And yet another new press release:
Ken Johnson, the Republican candidate for Mayor of the City of Bristol, today assailed his Democratic opponent for his comments regarding open space at Monday’s Mayoral debate.
“Under a Ward administration I guess the For Sale signs are going up on Bristol open space,” Johnson said. These comments were made after an exchange between the two candidates regarding the construction of a new school on the Roberts property.
Johnson is adamantly opposed to building a school on the Roberts property. “It’s the wrong location educationally, transportation-wise and socially,” said Johnson. The Republican nominee has gone on record previously that the Roberts property should be used for its intended purpose. The City Council, including Ward, voted to purchase the property for “passive recreational” use.
Said Johnson, “In spite of my opponent’s participation in this decision, he has flip-flopped and now advocates for construction on this valuable site.” Ward has said that since the city already owns the property, it would save money to put a school there.
“I disagree,” said Johnson, “as the property would have to be replaced like-for-like with another passive recreation/open space parcel. I’ve asked but have yet to get an answer from my opponent on where he would find the replacement acreage if a school were to be constructed on this property.”
The issue became much more charged following comments by the Democratic Mayoral nominee at the Monday night debate. Ward stated that sometimes you have to weigh the benefit of open space versus the economic benefit to the city. He went on to say that open space was a commodity in Bristol and we have very little space left to develop in Bristol.
“Is one to believe that my opponent might then advocate for selling the Nelson property to build homes or using the Pine Lake area for more condominium development because it would benefit Bristol economically?” Johnson asked.
“I am totally opposed to disturbing the Roberts property or any other open space parcels that the city has in its inventory today.” Johnson concluded, “Under a Ken Johnson administration, I would be very proactive in preserving, protecting and acquiring open space; it is a rare and precious resource.”
*******
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
19 comments:
Johnson you are sounding desperate, once again grabbing at issues and twisting them fit your plan - JUST LIKE STORTZ DID!
wonder if Johnson is worried about the selfish "not in my back yard" syndrome seeing as how he resides up the street from the Roberts property.
It sounds like Zoppo scripted this for Ken Johnson.
where did ward say that he would be pushing to develop present open space?
how ridiculous to suggest that ward would sell off the nelson property, seeing as how it is state property?
johnson, you are either naive to think that the voters are that stupid or else you are demonstrating how utterly desperate that you have become - rightfully so, I might add.
I will vote for ward on election day.
To the poster at 1:33pm you were always voting for Ward so what;s the big deal.
Your candidate said at the forum on Monday that we have to weigh the economic benefit of having open space.
Sounds like he opposes open space to me.
To Anonymous poster at 1:33pm
Art Ward has stated publically that he favors use of the Roberts Property as a location for the K-8 school.
The Roberts Property was purchased as open space.
Proactive in protecting open space and taking homes away from residents through Eminent Domain just because they live on the wrong side of the tracks.
I don't like Johnson's stance on this.
The Roberts Property was purchased as open space.
And my home was purchased as a single family home for my family - not as a new school.
But Johnson doesn't care about that.
and Art Ward also voted in favor of taking property by emminent domain....for a business park ....
If you are completely against emminent domain REGARDLESS of the need, then neither Candidate is a good choice.
but you do have to make a choice....on election day....
It's so important for the people on Chippens Hill to have a dog park that we can't dream of taking it away from them for a school. But it's perfectly acceptable to take peoples homes away from them to build a school because then the dog park won't be disturbed.
And Ward didn't give a hoot about the Bugryns whose property was stolen for an undeveloped Industrial park.
Gimme a break liberal democrats and give it a rest
As someone pointed out on another board, Art learned his lesson when it comes to eminent domain and is vehimently opposed to it now.
Johnson obviously didn't learn that lesson the first time around.
People will never be happy.
The candidates are supportng sites by chosing the least offensive, which is the wrong way to make decisions, but unfortunately sometimes this happens.
The Roberts Property seems unrealistic b/c the need to replace the open space one for one that would be required, plus putting a K-8 right next door to a 6-8 just seems plain dumb.
The Divinity street property has it's drawbacks too - Route 72 and the questions marks about whether or not we need to use eminent domain.
The candidates should stop making statements on which site they would prefer and stick to the more important issues, like the why K-8 megaschools? It is not a done deal no matter what anyone says. If the money is not approved how can they proceed. If the charter is revise for referendums for large expenditures that both candidates are calling for, then in essence we will be having a referendum on approving the k-8 megaschools.
God forbid we upset the dog owners and taking away there 47 arce dog park! Screw the kids as long as their dogs get to run. How sad is that?
lets take it away from the "dog park" idea....
IF Art Ward using the Robert's Property for a school.....
it is REQUIRED by law, that the acreage be replaced IN KIND....
How WILL Art Ward come up with e continuation of open space?
The Roberts Property was purchased as passive open space....NOT as a dog park, although it has been suggested as that....
Can Art Ward come up with alternative open space ....WITHOUT the use of emminent domain?
People keep speaking that Art learned his lesson on emminent domain....
BUT....how will he get around the law that if he uses the Roberts Property for a school....that it needs to be replaced?
Bob - there is no law on this! The one the state has mirrors a federal law, but it has not been used in any town in CT. As a matter of fact, no one is sure how this so called law came into play. Check the Office of Leg. Research - Do your homework before spouting some law exisits.
Roberts was not purchased for open space - hello would someone clue Johnson in on this!
Bob - you need to read your laws! Roberts is not open sspace, and moreover, no law is in place.
Man are you living proof that any idiot can own a computer. The Town Attorney issued a legal opinion last year (Ward was sent a copy of it) stating that Robert's is open space, and that state law says the city would have to find replacement open space before they could put the school there. Get the facts, please.
Post a Comment