Facts And False Statements

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to letters from Sarah Beier and Herb Rosenthal in last week’s Newtown Bee. Both letters state that I or others who oppose the new town hall project are ignoring the facts or making false statements.

In Sarah Beier’s letter “Common Sense Prevails” she states that anyone continuing to espouse the delay or cancellation of this project is deeply rooted in denial of the facts. Yet, in her very first paragraph, Ms Beier states “the plans and actions for FFH have been well underway for several years, and were legally and properly endorsed by the voters of Newtown.”

I called Ms Beier at home only to ask her why she believes the project was legally and properly endorsed by the voters of Newtown. I respect that she has a different opinion, but as I have done in the past, I wanted to make sure that the facts were on my side.

In the end, she and I agreed that the 2001 referendum approving the $21.8 million for nine different FFH projects was indeed legal and proper, and did not include a new town hall. However, I also consider the 2003 referendum when taxpayers defeated the master plan and new town hall as legal and proper, while she suggested the telephone survey of 400 households by the University of Connecticut was a legal and proper endorsement of the master plan. I reminded Ms Beier that the UConn survey was one of five surveys conducted in the town, none of which endorsed a new town hall.

In fact, I forgot to mention to Ms Beier that the UConn survey found that if the referendum on the master plan were held when the survey was taken, of the people who knew enough about the plan to vote on it, the majority would have defeated it, again.

The facts are the new town hall project was never legally or properly endorsed by Newtown’s voters. In fact, just the opposite is true.

In Herb Rosenthal’s letter [“Attacks Without Facts”], Herb points out that my use of the word “penalties” was incorrect since, according to Herb, there were no penalties in the contract. As I often do, I am giving Herb the benefit of the doubt since the copy of the contract which Herb said is available for viewing at town hall has yet to be found.

Penalty or no penalty, Newtown’s taxpayers will be punished to the tune of at least $800,000 if work on the project is stopped or redirected. In the past four years Herb had more than enough reason and opportunity to work on building consensus among taxpayers so a master plan could be approved. Instead, he and other town officials continue to force feed a new town hall that I am confident will eventually be stopped.

Until then, the people of Newtown will continue to pay the price for the same project they said “No” to at every opportunity they had.

Kevin Fitzgerald

24 Old Farm Hill Road, Newtown                       December 12, 2007