OSWPCA: Sunshine / Joel Anderson to 1st Sel. Carl P. Fortuna, Jr. re his 23Dec11 query

Text facsimile


from:   joel anderson   sunshineonseptics@gmail.com

    to:   Carl Fortuna    cfortuna@town.old-saybrook.ct.us

date:  Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

subject:  Re: Old Saybrook's Wastewater (WWMD) implementation violates CT's Constitution, Article First, Sections 1, 7, 11 and 20. The WWMD is a solution for pollution from individual properties: the Town doesn't even allege pollution from any property.

mailed-by:  gmail.com


On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Carl Fortuna
cfortuna@town.old-saybrook.ct.us  wrote:

CF> Mr. Anderson,

Thanks for your prompt response.

CF> 1. The other two selectman's emails are
sgiegerich@town.old-saybrook.ct.us
   and
sgernhardt@town.old-saybrook.ct.us.


Noted. Their email addresses weren't on the town's website. oldsaybrookct.org is not responding as of this writing.

CF> 2. I suggest you contact the WPCA about a MOU between the two entities you cite.

The WPCA has a record of advertising that they'll answer questions. In practice, they don't. See oswpca.com for their history. That's why I asked you for the MOU.

CF> 3. The attorney referenced in the minutes is Richard Goldstein. He bills at $375.00/hour and was engaged by Michael Pace when a member of the Police Commission questioned whether he, Mr. Pace, had the authority to use legal funds identified in the Police Department budget for Town negotiations with the PD union. Whether there was $17000.00 worth of value in said legal opinion is not a question I can answer.

So now the Town now KNOWS that the Police budget must include money for the Town's legal fees in negotiation with the PD union? Or not?

CF> 4. As to your other inquiries, I do not know that I fully understand what you are asking.

Subject: Old Saybrook's Wastewater (WWMD) implementation violates CT's Constitution, Article First, Sections 1, 7, 11 and 20. The WWMD is a solution for pollution from individual properties: the Town doesn't even allege pollution from any property.

There's no logic to the town WPCA's pursuit of property owners residing within the wastewater management district (WWMD) to redress pollution at property owner's expense, absent even an allegation that the properties are polluting.

"Sentence first -- verdict afterwards," is Alice in Wonderland, not jurisprudence.

Only the town has been found guilty of polluting, not individual property owners.

Because pollution can travel in the ground water for up to two miles, it isn't possible for the town, CRAHD, DEEP or any other entity to prove that any given property is polluting. Property owners can't be forced to upgrade their septic systems to satisfy a mere speculation on the part of the WPCA that the property could be polluting. If we fined or put people in prison on mere speculation, everyone would be broke and inside.

The WPCA's head-in-the-sand regarding the legal fragility of their WWMD implementation is sure to embroil the town in lawsuits that the town can only lose.

Were it not for Mike Pace listening to the voices in his head giving him "marching orders," the town would have sewers. Sewers would increase property values in neighborhoods served by sewers, resulting in higher property tax yields from those neighborhoods. The WWMD scheme of replacing septics with septics is a destruction of wealth. The WWMD is offered without warrantee that it will reduce pollution. This is forcing property owners to buy a pig in a poke without a warantee that there is a pig in the poke. This is what passes for 'government?' This is absurd.

The only way the town can forestall sewers is by never testing the groundwater again. Pace's political agenda win is net loss for the town. As hard as this nettle may be to grasp politically, stopping the WWMD for being unconstitutional is the right thing. No government can take my property without paying for it.

If Shipman & Goodman LLP has provided the town an opinion that the WWMD is constitutional, I would like to see how they manage the magic. If S&G hasn't, maybe the town out of caution should ask for an opinion from other lawyers, not S&G whose self-interest is apparent and prejudicial. Lawyers are best consulted before problems arise.

Joel Anderson
13 George Dr.
Old Saybrook CT 06475
860-388-9858
oswpca.com / govtwork.org