.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }
.flickr-yourcomment { }
.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }
.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

Public Notice: Tree Removal, originally uploaded by Aldon.

Public Notice
Tree Removal

In accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 814- Article 1B Sections (4) and (5), NOTICE is hereby given of intent to remove this tree 30 days from the date of this posting.

When I took the picture of the sign, a security guard came up and told me the trees had to come down because they had termites. I knocked on the wood and it seemed pretty solid to me. The trees looked fairly healthy, so I wondered what this was all about.

Later, I started to receive emails from various people asking why the trees were being removed. People talked about sending letters to the Stamford Advocate, to the Tree Warden, and the Mayor’s office in order to get a public hearing about whether or not the trees should be removed. One person wrote that a person from City Hall said the trees were dead or dying and that was the reason they were getting cut down.

I figured I’d make a few calls myself to see what I could find out. I called the number listed on the form, and got an answering machine. I also called the number of a person on the environmental protection board.

Later in the day, I got a phone call from Erin McKenna, who is a Senior Planner at the City of Stamford’s Land Use Bureau. She provided lots of valuable information. The trees in question, honey locust, are not diseased. They are fine, although they are planted a little too closely together which has hampered their growth. They had been planned to be taken down as part of a project to install a sculpture donated by Rubin Nakian.

The plan is to install the sculpture as part of an overall redesign of the entrance to the Government Center. The new entrance is to be designed by Wesley Stout Associates. They are an award winning landscape design firm, whom I was told are very environmentally conscious. The design should be more attractive and provide better shade.

The current schedule is to wait until the plan is received from the design firm. The plan will then be reviewed internally and then publicly. There will be a public hearing about the removal of the trees, but they are hoping to wait until then plan is available to the public before holding such a hearing.

It all sounds like a good plan to me, and I hope that people who are concerned about the trees get involved and make sure that the plan is environmentally sound and does truly improve the area in front of the Government Center.

Yet I hope things don’t stop there. I had a wonderful discussion with Erin. She graduated from Yale’s School of Forestry in 1996 and went to work in New York City at a Street Planter. She talked about her experiences in New York when the Asian Long Horn Beetle wiped out many of the maple trees in Brooklyn. Her job was to replace them, and in doing so, making sure that there was proper biodiversity established.

She came to Stamford and did an inventory of street trees in downtown Stamford and Shippan. She noted that there is a good variety of trees on Tresser Boulevard. She talked about what a fun project it was, talking to people about the trees, helping them understand how to identify and measure them. She spoke about preparing a manual on how to care for the trees.

Can we take this whole experience and use the energy for something positive, to promote our urban forest? Can we get people to be more concerned about street trees, and make sure they don’t get damaged from too much dog urine? Can we find ways to get people to contribute trees to fill up empty tree pits? Can we get tree pits to be larger so the trees will be healthier?

I look forward to seeing the design. Even more, I look forward to people talking about how we can make Stamford, especially the downtown area, greener.

But do you remember Kitty Genovese? She was the woman, now lying buried in New Canaan, whose 1964 rape-murder in a Queens apartment complex led to a New York Times investigative report, "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police." The story inspired public outrage and the creation of Neighborhood Watch programs and emergency 911 service in cities across the country.

Decades later, experience has proved the most effective crime prevention programs are ones like these, which connect the police with the communities they serve: Neighborhood Watch, 911, Block Watch, Weed and Seed, community policing, cops on bikes, local police substations.

Smart technology can enhance these efforts. In his 2007 State of the City address, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced plans for a "revolutionary innovation in crime fighting": New York will be the first city in the world to equip 911 call centers to receive digital photos and videos submitted by citizens using cell phones and computers.

What about Stamford? Instead of creating innovative and powerful partnerships between police and residents, our Board of Representatives last week authorized closed-circuit TV cameras throughout the city that will feed surveillance videos into a room at Government Center, where anonymous police officers will sit and watch like Big Brother.

Will the camera operators be secretly tracking you and gathering evidence to use in court? Maybe, but from the numerous documented cases of abuse in other cities, it is more likely that a bored officer will be panning the cameras to follow attractive women, or zooming in on couples engaged in intimate behavior. The effectiveness for crime prevention is dubious.

The National Black Police Association says: "Camera surveillance funds could be better spent to hire and promote additional officers, and training them to work cooperatively with the public they serve."

