Attorney General Blumenthal Encourages Change In Health Code

In light of the controversy engendered by Food Not Bombs refusal to admit they are under the jurisdiction of state health regulations, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has written a letter to the State Senate President and the House Majority Leader urging them to modify the statute.

As written, the law provides an exception to non-profit and charity organizations which sell food, not prepared in licensed kitchens, in order to raise funds for that charity. The law does not exclude organizations which gather and prepare food and distribute the food for free to those in need.

Last Friday, Blumenthal met with a delegation from Middletown who urged him to examine the law and provide his interpretation.

His letter expresses his belief that the intent of the law is likely to allow for an exception for those charitable organizations which distribute and share food with those in need, but he urges the legislature to be explicit in this intent.

The Eye will provide the entire letter when received from the Attorney General.

Blumenthal continues to battle Army legal opinion

Friday, CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal issued a press release indicating that his office will continue to fight the JAG (Judge Advocate General) decision that the Army's legal opinion concerning interpretation of the BRAC law is protected as "attorney-client" privilege.

The BRAC law was passed to consolidate Army bases across the country. In Connecticut, the law states that an Army Reserve Training Center will be built in Middletown "if a suitable site can be obtained."

Of course, that has been the subject of months of disputes between the Army Corps of Engineers, residents of Middletown and state and city officials.

Currently, the city has offered Cucia Park, just this week publishing an RFP for development of the site, following procedures to offer the park to the Army, if the Army chooses it as its preferred location.

The Army Corps of Engineers yestereday completed their study of preferred sites and submitted them to Army brass for approval.

It must be some accident, some misunderstanding, some fluke, but this development was mentioned in the first featured news piece about Middletown in the "new" Hartford Courant in nearly two weeks.

Unfortunately, in these days of reduced resources, and fewer resources, Middletown has seen a diminished presence in the "new" Courant. And with this piece we get an undoubtably overworked reporter simply filing the Attorney General's press release as a story. Note the similar language of the official press release, and the story "written" by the reporter.

From the press release:
Blumenthal has appealed this rejection to Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, rejecting the JAG's claim that the letter is protected as intra-agency legal advice or attorney-client privilege. Blumenthal urged immediate release of the opinion...

From the Courant article:
Blumenthal appealed this rejection to Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, rejecting the JAG's claim that the letter is protected as intra-agency legal advice or attorney-client privilege. Blumenthal urged immediate release of the opinion.

Sad. But there's nothing wrong with printing official correspondence as long as it's labeled as such. The problem with printing government press releases as news is that the original releases have a point-of-view, a public relations objective and a goal of influence which is not the "objective" stance a newspaper is supposed to take.

Citizens Advisory Panel Member Unhappy with Delauro Response

Stephen Devoto, a member of Middletown's Citizens' Advisory Panel on the proposed Army Reserve Training Center, is unhappy with State Representative Rosa DeLauro's response to Army Secretary Pete Geren's interpretation of BRAC law.

According to a letter Devoto sent to fellow committee members and town leaders:

I am extremely disappointed that Congresswoman DeLauro can even think about accepting the obtuse and illogical stone-walling from (Army Secretary) Geren...Geren did nothing but parrot the same "absolutely none of your business why we think that" statement that we have heard from Dale. I can't believe that DeLauro waved the white flag without a whisper of protest.

DeLauro's response to Geren letter was released by her office. In it, she said:

I am encouraged by the Secretary Geren’s willingness to work with the Middletown community as we move forward with the siting and construction of the Armed Forces Reserve Center. In its response, the Army maintains that the language is clear on Middletown as the location...It is through open communication that we can ensure the community is fully involved in this process and provides Middletown’s citizens with greater input. Clearly, we all want to avoid the frustration that was experienced earlier this year. This week’s public meeting will provide both the Army Corps and the citizens of Middletown the opportunity to review and discuss those sites which have been recommended by the Mayor’s advisory panel.

While he sat on the site advisory panel, Devoto is still of the opinion that a majority of Middletown's voters are against the construction of the army facility on property in town. In the letter he writes:

If there is anything that unites all of your constituents, it is a recognition that the army base can only be a destructive drain on our resources. Do any of you think that an army base on ANY site in Middletown would be approved by a vote of the people (considering that a high school was defeated)? There will be no cheering if Cucia Park is sold, there will be cries of pain and anguish that we were forced to choose a bad option, just because the alternatives were so much worse.

In addition, Devoto underscores the opposition to the Army's legal manuvers from Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz and State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal who reject the Army's interpretation of BRAC law. They both insist that the Army publically share its legal opinion. Although both Blumenthal and Bysiewicz concede that a new facility is needed, and could be built in Middletown, on an appropriate site.

From the Bysiewicz letter:









Correspondence on the topic can be found here.

Finally, Devoto feels that he has found the Army's precedent for its Middletown decision in a similar case, with different BRAC language in Ayer Massachusetts, where a similar consolidation took place, and where BRAC language specifically cited Ayer, without the predominat if clause ("if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities") which appears in the law regarding the Middletown location.

Talking to the wall on Wednesday

Duh! I feel stupid.

