosque or other some such entity will cause the same traffic issues. You can't keep that land undeveloped forever, which I suspect is what you want to try. There are two parcels on either side of leigus. That whole area is being developed commercially. The irony is that you'll end up with something worse. That will be poetic.

[Prejudice]

Fact is,

Something will be constructed on those almost 6 acres. Could be housing, Could be something else. Lots of things can be built other than housing in a residential zone.

Odds are that it will not be developed for housing due to it's proximity to Route 68.

If the traffic argument presented here were valid, every intersection in the immediate area would prevent development from continuing.

And that ain't gonna happen for a number of reasons. During these processes, roads get improved, intersections upgraded, turning lanes added, traffic lights reprogrammed, and so on.

A religious institution on this almost 6 acre site makes perfect sense. It is unsuitable for a residence and a place of worship is a limited use facility.

Perhaps a steeple would have met with less opposition than a minaret. Wallingford: the land of steady prejudice.

[Fine Whine]

During these processes, roads get improved, intersections upgraded, turning lanes added, traffic lights reprogrammed, and so on.

Actually the people who say they are concerned about the traffic at this intersection, should work with the applicant to get him to fund recalibration of the traffic lights and widening the intersection.

Why do they want to continue to have the abandoned vacant neglected house on that corner?

[Anna]

To all of you that continue to accuse us of bigotry, please come to the next P&Z meeting and see what we are presenting, before you continue to make inflammatory statements. You may actually change your mind or at least see that our concerns are reasonable and not prejudiced. eds, if you attended a meeting, some of your questions would be answered. I'm sure you would find it interesting. Would you all be so outraged if this were a catholic church we were opposing on this corner? I don't think you would be. I doubt you'd even bat an eye. I doubt it would have made the paper like it has, and yet we would still be opposing it. There is nothing we can say or do to convince you. You hear us but you're not listening. And some of you are kind of mean and rude. Completely unnecessary. (I do enjoy good sarcasm however). The P&Z appreciated our concerns and asked Mr. Farid to go back and get more information. He has to address a number of issues that his application was lacking. That included, but was not limited to his inadequate traffic study. A peer review was ordered because there are legitimate traffic concerns that were not adequately addressed. They didn't do this because we were whining. They did it because our argument has merrit.

[Fit 2 Print]

I'm doing my best to remain neutral on this subject. It occurs to me, though, that sometimes the only way to rip the mask off the face of "bigotry" (call it whatever you like) is to be a bit aggressive.
I think that rudeness is never appropriate. Speaking the truth, however, is always acceptable.

[eds]

Actually it is the same for me as with any development. I am in favor of economic development and progress. I think we can develop property and maintain the environment at the same time. I believe in a balanced approach. In fact, no one should be able to tell another what they can and cannot do with their property unless that use initiates direct physical force or aggression against another's property rights. So far we have safety issues and matters of convenience. All of which are not physical uses of force against your rights.

The government is dictating the use of the land. Only the property owner has that right. When selling and buying land two parties agree to the terms. The government however, through zoning, has told the seller and buyer that they can only use the land for something the government feels is OK. The government does not have the right to tell a property owner what to use the land for, unless of course we believe we don't actually own the land and are only servants using the land of the governor as bestowed upon him by the Lords and Kings.

That's the problem with zoning. It's not that people stipulate land use, but that the stipulation comes from government. It should come from the seller to the buyer. No other party need be involved with the use of the land. People are free to move and sell their property to live somewhere else. If you don't want to be under Islamic law, then don't move to Iran. If you don't like the mosque coming to town, or a condo development, or a Catholic church, or a gated community, or a shopping center, then move. To dictate the use of property to another property owner is to assume some right over property you don't own. One can ask nicely at that point, but not require or demand anything.

[Anna]

Thank goodness for planning and zoning. They do get to decide based on town regulations. It's not about living next to a mosque, you're not listening! eds, are you a Liberterian by any chance?

[Wallyworldite]

That's the problem with zoning. It's not that people stipulate land use, but that the stipulation comes from government. It should come from the seller to the buyer. No other party need be involved with the use of the land. People are free to move and sell their property to live somewhere else. If you don't want to be under Islamic law, then don't move to Iran. If you don't like the mosque coming to town, or a condo development, or a Catholic church, or a gated community, or a shopping center, then move. To dictate the use of property to another property owner is to assume some right over property you don't own. One can ask nicely at that point, but not require or demand anything.

That's funny..., without zoning, next week your next door neighbor can turn his/her house into a drug rehab facility, a two-story dog kennel, a prison, a dynamite testing facility, a horse manure processing plant, a chicken coop, or maybe even a nuclear power plant. I don't know about you but, it seems to me, pretty clear, that zoning regulations are necessary to a certain extent. The fact that you have taken this extreme, nonsensical and inane position is quite telling...

I say it again, under the Town of Wallingford's zoning regulations, the application for this intersection (I am having a difficult time writing the word "mosque" as it seems that every time I write it, someone has to blindly claim "prejudice") is wholly inappropriate. The burden is on the applicant to show the board why this site is appropriate. As of yet they have given NO reasons why this "special" application should be granted when there is a BETTER site less than an eighth of a mile away and closer to Interstate 91. I await their presentation with much interest.

[wallyworld resident]

I do not live on Leigus Road but I do drive on it often.
I would welcome the mosque in a more suitable location. Religious preference is not the issue, religion itself is not the issue. Any similar use of the site would still result in increased traffic, and with it a higher possibility of accidents involving those residents and some loss of whatever privacy they might have. The residents of the neighborhood had no choice when it came to the building of MLN and I don't blame them one bit for trying to say 'no more, we have enough'. Let the site remain residential.
I see during my daily commute that there are several building sites available between Research Parkway and Barnes Industrial Park that would seem to be suitable or even preferable to the proposed site. It makes me wonder why Leigus Rd and Rt 68 seems to be the only site that is being considered. Why would any religion build where it was not made to feel welcome? Wouldn't they prefer to worship at a site where they, too would have more privacy? It seems like the Sabb, the auto auction, and the cell tower story all over again. The whole scenario has probably brought about more feelings of ill will than harmony toward the Farids and Muslims in general. That to me is very sad.

[Wallyworldite]

I do not live on Leigus Road but I do drive on it often.
I would welcome the mosque in a more suitable location. Religious preference is not the issue, religion itself is not the issue. Any similar use of the site would still result in increased traffic, and with it a higher possibility of accidents involving those residents and some loss of whatever privacy they might have. The residents of the neighborhood had no choice when it came to the building of MLN and I don't blame them one bit for trying to say 'no more, we have enough'. Let the site remain residential.
I see during my daily commute that there are several building sites available between Research Parkway and Barnes Industrial Park that would seem to be suitable or even preferable to the proposed site. It makes me wonder why Leigus Rd and Rt 68 seems to be the only site that is being considered. Why would any religion build where it was not made to feel welcome? Wouldn't they prefer to worship at a site where they, too would have more privacy? It seems like the Sabb, the auto auction, and the cell tower story all over again. The whole scenario has probably brought about more feelings of ill will than harmony toward the Farids and Muslims in general. That to me is very sad.

Well said.

As one visitor to this forum once wrote, "[a] nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat."

[Fine Whine]

I have an easy solution to this issue.

Should the Planning & Zoning commission deny this application, the opponents can purchase the land in question. Since they claim that so many residents would be affected by any development on this corner, the purchase price can be amortized across a good number of these property owners.

They have another resident who is an attorney who has spoken against this Mosque, so I would suggest that he could provide his legal services gratis to establish a Homeowners Association for ownership of the parcel.

This way everyone will be happy. (Except the original applicant, of course.)

(Otherwise, if the residents continue to oppose any development on this property it would constitute an illegal "taking". You cannot deny a property owner use of their property.)

I don't know the asking price for this property, but $2,500, a reasonable sum, from 200 residents of Fairlawn Farms and Leigus Road would raise $500,000.

[Username01]

My point is this.

Someone said religious institutions are not allowed in residential zones. They Are.

With a Special Exception, not by right of use.

A further point is this.

You people have a 300,000 sq ft building on the other side of the street that you admit will generate traffic of several thousand cars daily and are complaining about this little application with requiring 135 parking spaces.

135 more parking spaces. If you can only fit 300,000 ounces of liquid in a container, and need to add 135 more, what happens?

And finally you stated earlier that the proponents raised the issue of discrimination. Read the early posts in this blog from the OPPONENTS and listen to the residents soliciting further support from other townspeople. Their whispers contradict your statement as well.

Zoning approval or denial isn't based on what a neighborhood "likes'; it is based on zoning regulations already in place. Read them. If you don't like them. Take action to change them.

Approval of a Special Exception requires the board to decide whether or not the use will fit in with or detract from the neighboring uses. Again, this is not a matter of a Use allowed by right, but rather exception. Perhaps you should read more and notice the people taking a stand? Seems like people taking action to me.

Your own subdivision, if you live in Fairlawn Farms, was the subject of some concern as it is more dense than others because it took advantage of zoning regulations that allow open space, even though it could be worthless wetlands.

Please. Drive around town with your eyes open. Every Open Space Subdivision in this town from the 80s until recently has taken advantage of the open space/wetlands loophole. It's cheap, it's garbage, yet every single developer has utilized it to maximize lot counts and thus the almighty dollar. Regardless, each of those developments were eventually approved by the various agencies P&Z, Wetlands etc so who's ultimately to blame?

So some of the density and TRAFFIC that the opponents complain about is due to their own making.


Beyond the corrections listed above ... the entire premise of proposing this development in a zone that requires a Special Exception for approval is ridiculous when you realize that there are at least 4 or 5 Zoning Districts in which such a use is allowed by Right of Use. In each of these zoning districts exists SEVERAL vacant properties both with and without existing structures. Said existence of buildings that would require demolition should not be an issue as the proposed parcel also contains structures.