Retired Marine intelligence officer and CIA agent Robert David Steele says we will be safer if we opt for less secrecy and more of what he terms Open Source Intelligence: "The threats we face don't lend themselves to pre-planned, centrally controlled government direction. Only a nation in which each citizen is both a collector and consumer of intelligence, able to share information adequately and in real time, will survive the tribulations to come."

So instead of surveillance cameras, let’s have more cops on the beat interacting with residents. Let’s have more support for our school crossing guards—they know more about problems in the neighborhood than anyone, and are a lot smarter and friendlier than cameras. Let’s have pedestrian-friendly urban design—if people simply did more walking they would see the city from a different perspective, and street crime would plummet.

Let’s have more outreach and opportunities for young people, not a bunker mentality in City Hall that treats citizens as objects for suspicion and spying.

Let’s put the "public" back in public safety.

David Bedell
Candidate for Stamford Constable

The legislation then moves on to a final vote before the full city council with no public comment allowed, Monday, February 5th, check for time later.

Bicycle activists will talk about making it easier for people to take bicycles on trains and better bicycle parking at train stations.

COUNCIL BUSINESS:
1). Remarks by and discussion with C-DOT Commissioner Ralph Carpenter

2). Review of December Operating Report Mr. Lydecker / MNRR

3). Review of TSB Draft Recommendations Mr. Cameron / Ms. Prosi

4). Mainline Issues
All
- Fairfield/Westport rail-truck collision and emergency response

5). Danbury / Waterbury / New Canaan Branch Issues All

6). Stamford Garage - Update
Mr. Colonese / Council

7). Other such business as shall be appropriate

C. Homeland Security. CCTV Cameras, and any and all Feeds, may be used for the purpose of providing surveillance in the service of homeland security, law enforcement and prevention, and disaster preparedness and recovery in locations identified as critical assets by the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS), as set forth in the DEMHS Homeland Security Initiative, as such may be amended from time to time.

D. Certain High Crime Areas. CCTV Cameras, and any and all Feeds, may be used for the purpose of providing surveillance in the service of law enforcement and prevention in areas of the City of Stamford that have experienced crime at a higher rate than the city's average crime rate, or in areas where an increase in crime is anticipated.

E. Illegal Drug Activity in Proximity to Schools, Public Housing Projects, and Child Day Care Centers. CCTV Cameras, and any and all Feeds, may be used for the purpose of providing surveillance in the service of law enforcement and prevention of illegal drug activity in locations on, or within one thousand five hundred feet of, the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, a public housing project or a licensed child day care center that is identified as a child day care center by a sign posted in a conspicuous place.

To watch a video of the public hearing, use the following links:
hour one
hour two
hour three
hour four

Other useful links:
Chapter 7 ("Closed Circuit TV Cameras") of the Code of Ordinances (as existing)
Search the Stamford Code of Ordinances

Responsibilities include:
- Compiling and producing monthly newsletter, weekly order of service and weekly email bulletin, as well as annual report and other congregational materials on an as needed basis.
- General administrative tasks including answering phones and email. Taking and forwarding messages and inquiries for the minister.
- Updating and maintaining files and records. Backing up computer files, insuring proper operation of office computer, printers, fax and copier. Ordering office and janitorial supplies and arranging building repairs and maintenance in conjunction with Building and Grounds committee chairperson.
- Managing relations with church tenants, both ongoing and occasional, including showing and booking rooms. Maintaining church calendar and scheduling rooms for church functions and church sponsored groups.
- Handling administrative tasks for church officers and committees.

Day to day supervision is by minister. Overall supervision is by Board President, who may also request other duties. The applicant must be able to respond confidentially, work with volunteers and other non-profit agencies on the premise, including Metcalf house and the Head Start/ daycare program.

Applicant must be proficient in MS Word and Outlook and standard Internet applications and tools. Familiarity with MS Excel and Access and other computer applications is desirable.

The Office Administrator will be required to work 16 per week, but days and times are negotiable.

Applicants should email a cover letter and resume to ron.sala@uusis.org.

“Eminent domain" is the right of the government, under the Constitution, to take private property for public use “with just compensation."

The issue erupted onto the national scene in June 2005 when the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in Kelo et al. v. The City of New London et al. that the "public purpose" for which government could take property included redevelopment schemes.

While many people understandably were outraged at this decision to take private homes to redevelop an area near Pfizer and “increase the tax base,” the majority of the justices decided that since many state legislatures have defined "public use" to include urban redevelopment plans, the Court would allow the states to define the limits of the use of eminent domain, rather than the Supreme Court.