For a moment, I thought that this week's public opportunity to speak was going to be a real occasion during which all of our high-rolling Democratic political allies on the Army Reserve Training Center controversy would be present to hear the thoughts of the PUBLIC, along with those of the Army Corps of Engineers!

Silly me. Wrong again. Rosa Delauro, Susan Bysiewicz and Richard Blumenthal will all be in Denver at the convention, as delegates. Now it's clear why there was a meeting last week. One meeting for the important politicians, another, this week, for the public.

Hello, Jennifer, can you stick an Eye blog in front of the CT delegation on Thursday morning? Paste it to the bottom of a bowl of red, white and blue M&M's.

Sure, we'll see our town council members, Democratic and Republican, and maybe even some of our state reps, but the faces which draw the cameras (or the faces drawn to the cameras), will be at the Pepsi Center tossing confetti.

I am prepared to fight

Connecticut's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal rode in on his white steed, and in his inimitable knight-in-shining armor routine, literally laid down the law about the proposed Army Reserve Training Center in Middletown.

Blumenthal said that since the Army has not followed the letter of the law regarding environmental clearances on "all alternative sites," they could not summarily chose a site, and begin the process of preparing to build there.

"I am prepared to fight, if necessary, in court," he said to a partisan crowd which erupted with applause. And we know how well he uses the lawsuit as a billy club.

Blumenthal's rousing injunction was followed by his celebration of citizen activists who, he said, "were the finest demonstration of democracy."

Blumenthal's words were particularly welcome after Attorney Joseph Milardo, who represents Middle Boardman Associates, current owners of the site, said that the city, with its proposal to oppose the Boardman Lane cite, was creating "inverse condemnation of property" and that if the resolution was passed with all the "whereas" clauses, it might be grounds for legal action.

As a result, the resolution was amended by stripping away all supportive clauses, and simply stood as a resolution in opposition to the building of an Army Reserve Training Center on the proposed Boardman Lane site. The vote on the resolution was taken early in the meeting to accomodate supporters who were attending (and likely the news crews who were also there).

The resolution opposing the Training Center on that site passed unanimously after little debate. The passage received another hearty round of applause.

Speaking in favor of the resolution were Paul Torop, among several others, who said the proposal to build anywhere in Middletown, particularly on River Road or Saybrook Road, was "a small wedge to produce development in Maromas."

Of a potential Pratt and Whitney site which was rejected by the Army Corps because it was "too contamined", Mayor Sebastian Giuliano said that the site was contaminated by the federal government, and that "if it's too contaminated for the Army to use, it's to contaminated for us to live with, and the federal government should clean it up immediately."

One final interesting note was the appearance of a letter from Joseph Redlinger, Army Chief, of the Real Estate Division, written in November of 2006, which says, in part: "We are inquiring about the availability of approximately 16-25 acres of land in the town of Middletown or withing 20 driving miles of the town limits that could be used for an Armed Forces Reserve Center...We also would welcome information on property owned by counties, other municipalities, or other parties that might be suitable for our requirements." The letter, of course, is the proof that the Training Center did not ever have to absolutely be built in Middletown.

Early in the afternoon, Governor Rell, as Commander-in-Chief of the Connecticut Army Reserve recommended to the Army that the footprint for the new center could be reduced considerably by keeping the reserve base in New London open, and not having it be part of the base consolidation effort.

The army clears up the facts

(Not the Army Reserve Training Center)

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

If the Army wanted to demonstrate their incompetence in handling public relations and communications, they couldn't have done better than their performance Thursday at a closed-door press conference at the Inn at Middletown.

To begin with, they excluded three important town representatives from the meeting. Mayor Sebastian Giuliano, State Senator Paul Doyle and State Representative Joe Serra were all prevented from entering the meeting to observe, leaving them stewing in the hallway. Attorney General Dick Blumenthal was allowed in, apparently because he called ahead and asked permission. So before the press conference had even begun, the Army further alienated town and state officials whom they need on their side.

Then the Army Corps of Engineers and the Army Reserve went about the task of clarifying the facts. They claimed that there was a lot of false information being bandied about. Unfortunately for the Army, they don't have a stellar reputation for being straightforward. These past seven years have shown a disgraceful disregard for the truth as the Pentagon attempted to assist the President in spinning their misguided misadventures in Iraq. And now the Army is going to set the record straight?

Here's how they did it.

In every meeting up until this one the Army claimed the base would support 800 reservists visiting the site on weekends each month, and that the base would have 150 full-time employees. Those claims were made to support the argument that the Training Center would have a positive economic impact on the city. Now that the Army is addressing charges that the base would put an undue traffic burden on country roads, they've decided that there will only be 70 full-time employees and 400 reservists and guardsmen for monthly visits. So, the original inaccuracies were disseminated not by passionate opponents to the site, but by the Army itself.

In their prepared statement to the press at the meeting, the Army declared that they would be good neighbors, and would work with the city because they were bound to "go above and beyond" do the right thing. But when questioned by a correspondent from the Middletown Eye about exactly how many homes adjoined the site, no one in the room - not one representative of the group who were claiming to be good neighbors, and who declared they were doing a thorough job - no one knew the answer. In fact, all of the homes on Atkins, Old Farms East and Timber Ridge will be affected either directly, or indirectly by the construction of the facility.