The Barnes Road Industrial Park alone has several approved building lots covered in scrub brush.

No one can take issue with Mr Farid wanting to construct a monument to his mother. I (and apparently several others) simply prefer he construct it in his own backyard, rather than ours.

[Prejudice]

If you're going to correct me, at least do so with proper information: An "Educational, religious or philanthropic use" are "permitted uses" in "residence districts", with the approval of a "Special Permit", not a "Special Exception" which is a different Zoning term.

Obviously, the previous writer further demonstrates that this is another all-too-common case of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard).

An earlier "stand" that people in this area took was to complain about the naming of a road within the Fairlawn Farms development. The road in question was named after a honorable and respected town resident and concilman, Bert Killen who tirelessly gave years and years to the town and various capacities.

Those people didn't like the "sound" of the name and the impression it gave to family, friends, and visitors to their street. Thankfully, the Town Council allowed the complainants a forum but did not act on their foolish request.

Fear strikes out in interesting ways in this enclave and not always for logical reasons.

As far as who is to "blame" for Open Space Subdivisions, I would conclude that the P&Z is to blame for -creating- those regs, but not for approving applications that fit those regs. Just as the application here in question should be approved if IT fits the regs. Not denied because a few nervous people are worried about a few more cars a half mile away from their houses.

Again, you subscribed to density by buying into an Open Space Subdivision or living near one, just as you did by deciding to live within spitting distance of not only a commercial zone, but a very large commercial zone.

[eds]

That's funny..., without zoning, next week your next door neighbor can turn his/her house into a drug rehab facility, a two-story dog kennel, a prison, a dynamite testing facility, a horse manure processing plant, a chicken coop, or maybe even a nuclear power plant. I don't know about you but, it seems to me, pretty clear, that zoning regulations are necessary to a certain extent. The fact that you have taken this extreme, nonsensical and inane position is quite telling...


Then I am free to move. In Mesa, Arizona there are no zoning laws. Zoning is not universal and towns can work without zoning. What people in Mesa have done, is to form gated communities. Those that do not live in one can have a very elegant house right next to a run down old rusty trailer or shack. I know because I have clsoe friends who live there. These gated communities also exist here in CT. My friends parents live in one in Danbury. What gated community means is that a large piece of land has its own zoning by land covenant, essentially. I would not buy a property in an area without zoning and without land covenants. I never said I wanted anarchy. I said that zoning is not the answer to keeping the neighborhood the way you like it. It should be done through land covenants, which is what I was getting at. Covenants are seller to buyer agreements made voluntarily between two people without government involvement. They hold the land to be used as the seller intends it forevermore. Sort of like Hubbard Park.

With zoning anyone can claim a variance. That means they can change the zoning. But with covenants, they cannot be changed. P&Z got their palms greased and viola, ML goes in. Live and die by zoning laws and your neighborhood will change. But the Liegus Road folks have no such covenants in their neighborhood. We don't need government to protect ourselves from land owners doing something with their land against what we want, we need our own covenants to protect us. Gated communities are the answer to eliminating zoning and eliminating the endless battles over land usage, environmentalists, and wetlands commissions.

Sierra Club is actually buying land at a large pace. So is the government. All in an effort to protect the land by covenant. Say if Meriden wants to stop the power plant, someone or some legal entity like an endowment or a RIT should buy the land and put a covenant in the land records that it is to remain open space for all to see and use. Like Hubbard Park. But that takes money and those that have no money to do that shouldn't.

In this case, if the Leigus Road neighborhood were to have created a gated community this would be a non-issue at this point. But what has here is usurpation of property rights by people who don't own the land.

Anna I am an objectivist. Objectivism is what started the Libertarian movement however Ayn Rand despised the term. Though later I understand there was a mutual admiration. So yes, as far as political party would be concerned I am Libertarian. But as for philosophy I am an objectivist.

Will I vote for a Barr/Root ticket in the fall? Who knows. I really am surprised that Barr overtook Root and that Root caved to VP. Sounds familiar.

I saw a t-shirt in CafePress that said "Either way, We're F*cked '08" That about sums up how I feel right now.

[collie]

I couldn't believe the gall of Barr and how easily the Libertarians allowed the Republicans to shanghai their party. Seemed obvious to me Barr used them.

[eds]

I was watching the funding on LP site and all of a sudden like two weeks before the convention and BOOM! Barr shows up, out funding Root and Root caves.

[Fine Whine]

The opponents have staunchly stated over and over that this application must not be built because of traffic.

Apparently, that's not exactly the case.

At last night's Inland Wetlands hearing, the opponents have shifted their tactics to water and a feeble claim that the papers filed and approved by the Secretary of State should not be admitted on a technicality which the applicant's attorney proved to the commission to be a false claim.

The application was approved unanimously.

But stay tuned or next week's episode in which we will see a shift back to Plan A: Traffic.

In that episode, Night of the Living Mosque, we will hear arguments that a deadly trickle of 135 cars on Fridays nights threaten the health, welfare, and safety of not only the residents of the Leigus Road area, but the thousands of cars coming out of the 300,000 sq ft Mortgage Lenders Building across the street.

[Anna]

Fine Whine, there can be more than one issue. I don't live nextdoor to the purposed building, flooding isn't my main concern. For these people it is. They get standing water now, about 6 inches deep in their yards. They have additional concerns. And they are perfectly legitimate. Have you ever seen these yards after a good rain? It's really terrible and they say it's worse since MLN. Wetlands only deals with wetlands issues. The applicant says they can mitigate these concerns and wetlands thinks they can. I hope it is true for these peoples sake. We'll see. Traffic is a much larger issue and this is what P&Z does.

[Fine Whine]

I've driven Leigus for decades. Standing water is a fact that has existed for as long as I can remember.

If that was a valid issue against this application, 100% of any development in that area would have been halted 30 years ago.

Now let's get back to this problem of the 135 cars that you now reveal won't be anywhere near your house.

[Anna]

I said it was't directly in my backyard. The traffic will still affect me. Silly, this is just plain silliness.

[Fine Whine]

A resident, an attorney no less, stood before the Inland Wetlands Commission to complain about a technicality in a document filed with the Sec of State (which was proven false.)

Was he worried about traffic?

His office, in the center of Wallingford, is in the opposite direction of this intersection. Due south of the dangerous intersection you have cited. He travels in the opposite direction to his office.

Is he really worried about traffic?

I think anyone in the area TRULY worried about traffic would have moved when the Mortgage Lenders proposal was approved.

Complaining about 135 cars from this application at the FAAAAARRRRR end of Leigus Road, away from any of your homes, and across from the ML site that you admit is not only going to generate 1,000's vehicle trips, but through an intersection that the P&Z, through the approval of the ML application, could adequately handle that amount of traffic, is a specious argument.

I travel Leigus Road and through this intersection on a regular basis. I hvae no worries or concerns about TRAFFIC.

[Ben]

WALLINGFORD — A mosque planned for the corner of Leigus Road and Route 68 received unanimous approval from the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission Wednesday.

The plan for the Salma K. Farid Islamic Center, which has met opposition from neighbors, will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission next week. The mosque would be built at 105 and 109 Leigus Road.

Before the vote Wednesday night, residents presented legal and wetlands-related objections to the plan.

David Guzzo, who lives next door to the site, said the natural incline on the property would shed water onto his yard. Michael Dean, who lives farther down Leigus Road, told the commission to be cautious about water flow in the area. He said his front yard is often underwater after a bad rainfall.

David Juliano, engineer for the project, said a swale and other features planned for the property guarantee that water will not spill over into neighboring properties.

"Basically, this entire site contains and holds its own water," he said.
Commission members appeared satisfied with Juliano's design, raising no serious questions. Juliano made some revisions to the design after town Environmental Planner Erin O'Hare raised issues at the May 7 meeting.

Craig Fishbein, an attorney who lives near the site, raised technical objections over the mosque's registered corporate name. The name, as registered on the Web site of the Secretary of the State's Office, does not include an address or an agent, he said.

"It's my position this entity does not exist," he said.

He also argued the name is not written correctly, since state law requires "Inc.," "Corp.," or another such word attached for a corporation registered with the secretary of the state.

But mosque planners received a certificate of approval for the corporate name from the secretary of state on May 14. That certificate was filed with the wetlands commission.

"You do not get those documents stamped and signed by the secretary of the state unless it's officially formed," said Jeff Alexander, representing the Salma K. Farid Islamic Center.

Alexander added that the secretary of the state's application for a religious corporation is different from that of a for-profit corporation.

Commission member Nick Kern said Juliano's design has satisfied wetlands concerns. He urged the commission to vote, stating that legal questions can be reviewed elsewhere. The town attorney also indicated the commission could move forward with voting Wednesday, according to O'Hare.

All five commissioners voting approved the application. After the meeting, Fishbein said he would consider appealing the commission's decision.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will review the mosque plan June 9.

gmoore@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2275

[Anna]

Fine Whine, I get it. I know your opinion. You know mine. We agree to disagree. :)

[Fine Whine]

Taffic is a legitimate concern. Also entering this neighborhood and seeing a huge office builing and a mosque on the corner is not going to help house values.

No comment.

[Fit 2 Print]

WALLINGFORD — A mosque planned for the corner of Leigus Road and Route 68 received unanimous approval from the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission Wednesday.

The plan for the Salma K. Farid Islamic Center, which has met opposition from neighbors, will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission next week. The mosque would be built at 105 and 109 Leigus Road.

Based on the June 5 story posted by Ben, it sounds to me as though the mosque WILL be built, despite objections. Seems as though most projects which get "unanimous approval" in the first hurdle make it to the finish line!

[Prejudice]

Originally Posted by Anna
"Taffic is a legitimate concern. Also entering this neighborhood and seeing a huge office builing and a mosque on the corner is not going to help house values."

So let me understand this wisdom. Homes in residential areas near churches have lower property values?