At the time of the Kelo decision, some states had already limited eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. But not Connecticut.

Although the right to take private property for a public use is a matter of federal law, the Justices who dissented not only objected to the undue deference given to the state's treatment of a federal law, but indicated that they understood how easily the economically powerful (e.g., corporations) in partnership with local government could overrule local wishes for profit making reasons, an outcome not contemplated by the authors of the Constitution.

Stamford had its own eminent domain controversy in 2002 when the Connecticut Supreme Court Aposporos v. Urban Redevelopment Commission) ruled against Mayor Malloy, his counsel Andrew McDonald (now a state senator and head of the state Judiciary Committee) and the Urban Redevelopment Commission (URC), headed by Rachel Goldberg, and the attempt to seize Curley's Diner, now a multi-million dollar property, and sell it to Corcoran Jennison, a Boston based developer, to build more luxury rental housing.

The purpose of the original redevelopment plan was to develop the downtown by creating a more attractive business environment, coupled with “affordable” housing, not the luxury rentals with 20% allocated to “affordable” that will actually be built. While some people mistakenly think “affordable” means housing for the poor, it actually means housing for working people based on a formula that takes into account local costs and incomes.

The land on which Curley’s sits was never, however, part of the redevelopment map and was never subject to eminent domain, yet several years and an estimated half million dollars of taxpayer dollars were wasted on this failed land grab for which the City offered the owners a mere $230,000 initially.

Incidentally, the Mayor, despite his opposition to any affordable housing requirement for fear that it would discourage developers, now brags about how much “affordable housing” has been built, although he doesn’t mention that it was the Board of Representatives that pushed for the measure over his objections. Still, requiring that 20% of new units qualify as “affordable” falls far short of the original mandate.

But Stamford doesn’t seem to have much of a memory in these matters.

Other owners in that same block caved into the pressure of challenging City Hall and took the low ball settlements they were offered, although one business owner later sued when he learned his property was illegally taken. That case is still pending.

The ultimate beneficiary of this land grab will not be the citizens of Stamford, however, but Corcoran Jennison, which purchased the land based on the URC’s promise that they would be able to build on the entire plot. Although President Marty Jones hinted at litigation against the City and the URC when they couldn’t deliver the Curley’s Diner property, the parties are all apparently in new alignment on the current litigation over the Curley’s Diner rear parking lot and challenged easement.

Yes. There is new litigation. This time Maria Aposporos and her sister Eleni Anastos are the plaintiffs against the City and the URC.

This latest dispute was set off when the City threw up a chain link fence around the Diner, cutting off their parking lot from access by cars, impeding the removal of trash (which was followed by the City Health Dept. issuing a violation that had to be fought on the state level) and cutting into their business.

Not surprisingly, Dannel Malloy is opposed to the state Legislature making any significant change in our eminent domain laws. His campaign manager heads the State Judiciary Committee looking at campaign finance reform.

Governor Rell has asked for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment until the Legislature can act. Can legislators dependent on contributions from businesses and developers really make protecting the people their priority?

Should the Stamford Board of Representatives propose its own moratorium until the State law is reviewed and reformed?

These are not hypothetical questions, especially when your home or business could be next.

-Patricia Kane

With this 100th enrollee, Stamford wins its first free solar electric system from the CT Clean Energy Fund. For every 100 residents who enroll, Stamford gets another 2-kilowatt photovoltaic electric system free from the CT Clean Energy Fund--a $20,000 value.

So what are you waiting for? GoCleanEnergy.com!

Neville Denton, a Stamford resident and electrician (center) became the 100th CL&P customer in Stamford to choose electricity generated from renewable sources through the CT Clean Energy Option program. Offering congratulations at Government Center were Mayor Dannel Malloy (right) and environmental architect Darek Shapiro (left), founder of Stamford's 20% by 2010 Clean Energy Committee.

With this 100th enrollee, Stamford wins its first free solar electric system from the CT Clean Energy Fund. For every 100 residents who enroll, Stamford gets another 2-kW photovoltaic electric system free from the CT Clean Energy Fund--a $20,000 value.

So what are you waiting for? GoCleanEnergy.com!

Led by Darek Shapiro for Mayor, the Green slate included Trish Dayan for Board of Education and David Bedell for Constable. Their issues included clean energy and energy conservation, opposition to eminent domain abuse, and criticism of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Shapiro won 3% of the vote for Mayor, which was not enough to win office, but enough to ensure the party ballot access in the next mayoral election.