The Army Corps of Engineers also declared that, as opposed to public impression, there would be no live ammunition, and no outside military exercises conducted on the site. That would go under the heading of "correcting a misinterpretation which didn't exist." I've been to most of the meetings with the Corps, and know that the question has consistently been asked - "What will the Army be doing on the site?" The answer has always been, "Classroom training, and training on vehicle maintenance." No where - in the press, on blogs, in public meetings - has anyone protested because the army would be using live ammunition, or conducting outdoor military exercises.

The Corps also described the facility as something like "Wesleyan University." Well, unless they intend to immediately disregard their "don't ask, don't tell" policy, I can guarantee it won't be anything like Wesleyan University (though probably unbeknownst to the Army Reserve, the original buildings at Wesleyan University began as a military school!). The building will be more like a WalMart with a huge parking lot then it will ever be like Wesleyan University.

The Army also allowed a representative of the current owners of the property to speak. Pedro Wasmer, of Fairfield, represents a group of real estate investors which includes, by his own account, pharmacists, doctors, and people like that, who are, in fact, Middletown taxpayers, but who don't live in town. The group has not been able to lure any other development to the hard-to-develop site, so they support the Army's plan. Wasmer conjured up the "grand military history" of the state of Connecticut to lend support to the plans. Of course, his real interest in the Army's plans is not the "grand military history" but the benefit to his own group of investors.

So at the end of the day, the Army, which hoped to use the press conference to bolster support, ended up angering state and local officials, engaging a formidable new opponent in the person of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, getting their lock-out of local officials as lead-stories on local newscasts and in local papers, further generating local public opposition and altering their presentation with a new set of facts to align with their current strategy.

Oops, doesn't seem like a good communications day to me.

UPDATE: BTW, I love the way the Army is helping the poor farm animals. The Army realizes that the fate of furry creatures is often more important to readers and viewers, then the fate of human beings. So, they're going to make an effort to help pay for the transfer of the animals to a nice new farm - where they'll be happy and free!!! And no puppies will be killed in the construction of the new facility.

Also, at one point, one of the Army reps said that residents of the state should be thankful that federal dollars and not state dollars will be used to build the facility. That's a relief, because I pay state taxes, and the federal money comes from....hey, wait a minute!

More detailed and complex reporting on the meeting, including environmental impact and other issues will be discussed in a following post.

Invasion of the Big Boxes (on Utility Poles)

Many readers will have noticed the big boxes that are now suspended from utility poles around town. They are tan and grey colored and have internal fans constantly running to cool the electrical devices inside. Usually they are located about two or three feet off the ground, and often are suspended over or close to the sidewalk. And they make a great canvas for local graffiti "tags".

These boxes are being installed across Connecticut by AT&T, to provide the next generation of internet "connectivity", referred to as "U-verse". Recently the boxes, called V-RAD or VRAD, have been getting some scrutiny by state officials, including State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. A ruling in late May 2008 concluded that AT&T must get prior approval from landlords of abutting properties before installation. More recently, officials are concerned that AT&T has not allowed for sufficient local review before installing the equipment. Not surprisingly, shoreline towns have been particularly active in questioning the installations, since the boxes are not exactly attractive and may pose safety hazards for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers. But the shoreline folks are not alone. To their credit, the people of Wethersfield have also raised concerns about the devices, according to this recent story in the Hartford Courant business section. According to Courant reporter Lynn Doan, Wethersfield Town Manager Bonnie Therrien thinks the boxes are an eyesore; they "make the town look awful," she says.

I concur. But I would add that, in general, I consider utility poles an eyesore -- and they make for the frequent "trimming" of nearby street trees, creating an even more barren streetscape. To make matters worse, CL&P occasionally shows up to add new high voltage equipment to the tops of the poles. A few years ago, a formidable array of equipment was added to the pole in front of our house, and it does not make for a pretty picture.

Given the historic quality of the downtown and its environs, you'd think city officials would have pushed long ago for the "undergrounding" of the overhead lines. This would not solve the V-RAD problem however, since it would appear that these devices need to be above-ground (I'm not an engineer, so I'm happy to be corrected on this point).

In the end, the issue would seem to be who, or what, controls the public space between the street and the private home, office, or place of business. No doubt there is a good article out there on this topic, but it would appear that the beginning of the erosion of municipal and private control began when state and city governments began granting special rights to the utility companies -- especially electric and telephone companies. The question then becomes, should this new degree of telephone and computer connectivity be considered a public utility, which is to say, a public good? Or is it simply a luxury? And where do cities and communities draw the line? Or are they even able to? And if not, what level of government gets final say? The involvement of the state attorney general suggests that it is an issue that can only be resolved at the state level.













We now have great "connectivity", but at what cost? We can download huge amounts of information onto our computers and communicate instantaneously with people around the world, but every new bit of flashy technology that is delivered to our homes seems to blind us just a little bit more to the incremental deterioration of the communities and landscapes outside our doors.

Photographs by Pearse Pinch