I'm not aware that those near Lady of Fatima have lower property values.

Also, there was a subdivison built on the corner of Pond Hill Road and Harrison Road ACROSS from the Church of the Resurrection. Those homes sold for less because of the church on the corner?

There is a church on Paddock Ave in Meriden in a residential zone. The home values there are negatively affected because of the church?

Some churches are located in areas where home values are the highest in their respective communities.

This is simply untrue.

[Username01]

If you're going to correct me, at least do so with proper information: An "Educational, religious or philanthropic use" are "permitted uses" in "residence districts", with the approval of a "Special Permit", not a "Special Exception" which is a different Zoning term.

Obviously, the previous writer further demonstrates that this is another all-too-common case of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard).

An earlier "stand" that people in this area took was to complain about the naming of a road within the Fairlawn Farms development. The road in question was named after a honorable and respected town resident and concilman, Bert Killen who tirelessly gave years and years to the town and various capacities.

Those people didn't like the "sound" of the name and the impression it gave to family, friends, and visitors to their street. Thankfully, the Town Council allowed the complainants a forum but did not act on their foolish request.

Fear strikes out in interesting ways in this enclave and not always for logical reasons.

As far as who is to "blame" for Open Space Subdivisions, I would conclude that the P&Z is to blame for -creating- those regs, but not for approving applications that fit those regs. Just as the application here in question should be approved if IT fits the regs. Not denied because a few nervous people are worried about a few more cars a half mile away from their houses.

Again, you subscribed to density by buying into an Open Space Subdivision or living near one, just as you did by deciding to live within spitting distance of not only a commercial zone, but a very large commercial zone.

You're right, my use of the wrong word (exception versus permit) invalidates the facts otherwise presented. Typical forum clown that substitutes opinion for fact.

Further proof of your confusion between fact and opinion is the inference that Bert Killen was a saint. That at least gave me a chuckle. Thank you for the late afternoon pick-me-up.

[Fit 2 Print]

The last posting by "Prejudice" made sense to me. Having a mosque, church or synagogue mixed into the blend of a residential neighborhood does NOT hurt property values. If anything, it adds interest to the landscape and emphasizes the importance of being "good neighbors."
Wait and see -- the mosque WILL be built, and that's the end of it.

[Anna]

Prejudice,

In an earlier post you brought the Killen Road name issue. I don't know how to pull up the quote, otherwise I would put it here. You stated that we didn't like the name and were whinning about it. The truth if the matter was that people had invested money in custon stationary, checks, address change notes, and plaques with the "original" name on them. ( We had to pay "twice" now).

The town came in and decided to change it. People here objected and they turned their noses up at us. It went down hill and got out of hand. It turned personal. The Killen family was hurt and we looked unreasonable.
The facts were completely distorted and again there was an editorial making us look petty. I believe we were called "interlopers".

Today, I read the paper and it looks like the town agrees that this policy of naming streets in a bad one. If you want to use a name, use it in the beginning, don't change it after homes are up. So many other streets, without names, were being built when they changed ours. A few council members would not admit they had made a mistake, and had promised the Killens this honor, they just stood their ground and it was wrong. My point is, we were right about the road, we were right about MLN and we are right about the mosque. Each time our concerns were well founded and each time they disreguarded us. The real issue got twisted. You'll forgive us, but we have every reason to fight. Everytime a bad decision is made here, we are the only ones paying for. You didn't have all the facts about the road name and you don't have all the facts here. Attend the meeting and then judge. I had no intention of even posting anymore, but I thought is ironic that this article was in the paper and you had just mentioned it. Try and consider, just for a moment, that you might be wrong.

[flatrat]

WALLINGFORD — A mosque planned for the corner of Leigus Road and Route 68 received unanimous approval from the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission Wednesday.

The plan for the Salma K. Farid Islamic Center, which has met opposition from neighbors, will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission next week. The mosque would be built at 105 and 109 Leigus Road.

Based on the June 5 story posted by Ben, it sounds to me as though the mosque WILL be built, despite objections. Seems as though most projects which get "unanimous approval" in the first hurdle make it to the finish line!

Gee, I was gonna suggest moving the mosque to Mansion Road, now that the dog kennel proposal fell through...and theres already lots of Oakdale traffic, so no one would notice another 135 cars..

[Wallyworldite]

Gee, I was gonna suggest moving the mosque to Mansion Road, now that the dog kennel proposal fell through...and theres already lots of Oakdale traffic, so no one would notice another 135 cars..

Don't quash that idea yet. The peer review of the Farid "traffic study" has been released. As previously indicated, it points out that the applicant's representations as to parking and traffic are more comical than factual. How fitting for the comical representations to move to the other side of town and closer to the venue that hosts the Wiggles shows. :D

[Anna]

Home : MyRecordJournal : News : Latest Headlines
Latest Headlines
Wallingford Planning and Zoning Commission to review mosque plans tonight
By: Record-Journal Staff, 8:30 a.m.06/09/2008

At a meeting tonight the Planning and Zoning Commission will review plans to build a mosque at the corner of Leigus Road and Route 68.


The commission has received a peer review of the mosque planners' traffic study that has raised a number of questions about the building's traffic impact.

The meeting takes place tonight at 7 p.m. at the Town Hall, 45 S. Main Street.

[David]

Please visit the "Letter of the Week" forum, June 9, to read an interesting letter on the subject from a Wallingford writer.
Here's a copy of her commentary:

Of mosque and hope
Editor:

The outrage the proposed mosque has produced is disappointing, to say the very least.

Driving along Wallingford’s Leigus Road and the site of the proposed mosque, I'm shocked to read the “No Mosque on Leigus” signs posted in many front yards.

The protesters said that assigning a religious site will have a negative impact on traffic. Perhaps what they really oppose is having a mosque in their neighborhood. The posted signs and comments from residents speak to this concept rather well.

Is this really the year 2008? Is this actually the town I live in? Are some of the people of Wallingford really this prejudicial? It is not my 22 year experience as a Wallingford resident, who has happily raised a family here that causes me to ask these questions; but rather the posted signs and comments from some Leigus Road residents instead. How can the desire to build a mosque in honor of one’s mother and all that she did for her family be anything less than noble? What her sons are working diligently to accomplish speaks volumes about their character and faith.

Many places of worship in Wallingford are primarily built in residential neighborhoods. This is not uncommon. The mosque will provide a place of worship as well as show Wallingford’s tolerance and multicultural side. I think we should take a moment to reflect and ponder the comments that have been made.

I hope this mosque is built to reach out to non-Muslims, not to convert them, but to educate them in order to remove the racist undertones you hear and read about in the mainstream media. A place of worship should never be seen as a negative influence for a town, but rather as a sign of peace and hope.

[collie]

In a strange way, this parking study reminds me of the recent controversy in Meriden re downtown merchants who wanted the city to convert a city-owned lot to a parking lot. Merchants insisted parking was desperately needed. The city felt otherwise and quietly undertook a parking study before the H&ED committee meeting. That study clearly indicated the parking was not needed.

I am assuming the study referred to in the Wallingford mosque newspaper articles was undertaken by Mr. Fahid. If the parking study is flawed, as opponents say, perhaps the city of Wallingford has done its homework, so to speak, and undertaken its own parking study.

Opponents say the parking study is flawed. What then is to stop a tabling of the proposal until another has been done, preferably by the city and NOT by opponents of the project. I'd wager Fahid was being thorough in doing a parking study but opponents are clutching at any straw they can, ie name of corporation not registered correctly with the state, filming mosque goers in other communities. I mean, really, what kind of a parking study is that - a bunch of neighbors videotaping people leaving a mosque? I doubt any legitamate parking study would be conducted in such an unprofessional, in your face, we'll show you kind of way.

Certainly the parking study done in downtown Meriden did not require such intimidating tactics. Proponents of the Meriden parking lot weren't even aware it had been done until the H&ED committee meeting.

I for one will be glad when this is over. Common sense should tell people a mosque is not going to generate the kind of traffic that will put their kindergarteners at risk, as some opponents have stated.

[Anna]

collie,

The peer review IS done the city of Wallingford. It was ordered to be done after the last meeting. Mr. Farid's study was not thorough. If any of you had attended any of these meetings you would have known this and your opinion would be an informed one. The study refered to in the paper wasn't done by some neighborhood members, we simply video taped traffic and showed police reports.

[collie]

Oh now I see why you find the city's parking study flawed - it must draw the conclusion that I did, which is let the mosque go in.

It amuses me the way opponents of the mosque imply people have to come to meetings, go back to college almost and "Study" this situation or else we are ill informed.

Those of us who live outside of Wallingford smelled a big racist rat in regards to Wallingford refusing to observe MLK's birthday. The mosque situation looks the same for those of us who have been there, done that.

I hope the planning commission approves the mosque tonight. Or else your Coalition for Unity is going to have more work on their plate in their attempts to portray Wallingford as a town that welcomes diversity. They're still reparing the damage done by the MLK debacle and have done some really good work.

[Anna]

What are you talking about? I didn't comment on the cities study. The city is presenting their findings at the meeting tonight and the Record-Journal wrote that the council has "questions". They are "questions" because their findings aren't exactly what Farid's are. And, yes to be fully informed you should go to the meetings. As far as prjudice goes. I've lived around the country (but I grew up here) and I can tell you this is a kind and welcoming community. I've seen some tremendous prejudice and , this isn't it. The only issue ever brought up is MLK. What else has happened here to make it the hotbed of racism that you think it is?

[collie]

The MLK incident wasn't enough for you?

I do have a question, if you would be so kind to a person who is admittedly not going to immerse myself 24/7 in this issue. Who are the peers in this peer review? In Meriden, the city undertook a parking study, not a peer review. I would think the planning commission would have undertaken a parking study if they thought Fahid's was not detailed enough.

Thanks in advance for your patience.

[Anna]

A peer review is a paid study. The town hires a company (but Farid must pay for it) to review plans, in this case, the traffic study presented by Farid's professionals. This is my best understanding. At the last meeting, the P&Z had numerous questions about traffic and parking that were not answered or even considered by the applicant.

Paid holiday time over MLK day, isn't enough to cloud every move done here as racist. Being asked to leave restaurants, being told you can't be served or seeing friends have no neighbors move in on either side of there house because they are the wrong color. That's racism. I have never seen anything even resembling this here. Why try and make this community the bad guy? Our concerns are legitimate. The council with either agree or disagree. I just hope they do it for the right reason. Don't deny it because we are whinning or petty. Don't approve it because it is politically correct. Make the choice based on real facts. I think that is the right thing to do.

I dont' mean to be testy, but it's 100 degrees and I think everyone is tired of this. :(

[Ben]

At a meeting tonight the Planning and Zoning Commission will review plans to build a mosque at the corner of Leigus Road and Route 68.

The commission has received a peer review of the mosque planners' traffic study that has raised a number of questions about the building's traffic impact.

The meeting takes place tonight (June 9th) at 7 p.m. at the Town Hall, 45 S. Main Street

[collie]

Minimizing the MLK "incident" to a mere labor dispute was part of the problem, people with blinders on, making excuses.

At any rate, thanks for the explanation of the peer review on the parking study. Never a dull moment. Hopefully, the meeting place will be air conditioned. It will be interesting; I look forward, as usual, to tomorrow's paper!

[speakerguy]

I am amazed at the ignorance that I find on this forum. Because we post signs that say "No Mosque on Liegus" everyone leaps to the conclusion that we are bigots. They reach that conclusion without any FACTS. Here are the FACTS:

FACT 1: The proposed Mosque will be 4900 square feet with a full basement.
FACT 2: The proposed Mosque will offer easy access due to its proximity to I-91.
FACT 3: The Mosque in Berlin is only 4600 square feet, is the same architectual style as the Mosque proposed in Wallingford, offers easy access due to its location on the Berlin Turnpike and regularly (every week) draws more than 300 cars to its Friday afternoon service.
FACT 4: Mr. Farid tells the Planning and Zoning board that it will be a small family Mosque for about 35 families, but tells the Record-Journal that it will be open to all Muslims.
FACT 5: The proposed Mosque has only 135 parking spaces with no room to add any additional parking.
FACT 6: The entrance and exit to the Mosque will be 140 feet from a blind corner. A blind corner that carries school bus traffic around the same time on Friday afternoon as the proposed Service.
FACT 7: No new Church has been built in Wallingford since Zoning Laws were established. Any comparison between this Mosque and any other Church is moot.
FACT 8: The peer review traffic study done by an independent engineer at the behest of the town TOTALLY confirms ALL of the neighbor's concerns about traffic and parking. I would post it here but attachments are not allowed. Visit town hall for a copy if you doubt this fact.



When this Mosque draws the same (or larger) crowds as the Berlin Mosque, the attendees will park anywhere they can, on the lawn, up and down the street, block driveways, etc, just like they do at the Berlin Mosque. Having this parking fiasco once a week WILL bring down property values. ANYONE WHO DOUBTS THIS, VISIT THE BERLIN MOSQUE BETWEEN NOON AND 3PM ON ANY FRIDAY AND JUST WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

I urge all readers to get the FACTS before leaping to ANY conclusions about our intentions.

[Fine Whine]

I am amazed at the ignorance that I find on this forum. Because we post signs that say "No Mosque on Liegus" everyone leaps to the conclusion that we are bigots. They reach that conclusion without any FACTS. Here are the FACTS:

FACT 1: The proposed Mosque will be 4900 square feet with a full basement.
FACT 2: The proposed Mosque will offer easy access due to its proximity to I-91.
FACT 3: The Mosque in Berlin is only 4600 square feet, is the same architectual style as the Mosque proposed in Wallingford, offers easy access due to its location on the Berlin Turnpike and regularly (every week) draws more than 300 cars to its Friday afternoon service.
FACT 4: Mr. Farid tells the Planning and Zoning board that it will be a small family Mosque for about 35 families, but tells the Record-Journal that it will be open to all Muslims.
FACT 5: The proposed Mosque has only 135 parking spaces with no room to add any additional parking.
FACT 6: The entrance and exit to the Mosque will be 140 feet from a blind corner. A blind corner that carries school bus traffic around the same time on Friday afternoon as the proposed Service.
FACT 7: No new Church has been built in Wallingford since Zoning Laws were established. Any comparison between this Mosque and any other Church is moot.
FACT 8: The peer review traffic study done by an independent engineer at the behest of the town TOTALLY confirms ALL of the neighbor's concerns about traffic and parking. I would post it here but attachments are not allowed. Visit town hall for a copy if you doubt this fact.



When this Mosque draws the same (or larger) crowds as the Berlin Mosque, the attendees will park anywhere they can, on the lawn, up and down the street, block driveways, etc, just like they do at the Berlin Mosque. Having this parking fiasco once a week WILL bring down property values. ANYONE WHO DOUBTS THIS, VISIT THE BERLIN MOSQUE BETWEEN NOON AND 3PM ON ANY FRIDAY AND JUST WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

I urge all readers to get the FACTS before leaping to ANY conclusions about our intentions.


Here's a fact. Some of you're "facts" are incorrect.

#7 - Church of The Resurrection and the Methodist Church on New Rock Hill Road were built after zoning was enacted in Wallingford. In addition to those two, there are a number of smaller churches such as the Jehovah Witnesses approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission.

Your conclusion that this Mosque will draw the same numbers as another Mosque is an unsubstantiated assumption and nothing more. And you comment that it would be architecturally similar is out of place. It's architectural style is of little matter.

While some of you might be concerned with traffic, it is really nothing more than a smokescreen for other opponents. This is substantiated by prejudicial statements some residents are whispering and racist statements made at public hearings and letters to the Mayor quoted in the paper.

Another contributor to this blog, Anna, complains about traffic but apparently lives near Killen Road at least 3/4 of a mile from this intersection. She uses the intersection in question by choice, not by necessity.

Your closing statement is strong. And it is ludicrous to suggest that people are not welcome to park on streets.

I've never seen so many people afraid of a religion.

Your signs say "No Mosque on Leigus". More appropriate would be signs that read "Whites Only".

When the Fairlawn Farms subdivision was under construction, I commented to a friend that the development would be more interesting if so many of the houses were not so similar. He responded that the buyers wanted everything to be the same.

Little did I know at that time how very right he was.

[Anna]

Fine whine, this subdivision was all done by the same builder. We only had a choice of 4 or 5 designs. That's why the houses all look the same. Again you don't have the facts. But nice try. BTW, I use 68 because it is convenient and I use 91. I know I should only use the back roads. You can't be serious.

[speakerguy]

Unless you have personally seen the Berlin Mosque in operation on Friday afternoon and have read the peer review traffic study, you cannot understand this situation. It is clear that nothing we say will change your opinion. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. When all the facts are out I am confident that it will show that we were correct about ours concerns with this proposal.

[speakerguy]

Here is the URL for the independent traffic study.

http://www.mysunforums.com/content/RJ/content/myrj/Documents/traffic_study.PDF

[Wallyworldite]

Well, o.k., the neighborhood shows up for the P&Z hearing, and the room is packed. Mr. Farid gets wind that his plan is a no-go. He makes everyone sit there for 2 and a half hours, while he plays the race card and basically calls everyone in the Leigus Road neighborhood "prejudiced", and then he cowardly withdraws his application, only to submit another one (which will probably have the same problems, contradictions and misrepresentations).

Why make everyone wait while they have to listen to his racist drivel? We knew all along that his plan was a farce and his traffic study just another part of that farce. Most people just go in and withdraw their application..., not this classless clown. He makes the women and children wait while he grandstands, looking for sympathy from the commission. And this is supposed to be "good neighbor relations"?

[Fine Whine]

BTW, I use 68 because it is convenient and I use 91. I know I should only use the back roads. You can't be serious.

Anna, my point is that your fixation with this "traffic" is unfounded. You don't live close to the site. You have chosen traffic as an excuse to mask your fear.

I live roughly the same distance from this intersection as you and the development in this area is not going to materially change my life any more than the subdivision in which you live impacted me when it was developed.

Anyone that buys property near undeveloped land is naive to think that it will never be developed.

Get over it.

The only thing your room full of people accomplished was give Wallingford another black eye with regards to being intollerant of diversity.

The following quote is from one of your group. It appeared in the Record-Journal:
"...wrote Beth Kennedy. "I would prefer my daughters not be presented with ill treatment of me or any other woman in this neighborhood."

Your neighborhood is toxic.

Not one critic of this application, has either admitted that people in your group have expressed these prejudiced views, nor denounced them.

All of your property values are affected by this darkness you espouse.

May God bless each and every one of you.

[Anna]

Wallyworld, You got that right. Completely disingenuous. He showed his true colors tonight. Any goodwill that I might have felt for him is gone. Now it is him personally, I can't stand. What an arrogant jerk! I heard rumors about him and the way he treats people. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I won't make that mistake again.

[Wallyworldite]

Anna, my point is that your fixation with this "traffic" is unfounded. You don't live close to the site. You have chosen traffic as an excuse to mask your fear.

I live roughly the same distance from this intersection as you and the development in this area is not going to materially change my life any more than the subdivision in which you live impacted me when it was developed.

Anyone that buys property near undeveloped land is naive to think that it will never be developed.

Get over it.

The only thing your room full of people accomplished was give Wallingford another black eye with regards to being intollerant of diversity.

The following quote is from one of your group. It appeared in the Record-Journal:
"...wrote Beth Kennedy. "I would prefer my daughters not be presented with ill treatment of me or any other woman in this neighborhood."

Your neighborhood is toxic.

Not one critic of this application, has either admitted that people in your group have expressed these prejudiced views, nor denounced them.

All of your property values are affected by this darkness you espouse.

May God bless each and every one of you.

Gee, that's funny..., then why did Dave Juliano admit at the hearing tonight that they miscalculated the parking? Ohhhhhh...., I see we are blind to those admissions.... Have you read the traffic study??? Probably not because you would see that this plan was DOA. This has nothing at all to do with race, but the classless acts that occurred tonight are very telling as to the type of individual (oh, yeah they claim to be a corporation), the type of business that we are dealing with.

[collie]

Glad to hear he'll be resubmitting another plan. Where there is a will, there is a way.

[Fine Whine]

He makes the women and children wait...

Dry your tears, I'm with you on this one.

I agree. The women and children should have been excused.

But in all seriousness, I'm surprised that opponents brought their children to a forum to experience their neighbors actions regarding their fear of Islam.

Diversity is the finest thing our world has to offer.

You should be teaching your children to bath themselves in it and learn from those different from themselves.

[Fine Whine]

Gee, that's funny..., then why did Dave Juliano admit at the hearing tonight that they miscalculated the parking? Ohhhhhh...., I see we are blind to those admissions.... Have you read the traffic study??? Probably not because you would see that this plan was DOA. This has nothing at all to do with race, but the classless acts that occurred tonight are very telling as to the type of individual (oh, yeah they claim to be a corporation), the type of business that we are dealing with.

Planning & Zoning is a process.

A peer review was done. (Yes I read it.) It raised questions, like it was designed to do and time is/was needed to prepare answers or modify the application, if necessary.

For such kind, understanding, racially tolerant people who now claim they gave the applicant the "benefit of the doubt" despite daily rants against him, :) all of you seem pretty content to run home to your computers to resort to name calling, and conclusions based on nothing but unproven assumptions.

The peer review raised questions and critiques the application and applicant's traffic study. The application wasn't finalized. No application is finalized until it is approved by the Commission. It is a fluid process. It's not a Term paper that gets graded and then necessarily thrown out without opportunity for changes.

[Anna]

Fine Whine, I have had more than enough psych classes in my day. Don't analyze me. " Toxic neighborhood" "Darkness you espouse". Who even talks like this? I don't presume to know you. I find it hard to believe you actually know me. This IS only a newspaper forum. Ideas on topics are discussed. Lighten up. There are no toxins here, no darkness espoused. My goodness. Don't get your panties or shorts in a knot. This will go back to P&Z again and Mr. Farid will try and do better.

And God Bless you too. :)

I did have a rant on Mr. Farid tonight. I have to admit he got me angry. I don't think I have ever commented on him personally before. I do not like what happened this evening.

[Wallyworldite]

Glad to hear he'll be resubmitting another plan. Where there is a will, there is a way.

No problem here. As long as there are no more misrepresentations and contradictions. The problem with the plan from the beginning was that there were so many problems and things that didn't make sense. They got caught and had to withdraw the application (please see peer review of traffic study). Lets see what (they) say THIS time.:D

[Common Sense]

There is a Mosque on the hill in South Meriden almost half way up that was purchased from a Jehovah Witness House of Worship. That caused a lot of traffic along with Saturday and Sunday Mass at Holy Angels at the top of the hill. But now that the Mosque has replaced it I haven't seen nor heard any complaints. I hope the residents in that area of Wallingford and the proposed Mosque can come to terms.

[speakerguy]

The peer review traffic study of the withdrawn proposal identifies the areas of concern for traffic and parking. I am confident that the P&Z Board will apply these same concerns to the new proposal. If the new proposal can be found to address these concerns for the parcel in question, then the proposal will gain approval, as it should.

[Prejudice]

The following quote is from one of your group. It appeared in the Record-Journal:
"...wrote Beth Kennedy. "I would prefer my daughters not be presented with ill treatment of me or any other woman in this neighborhood."

Not one critic of this application, has either admitted that people in your group have expressed these prejudiced views, nor denounced them.


An excellent point.

A failure to denounce these prejudicial views said by a few, indicates an acceptance and endorsement of them by all.

[Prejudice]

Planning & Zoning is a process.


The residents the Leigus Road area don't understand this. From their actions (filling Council Chambers, bringing children and signs) and statements (Letters to the Mayor and submitted to this very blog.), they feel it is an election and that numbers count.

Numbers don't count at all, not even those of the Commission.

If an application meets the criteria of the regulations in place at the time of application, the application will be approved, if not from the Planning & Zoning Commission, then by a Judge in a court of law. And that legal review does not include impassioned pleas and emotional claims by neighbors. It is a simple review of the facts after which a decision is rendered.

[Username01]

Gee, that's funny..., then why did Dave Juliano admit at the hearing tonight that they miscalculated the parking? Ohhhhhh...., I see we are blind to those admissions.... Have you read the traffic study??? Probably not because you would see that this plan was DOA. This has nothing at all to do with race, but the classless acts that occurred tonight are very telling as to the type of individual (oh, yeah they claim to be a corporation), the type of business that we are dealing with.

Juliano Associates has been in business since 1973. There was no miscalculation, but rather a classic case of bait and switch misdirection. What's sad is Mr. Juliano used to be above such practices and decried when others used them.

Come in with a site plan that works, yet is over the top versus what is needed. Get positive reaction? Big win. Get negative reaction, offer a smaller site plan as a show of concern and look to be gracious. [Pssst here's a hint folks, dropping the size of the building in half and parking by a third won't eliminate the possibility of additional construction down the road, nor will it lessen the impact of the peer review traffic study submitted on the 6th of June. The overflow from Berlin etc will increase the regional use of a mosque located within feet of an I-91 exit ramp.]

First though, let people sit around for 90+ minutes waiting to hear said engineer's responses to the peer review. But rather than actually respond, give the developer time to jump on his soapbox to defame the neighbors he claims to want to work with.

Each point by Mr Farid was accented by an anecdotal passage "I received a phone call today by someone of another faith and they said keep fighting." "A little girl asked me, why do they not just put No Traffic on Leigus on their signs?"

Mr. Farid, a little muslim girl called me earlier this morning (seriously it's the TRUTH) and asked me why since the signs clearly state "No Mosque On Leigus" .... why you don't understand the ON LEIGUS part and simply take your site plan to any of the plethora of the vacant commercial/industrial zoned lots in town that would satisfy your needs without the need for a Special Permit and the resulting Public Hearings?"

Simplest answer is money darlin' . The parcel in question can be had for a song since it's been up for sale for years with no nibbles. Mr. Farid is first and foremost a businessman, and no successful businessmen have become successful by overspending.

I think we found out another reason last night. Despite the call that there are no fireworks here, Mr. Farid wants to make sure he remains in the spotlight. Buying a pre-approved lot in any of the areas in town that host several, would allow the project to go through with nary a blip on the radar as there would be no required special permits. Mr. Farid and Mr. Juliano could have asked that the decision to withdraw the application be mentioned first out of respect for all of the people gathered there both in opposition and support. Instead, those same people were kept waiting. What's interesting to note is that the commission knew of the decision to withdraw as well and allowed Mr. Farid his face time, yet interrupted a fellow commissioner in his questioning a part of site plan.

It's clear that neither the commission, Mr. Juliano or Mr. Farid respect any of the assembled people.

BTW on the subject of traffic, there was an accident right in front of the existing house Sunday afternoon. So add another to the count thanks.

[Modica]

I tried to stay away from this thread because I really don't like the things posted here, but with all the crap going on in the world, why is this such a popular thread. Is this that much of a threat? I fear big corporations, the oil companies and our government more than I fear a mosque.

[Fine Whine]

why you don't understand the ON LEIGUS part and simply take your site plan to any of the plethora of the vacant commercial/industrial zoned lots in town that would satisfy your needs without the need for a Special Permit and the resulting Public Hearings?"

This statement typifies the attitude of the Leigus Road residents.

Suggesting that this place of worship be located in a commercial/industrial zone is demeaning.

Still..............

Not one of you have denounced your neighbors who have made the printed racial statements in letters to the Town, quoted in this newspaper, and those earlier in this blog.

Sad examples for he children of this area.

[collie]

That's because they still think the Martin Luther King Holiday scandal was "really" about labor contracts ...

I did read the socalled peer review last night. I thought the end conclusion was that the traffic impact could not be accurately accessed?

Mark my words, if opponents don't "win" and block the building of the mosque, they will file a lawsuit. It strikes me odd that they did not file a lawsuit over the ML property, yet they claim to have been equally outraged by that project, which is going to bring a whole bunch more traffic than the mosque.

And if I were Fahid, and this compromise is denied, I would sue. I would not give up until a mosque was built in Wallingford. I hope he has a lot of strength and support and a strong stomach as well. The best thing for Wallingford would be for him to ride this nastiness out; they will eventually get over the mosque and many will reach out and welcome them.

[Username01]

This statement typifies the attitude of the Leigus Road residents.

Suggesting that this place of worship be located in a commercial/industrial zone is demeaning.

Still..............

Not one of you have denounced your neighbors who have made the printed racial statements in letters to the Town, quoted in this newspaper, and those earlier in this blog.

Sad examples for he children of this area.


It's demeaning to suggest that a building be constructed in a zone that states such use is allowed by right rather than one which requires a special permit? The horror!

The vacant parcel adjacent to the hotel and daycare center would be a terrible location?

Would any of the vacant lots in the Barnes Road Industrial Park complex be a terrible location? Isn't Mr. Farid's place of business located within, or if not, immediately adjacent to, said complex?

No one is insinuating that it be built next door to Cytec, but rather not in a residential neighborhood already plagued with traffic concerns and accidents without the use of the MLN property which in and of itself will cause more trouble than originally believed due to the revised parking layouts and points of ingress/egress. Run on sentences aside, I would hope you can see my point.

Then again it's easier to infer that since I'm opposed to this project, by default, I must be racist.

[Fine Whine]

Then again it's easier to infer that since I'm opposed to this project, by default, I must be racist.

No, but you don't distance yourself from those in your group that are racist.

With regards to Special Permits, please educate yourself on Zoning. A Special Permit is not a Variance.

[RC12L4]

No, but you don't distance yourself from those in your group that are racist.

With regards to Special Permits, please educate yourself on Zoning. A Special Permit is not a Variance.

Do you require every Muslim you come in contact with to denounce terrorism and if they don't that must mean they themselves are terrorists?

Would you require me to denounce the KKK at every turn? I mean being a white male if I don't I must be a Klansman.

Your argument is intellectually dishonest at best.

[Fine Whine]

Do you require every Muslim you come in contact with to denounce terrorism and if they don't that must mean they themselves are terrorists?


Some members of this group claim they are being unfairly characterized, but that characterization comes from statements by members and neighbors of theirs.

They have banded into an opposition group. If some members are misrepresenting them, they naturally and morally should say they don't share their views.

This is an activist group; they are not passive members as you cite in your argument.

[RC12L4]

Some members of this group claim they are being unfairly characterized, but that characterization comes from statements by members and neighbors of theirs.

They have banded into an opposition group. If some members are misrepresenting them, they naturally and morally should say they don't share their views.

This is an activist group; they are not passive members as you cite in your argument.

So you're going to group anyone who's against the Mosque in to the same group as people who've made bigoted comments? This sounds an awful lot like the same mindset you're arguing against.

[Fine Whine]

So you're going to group anyone who's against the Mosque in to the same group as people who've made bigoted comments? This sounds an awful lot like the same mindset you're arguing against.

No not at all, just those that write and say they don't embrace these comments and refuse to distance themselves from them.

[RC12L4]

No not at all, just those that write and say they don't embrace these comments and refuse to distance themselves from them.

So let's say for instance you meet a group of Muslims do you require them to renounce terrorism before speaking with them?

[collie]

To belong to a group that makes racist comments and not say anything to correct them or denounce them makes you one of their gang, in my book.

[Fit 2 Print]

Perhaps "fear of the unknown" is playing itself out here more than bigotry.
It occurs to me that most non-Muslims in this area probably have little or no idea what actually goes on inside a mosque's walls.
Perhaps folks are equating the news from Iraq (i.e. terrorists hiding out/storing weapons in mosques) with a "hidden agenda" for a Wallingford mosque?
If so, it would be easy to imagine the question marks of fear looming mightily, no matter how irrational.
Any one agree?

[Fine Whine]

Perhaps "fear of the unknown" is playing itself out here more than bigotry.
It occurs to me that most non-Muslims in this area probably have little or no idea what actually goes on inside a mosque's walls.
Perhaps folks are equating the news from Iraq (i.e. terrorists hiding out/storing weapons in mosques) with a "hidden agenda" for a Wallingford mosque?
If so, it would be easy to imagine the question marks of fear looming mightily, no matter how irrational.
Any one agree?

Exactly and the reason why I am fearful of the Irish. JUST KIDDING. :eek:

[eds]

Damn! Isn't this dead yet! We could have built the mosque by now.

So are they building it or not? Monday was Shavuot so I didn't go.

[leigusite]

To Every Mis-Informed Cretin Out There (and there sounds like plenty)

The Sign Reads 'No Mosque on Leigus" not "NO Mosque in Wallingford'---Get Over it---we don't want more traffic in our neighborhood--Plain & Simple---just because it's a mosque the neighborhood is being called racist--we are a multi-national neighborhood---Look at the long legal battle that residents of Orange have had against a Stew Leonard's dairy store being proposed--- it is increased traffic stupid== are you going to call the residents of Orange anti-animal because they don't want a large dairy store bringing in MORE traffic ????????? As for the other schmuck who said we were naive for buying in a neighborhood that has land zoned for industrial--this proposed mosque property is and was zoned RESIDENTIAL-- I'm surprised you didn't call the residents of Meriden anti-American and Anti Auto Workers Union for not wanting the auto auction in their town (I mean a lot of cars were built in Detroit)--it's UNWANTED TRAFFIC--PURE & SIMPLE---This reminds me of a creed I go by---'Don't argue with anyone dumber than you"

[eds]

I don't think everyone is racist when it comes to the mosque. I do think some are and some are not. But resident cannot expect to keep traffic the same forever living so close to 68. It will increase. Its a fact of life. Traffic is a weak issue. No matter where the mosque ends up there will be increased traffic and no one will like it. They can't help that people will go there to worship. Anytime you build anything you have increase traffic. That parcel of land will be developed and there will be increased traffic no matter what. Even if homes are built there, there will be more than just one home with two cars. Wallingford will want to develop that land because land is not a tax generator. The zoning for that land will change to commercial eventually. Complaining about traffic is like crying over spilled milk.

[Anna]

eds, put 5 houses there. I don't know if you can put that many. I don't think that the entire lot is usable, but we're OK with houses. It will be less traffic than any religious building. Everyone assumed it would be developed residentially.
Yes, traffic is a real issue. Traffic is always a concern in any area. This is why they have "traffic studies" and "traffic engineers". These experts had concerns and that is why Farid has changed his purposal. He didn't change it to be a "good neighbor". If you noticed, it was only after the peer review results were released, that he withdrew his application. He knew that purposal would not be approved. At the risk of insulting a few posters here, does the term "useful idiots" mean anything to anyone?

[RC12L4]

http://members.cox.net/rc12l4/deadhorse.gif

[Fit 2 Print]

A few posts back, writer "Leigusite" refers to others with terms such as "cretins, schmucks, dumber."

Sorry, but this type of discourse reflects poorly on those harboring such sentiments and does little to advance the cause of reason on this subject.

[Anna]

I use the term is its defined use. I do believe it. Look it up. I can assure you, some of the terms used to describe those of us oppsing this issue has been less than flattering.
If you were insulted, I apologize.

[eds]

I asked a few posts back if this issue was dead yet. No one responded.

So I ask again, is this issue dead or is still being proposed?

[Anna]

It's alive! It's alive!

He withdrew the purposal because the peer review wasn't quite as possitve about his traffic study as his consultant was. He is going to try another, "smaller" mosque. He said he did it to be a "good neighbor" and to show everyone that he is a compromiser. Really? I might believe him, a little bit, had he done it before the review was released. I might believe him had he not done it infront of T.V. cameras and the press. I might believe him had to told us, before we sat for 2 hours that he was withdrawing it He asked Linda Bush not to let the public know because he wanted to basically "grandstand" the issue. He blindsided everyone. Even the board members looked stunned. 2 other applicants at this meeting had withdrawn their applications and it was announced, at the start, so people could go home if they had come. We got to sit there and waste out time listening to other issues that had no bearing on us because Mr. Farid requested that he be allowed to address us. ( I asked Linda Bush what happened and this is what she told me) I think that should have been my choice to stay, not his. How would you feel if this had happened to you?

[RC12L4]

It's alive! It's alive!

He withdrew the purposal because the peer review wasn't quite as possitve about his traffic study as his consultant was. He is going to try another, "smaller" mosque. He said he did it to be a "good neighbor" and to show everyone that he is a compromiser. Really? I might believe him, a little bit, had he done it before the review was released. I might believe him had he not done it infront of T.V. cameras and the press. I might believe him had to told us, before we sat for 2 hours that he was withdrawing it He asked Linda Bush not to let the public know because he wanted to basically "grandstand" the issue. He blindsided everyone. Even the board members looked stunned. 2 other applicants at this meeting had withdrawn their applications and it was announced, at the start, so people could go home if they had come. We got to sit there and waste out time listening to other issues that had no bearing on us because Mr. Farid requested that he be allowed to address us. ( I asked Linda Bush what happened and this is what she told me) I think that should have been my choice to stay, not his. How would you feel if this had happened to you?


Stop being a sore winner (at least for the time being)

[collie]

Now that another mosque proposal has been submitted, it occured to me reading today's article in the paper, that opponents should try taking Mr. Fahid's word. The peer review study, much as opponents tout it, was unable to draw a definitive conclusion.

The new proposal cuts the parking spaces. Here's a revolutionary idea - why not take Mr. Fahid at his word. Most religious gathering places start out small and when the need arises, they move to a bigger place. Fahid has said this mosque will meet needs of a small group of Muslims in the Wallingford area. Why the assumption he's a liar?

[Username01]

No, but you don't distance yourself from those in your group that are racist.
I don't distance myself from the ones that are allergic to peanuts either, does that mean I hate peanuts?

Please, leave the associative laws to mathematical discourse.


With regards to Special Permits, please educate yourself on Zoning. A Special Permit is not a Variance.

Who called it a Variance? It does however, similar to a variance, require the approval of a committee, in this case the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[Username01]

Now that another mosque proposal has been submitted, it occured to me reading today's article in the paper, that opponents should try taking Mr. Fahid's word. The peer review study, much as opponents tout it, was unable to draw a definitive conclusion.

The new proposal cuts the parking spaces. Here's a revolutionary idea - why not take Mr. Fahid at his word. Most religious gathering places start out small and when the need arises, they move to a bigger place. Fahid has said this mosque will meet needs of a small group of Muslims in the Wallingford area. Why the assumption he's a liar?

If Mr. Farid had mentioned initially his decision to withdraw the application and come back with a smaller footprint immediately upon taking the microphone, sure. I'd excuse the 90 minute wait at that point even.

However since he wanted his spotlight and soapbox opp first, nah he's just another "Slick Willy" businessman and I would no sooner buy a used car from him than believe he has my neighborhoods interests in mind. It was nice to see him show us all what he's made of though in that move. Now we know better what to expect down the road. Certainly affects how I view Edible Arrangements as well now. Nothing like a little word of mouth to help business, right?

[oldnickel]

Just like others. I have tried to stay away from this one, but i just can't help myself.

This is just my opinion but it sounds a lot like people don't want a mosque there for reasons other than traffic or congestion.

The whole traffic issue is bogus. Traffic problems have been solved many, many times in the past. Besides, the number of cars pales in comparison to the Mortgage Lenders building which isn't even in operation yet. I would think that with whatever improvements were necessary for ML, that the traffic flow would be better.

I agree that Mr. Farid shouldn't have addressed the audience for the simple fact that there is no way short of not going forward with the project that he would have placated the opponents. I get the feeling that even if the traffic problems are worked out, people still wouldn't want the mosque there.

I have seen on this forum and other venues, the intolerance, ignorance, insults and demeaning remarks which some people pass off as dialogue or their right of expression (anonymous of course). Filming people leaving the mosque in Berlin is about as low as you can sink and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Just think of the uproar if mosque supporters filmed people with "no mosque" signs on their lawns.

I glad to see that we are all getting an education in American fair play and tolerance.

[collie]

There is no fair play and tolerance in equating racism to "peanuts."

And I think it is terrible of opponents to threaten to harm Mr. Fahid's business by "word of mouth."

[leigusite]

A few posts back, writer "Leigusite" refers to others with terms such as "cretins, schmucks, dumber."

Sorry, but this type of discourse reflects poorly on those harboring such sentiments and does little to advance the cause of reason on this subject.



Dear fit 2 print--

if you want to talk about discourse that reflects poorly on people harboring such sentiments, how about starting and ending with Tariq Farid--He insulted EVERYONE in our neighborhood when he said we were racist and had a hidden agenda----We are expressing our concerns about traffic---NOT the fact that the proposed building is a mosque----that is why there is a public forum at the P & Z meetings and no one said they were opposed to a mosque

[Wallyworldite]

Just like others. I have tried to stay away from this one, but i just can't help myself.

This is just my opinion but it sounds a lot like people don't want a mosque there for reasons other than traffic or congestion.

The whole traffic issue is bogus. Traffic problems have been solved many, many times in the past. Besides, the number of cars pales in comparison to the Mortgage Lenders building which isn't even in operation yet. I would think that with whatever improvements were necessary for ML, that the traffic flow would be better.

I agree that Mr. Farid shouldn't have addressed the audience for the simple fact that there is no way short of not going forward with the project that he would have placated the opponents. I get the feeling that even if the traffic problems are worked out, people still wouldn't want the mosque there.

I have seen on this forum and other venues, the intolerance, ignorance, insults and demeaning remarks which some people pass off as dialogue or their right of expression (anonymous of course). Filming people leaving the mosque in Berlin is about as low as you can sink and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Just think of the uproar if mosque supporters filmed people with "no mosque" signs on their lawns.

I glad to see that we are all getting an education in American fair play and tolerance.

Unfortunately for your premise about the motivation of the opponents,. you are quite wrong. Traffic is just one of the issues. As you will see if you took the time to read the independent traffic study for this project,

http://www.mysunforums.com/content/RJ/content/myrj/Documents/traffic_study.PDF

you will see that traffic is and was just ONE of the many flaws of this project. Nonetheless, another traffic study will be done for this re-newed project and it should come under the same scrutiny as the first as that was such a joke. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Farid saw the writing on the wall..., the inaccuracies and misrepresentations had been exposed, and his original plan was about to be denied. He had no alternative but to withdraw his original application as it was a farce to put that size building on that parcel. One would wish that he would have withdrawn with more class than to use the P&Z commission as his bully pulpit. He says that he re-did the plan for the benefit of the neighborhood. Unfortunately this is just another misrepresentation as he had no choice. Please, please read the traffic study. You will see what I mean.

[Fine Whine]

This issue will be decided by the Planning & Zoning regulations that were in force at the time the application for the Mosque were submitted and not by a back and forth in this blog.

Very little will be accomplished in this blog actually.

And the only thing accomplished by this issue so far is an unfortunate one: A perception that once again there is reason to believe that Wallingford is a racist town.

Pointing fingers in response to this entry won't lessen that perception nor make it go away. It's there.

Getting back to the core issue, the regulations. Many that have contributed to this blog seem unfamiliar with those regs. They are actually available in their entirety online under the Town of Wallingford's website. The regs clearly state the uses allowed in residential districts, the purpose and requirements of a Special Permit, and other details including required parking for specific uses, in this case, a "place of worship".

A read of those will tell you what has to be passed and what can be denied.

If the opponents sway the Planning & Zoning Commission by filling a room and holding placards, a judge could quickly overturn that decision if it doesn't conform with the regulations.

And THAT is the bottom line on this issue.

[eds]

I read it. Says basically more information is needed in areas where the applicant needs to provide more information as to the amount of traffic that will be generated by its use. It talks about things like valet parking, providing do-not-enter signs and stop bars in proper locations, dumpster access, handicap parking, fire emergency access, light poles, pedestrian movement, etc etc etc.

All things that can be addressed and solved. There is nothing in that report that indicates this cannot be done. If the applicant were proposing an airport, yeah, it can't be done. But nothing I read indicates that a mosque can never be put in that location. It indicates that issues need to be resolved by the applicant. The size and scope of the mosque, being regional or local, etc can also be addressed. The argument of there are no muslims in that area so don't build it there, is illogical and invalid. So let him resolve the concerns in the report and repropose them and then he can build it. If he solves the issues it will be built no doubt.

Even the 24 ft width of Leigus road noted in the site visit on May 30, does not indicate any issues that cannot be solved to let this proposal go through. It raises issues of on street parking not being a safe alternative. So then they don't use on street parking. Put up no parking signs. Use the suggestion of valet parking to ensure all cars are parked in the mosque lot, and when its full, people are turned away.

Just because they raise issues that are of concern does not mean they can't be solved. Nothing in that report indicates any issue that is permanently unsolvable.

[Fit 2 Print]

At the end of the day, I believe that there's a way to get the mosque built successfully on that location. As "eds" notes, not every issue/concern can be solved in every situation. It's a give-and-take process where fairness and reason should prevail.

I'm reminded of the axiom: "Keep an open mind, something might fall in."

[Wallyworldite]

I read it. Says basically more information is needed in areas where the applicant needs to provide more information as to the amount of traffic that will be generated by its use. It talks about things like valet parking, providing do-not-enter signs and stop bars in proper locations, dumpster access, handicap parking, fire emergency access, light poles, pedestrian movement, etc etc etc.

All things that can be addressed and solved. There is nothing in that report that indicates this cannot be done. If the applicant were proposing an airport, yeah, it can't be done. But nothing I read indicates that a mosque can never be put in that location. It indicates that issues need to be resolved by the applicant. The size and scope of the mosque, being regional or local, etc can also be addressed. The argument of there are no muslims in that area so don't build it there, is illogical and invalid. So let him resolve the concerns in the report and repropose them and then he can build it. If he solves the issues it will be built no doubt.

Even the 24 ft width of Leigus road noted in the site visit on May 30, does not indicate any issues that cannot be solved to let this proposal go through. It raises issues of on street parking not being a safe alternative. So then they don't use on street parking. Put up no parking signs. Use the suggestion of valet parking to ensure all cars are parked in the mosque lot, and when its full, people are turned away.

Just because they raise issues that are of concern does not mean they can't be solved. Nothing in that report indicates any issue that is permanently unsolvable.

Thank you for reading the report. Unfortunately you miss the point. The fact of the matter is that there was no way that the commission could vote favorably on Monday on the application. There were too many unanswered questions and factual inconsistencies. In fact, the peer reviewer actually suggests in her report that they downsize the building and eliminate a driveway. What does the applicant do, he downsizes the building and eliminates a driveway, claiming that he is doing the same for the benefit of the neighborhood. The fact of the matter is that he had no other choice. He didn't do it for the neighborhood, he did it because he had to. Unfortunately, the new plans raise the same issues and have the same problems. That plan too is headed for defeat. I don't know why he doesn't just find another site in Wallingford that is more suitable (there are plenty). Sadly, it seems to me that blindly charging forward with this new plan is more a matter of principle than it is on the basis of an appropriate application.

[Fit 2 Print]

Sorry, I don't buy it.
The foul air of fear of the unknown is pervasive, and toxic to an otherwise good plan.

[eds]

Thank you for reading the report. Unfortunately you miss the point. The fact of the matter is that there was no way that the commission could vote favorably on Monday on the application. There were too many unanswered questions and factual inconsistencies. In fact, the peer reviewer actually suggests in her report that they downsize the building and eliminate a driveway. What does the applicant do, he downsizes the building and eliminates a driveway, claiming that he is doing the same for the benefit of the neighborhood. The fact of the matter is that he had no other choice. He didn't do it for the neighborhood, he did it because he had to. Unfortunately, the new plans raise the same issues and have the same problems. That plan too is headed for defeat. I don't know why he doesn't just find another site in Wallingford that is more suitable (there are plenty). Sadly, it seems to me that blindly charging forward with this new plan is more a matter of principle than it is on the basis of an appropriate application.

Why are you hung up on reading between the lines as to why he modified the proposal? Who cares whether he was told to and spun it into great PR or he did it as an altruistic gesture? Fact is he changed it. People get additional chances to rectify the proposal. It's not a one shot deal and if you get it wrong that's it. It's called working with the applicant. The fact that he changed the proposal and that he eventually will address all the questions the P&Z committee has only shows he is intent on that site. Unless there is some law I don't know about that limits how many proposals he can make, he can continue make as many as he likes until the P&Z committee is satisfied and approves it. You may not like that he keeps trying but that is his right to do so under the current zoning system. He wants that site and that is his choice. He thinks that site is the best site for his operation. Why do you think other sites are better? For his purposes he thinks this site is the best. He knows best how to make a mosque work I would think.

[David]

Here's a copy from the "Letter of the Week" forum on this topic from a Wallingford attorney which may be of interest in this forum, as well:

Mosque: rancor
Editor:

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.

[leigusite]

Today's (6/13) Record Journal had an interesting article about a Jehovah's Witness building being approved over the neighbors objections to traffic. Why isn't everyone calling these residents prejudiced & racist because they didn't wasnt a church in their neighborhood? They didn't want the increased traffic--------It's interesting how people are cherrypicking who they call racist--

[collie]

Interesting that they won in court, too isn't it?

[leigusite]

Interesting that they won in court, too isn't it?
Your're missing the point--they didn't want the increased traffic, and weren't called racist for protesting -and more importantly they didn't have a 300,000 sqaure foot building across the street!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wallyworldite]

Interesting that they won in court, too isn't it?

They DIDN'T win in court..., obviously you didn't read the article.

[eds]

There was one off color comment made regarding the fear of recruitment in the R-J article posted in another thread. One neighbor was concerned about people knocking on her door. Goes along with homophobia where people fear being hit on by the same sex. Your door is a public access point. Anyone can go up to it and knock.

[collie]

The neighbors lost in court, being my point. And there was not a lot of media attention given the Jehovah's Witness, certainly not in the way the opponents of Wallingford have kept the topic in the spotlight.
And I agree with EDS, the woman afraid of being barraged by Jehovah's Witnesses at her door was over the top. Kudos to the Jehovah's Witnesses in Meriden for selling their old site to the new mosque in Meriden and for going to court (and winning!) for their new site.

[Wallyworldite]

The neighbors lost in court, being my point. And there was not a lot of media attention given the Jehovah's Witness, certainly not in the way the opponents of Wallingford have kept the topic in the spotlight.
And I agree with EDS, the woman afraid of being barraged by Jehovah's Witnesses at her door was over the top. Kudos to the Jehovah's Witnesses in Meriden for selling their old site to the new mosque in Meriden and for going to court (and winning!) for their new site.

Once again, they didn't win in court. When you win in court a judge makes a decision about the case. That is not the fact here. In this case, the residents could appeal the new decision of the board, and probably should.

[collie]

I do know how to read. How can you interpret the information provided in the R-J article on the Jehovah's Witnesses as being anything other than them winning in court?

The neighbors could conceivably appeal but zoning board members have signed off on this agreement, the court only needs to approve, a mere formality, and P&Z board memebrs have been advised they may be sued individually. All as a result of the legal appeal made by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I don't see how you can view this as anything but opponents losing.

[Prejudice]

Today's (6/13) Record Journal had an interesting article about a Jehovah's Witness building being approved over the neighbors objections to traffic. Why isn't everyone calling these residents prejudiced & racist because they didn't wasnt a church in their neighborhood? They didn't want the increased traffic--------It's interesting how people are cherrypicking who they call racist--

Maybe because the opponents in Meriden didn't make racist comments.

[leigusite]

Maybe because the opponents in Meriden didn't make racist comments.


Dear Prejudice,

Please show me in black and white what somebody wrote that was prejudiced?????????? I've never seen anything

[Anna]

A little rain to cool off heated tempers.
Happy Father's Day to all.

[jma]

While most Muslims are probably peaceful, how can you be sure that there will be no "quiet" terrorist planning going on? You can't. Historically, these groups have all the time in the world to plan before they execute. What you may permit today may have long-reaching effects on the future.


Sounds racist to me!

[jma]

Well Wallingford is now joining the ranks of other towns that are building up the Islamic Faith. Ya most of us Christians aren't perfect but whoever said we were??
The Islamic goal is to convert all of us in the world to join that religion and now it will easier for them to do. I am sure you women want to wear those long black dresses and become the property of your husbands and do as he says. Freedom is something that CAN NOT be taken for granted. Also women aren't worthy to worship God in the Mosques, Talk about going backwards in time!
I'd be very careful what you wish for and take heed in what is happening in your surroundings.
I WILL NOT SURRENDER TO THEM AND AM A DEVOTE CHRISTIAN WHO WILL FIGHT AGAINST WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY.

Yet another one! Need any more?

[Prejudice]

Dear Prejudice,

Please show me in black and white what somebody wrote that was prejudiced?????????? I've never seen anything

One of your group, Beth Kennedy, is quoted in a Record-Journal article via a letter to the Mayor which contained some questionable statements. It is also cited earlier in this blog.

[Fine Whine]

One of your group, Beth Kennedy, is quoted in a Record-Journal article via a letter to the Mayor which contained some questionable statements. It is also cited earlier in this blog.

Here is the quote from an article dated 5/17/2008:
"One neighbor, in a letter to zoning officials and the mayor, raised fears about Islam's stance on women after voicing concerns about traffic and parking.

"I foresee many worshipers parking in front of my house or walking through my yard to attend worship," wrote Beth Kennedy. "I would prefer my daughters not be presented with ill treatment of me or any other woman in this neighborhood."

[rapuda]

It bothers me that once again an issue is causing people to talk about Wallingford as a racist town. I don't feel our town as a whole is any different then the surrounding towns. There are individuals that have prejudices that live in this town as well as our neighboring towns. It certainly doesn't help to have signs stating "NO MOSQUE ON LEIGUS." How about "NO MORE TRAFFIC," or "CONTROL THE TRAFFIC ON LEIGUS," or "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."
Having the signs printed as they are, and placed all over residents lawns, certainly gives an unwanted meaning. I don't understand why the residents with these signs didn't change them once it was obvious they were being looked at as racist. Those signs are distracting the cause more than they are helping it. Rather than talking about why a mosque shouldn't be built due to traffic concerns, the residents are defending themselves against being called racists. Read all the posts in this forum. The signs should be changed.

I'm not choosing sides in this matter. The residents have a right to express their concerns. I just wish they would do it in a way that doesn't cause the town as a whole to be tarnished.

Speaking of not choosing sides, The Record-Journal has certainly chosen sides based on what I've read and seen in the editorial section of the paper. The picture in todays editorial speaks loud and clear.
The editorials certainly have not been impartial in regards to the Leigus Road matter.

[Anna]

rupada, I agree about the signs. It does come across poorly, although Mr. Farid did say he understood what was meant by them. If it were a church, Dunkin Donuts or Wal-mart it would say that, but it is a mosque and that is what was written. You are correct in that it is the traffic, not the mosque, that we don't want. Funny, I don't think anyone would call us anti-christian if we opposed a church on this corner. I guarentee the Record-Journal wouldn't keep flamming the fires as it has been doing. It is really a shame. There are quite a few people in this town shaking their heads at just how biased they are. The fact that Edible Arrangements is a huge advertisor for them, just makes it look unseemly.

[eds]

Speaking of not choosing sides, The Record-Journal has certainly chosen sides based on what I've read and seen in the editorial section of the paper. The picture in todays editorial speaks loud and clear.
The editorials certainly have not been impartial in regards to the Leigus Road matter.

That is why it is called an editorial. It is the opinion of the writer, not the newspaper itself. That opinion does not have to be impartial. Editorials generally do take sides. That is why some newspapers are considered more conservative and others more liberal.

[rapuda]

I stand corrected.

The editorial writers are not impartial. They have spoken loud and clear as to their opinion.

[Fine Whine]

Funny, I don't think anyone would call us anti-christian if we opposed a church on this corner.

Unless the opponents were to make anti-Christian statements in letters to the Mayor and when seeking support for opposition to the application.

[David]

Editorials are written by editorial staff. From the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, and everything in between, including the Record-Journal, positions are adopted on topics in the news. Understandably, some readers will react pro and con.

The cartoon (mentioned in this forum) by Wallingford cartoonist Kevin Markowski reflects his take on the issue. Cartoonists are independent and do not discuss content or themes with the newspaper.

Most of the related commentary found on the editorial pages is from individual letter-writers residing in the readership area. Opinions expressed, though ranging widely, belong to the authors thereof. Once their letters are published, other readers may elect to respond with an opinion letter, either in agreement or disagreement.

Contributors to this forum are to be thanked for widening the discussion and setting forth views which add to a robust and far-reaching debate on this subject.

[oldnickel]

Anna, I do not think that the record journal is fanning the flames. Thoughtful people can look at the evidence and disagree. This has become a highly emotional issue and I think people need to be careful with their words. Some of the posts in this forum against the mosque contain many loaded words. At a glance, I see Mr Farid referred to as a dishonest, selfish, cowardly individual who is not respectful of the opponents. He has misrepresented himself, been less than forth coming and has no class. His plan was drivel and a farce. I have seen posts on other forums call for a boycott of his business and demean him for contacting the schools with regards to job openings. I have seen references to terrorism and hidden agendas/alternate uses. Even now, you infer what I have read before, that the record journal's position is based on advertising dollars from Mr Farid.
I repeat what i posted before. If the issue is traffic & congestion then stick to that. When you throw in the loaded words and personal attacks it diminishes your argument. I agree that traffic is a valid concern, but it is one that has been resolved many times in the past. I believe EDS when he says there is nothing in the peer review that is not doable.

[Fit 2 Print]

Sometimes flames fan themselves. It's all in the updraft!

[leigusite]

Did anyone read the letters to the editor on june 17 from Eric Helland re: Place of Prayer in the Record Journal?? He says 'this is all about being Muslim, it's about 9/11 since 9/11 all I hear is that Muslims are terrorists' What planet is this guy from? Uranus???? Who at the P&Z meetings ever said this is about someone's religion? As far as the KKK coming here---what does he thinK? that the people of Wallingford welcomed them with open arms????? Nobody in their right mind wanted the KKK but they have freedom of speech? If Wallingford were really racist-don't you think the residents of fairlawn farms would be chomping at the bit to have the KKK here??? He finishes by saying 'let these 'people' have a place to pray' I agree---but not in a residential zone that will bring in more traffic. How 'bout on your street Eric Hellend??????

[collie]

Was the reference to Uranus really necessary?

[Prejudice]

Who at the P&Z meetings ever said this is about someone's religion?

An entire room filled with people holding placards stating "NO MOSQUE ON LEIGUS" would fall into that category.