6 thoughts on “Election 2025: Letters of Endorsement 

  1. Mr. and Mrs. Newman: Thank you for your comments! The Affordable Housing Committee holds public meetings once a month, including tonight (please come!). We welcome all to join us, including of course Ms. Norton. Videos of past meetings — including subcommittee meetings — are also available on YouTube. You will see the thought and deliberations that have gone into selecting those three sites for consideration. The Town is under a fairly tight timeline and pretty strict restraints for complying with CGS 8-30(g), including land costs, access to water and sewer, and ease of getting into town (among many other things). And while drafting and finalizing the ordinance creating the committee was a big undertaking (the number of seats was considered by all and not a huge bone of contention), the hard work was done by those drafting it (Tom Butterworth and I) and is being done currently by those of us who serve on the Committee. We are a bipartisan group including members of relevant elected and appointed boards as well as community members, who are working hard to represent New Canaan well and move the ball forward on complying with state law.

    Drafting ordinances and other governing documents is hard work, and it is important that among other things, one doesn’t create unintended consequences. Ms. Norton’s suggestion that public input be taken before any P&Z decisions is not only wholly duplicative of the fact that all P&Z meetings are open to the public and recorded, but also would presumably require some sort of survey or referendum for all P&Z decisions. Imagine the inefficiency and cost of that if for example you or your neighbor wanted to install a pool 2″ outside of required setbacks or something equally rather pedestrian. Perhaps an extreme example, but the law of unintended consequences should always be considered.

    More generally on transparency, when asked directly whether she supported the Town Council making very last minute, unannounced reductions to budget requests, she said yes. That is the opposite of transparency.

    Finally, when Ms. Norton was given an opportunity to draft further steps on gas-powered leaf blowers–an issue she appeared to care deeply about in late spring/early summer–she declined. That said, once I took the initiatuve to draft a potential ordinance, Ms. Norton certainly had alot of demands on what she wanted included.

    TL; DR– Elect doers, not talkers. Ms. Norton is a talker.

    • Hillary: A doer? You are partisan, lack transparency and too opinionated. You reject the most qualified candidates for committees based on your personal opinion of them, not their qualifications. You lack transparency. Your husband is the Treasurer and a Board member of the New Canaan Libary. Yet you vote on the library budget and grants. Even tough State and Town municipal rules and ethics require you to recuse yourself. You attacked publically those who questioned having pornographic books in our schools and the children’s section of the NC library. So you support children reading pornography?

      Why you are singling out Kim Norton with unsubstantiated false rhetoric is troubling. I find Kim fair, non-biased and low key unlike you who votes on personal opinion and has had multiple outbursts at Town Council meetings.

      False innuendo spoken and lack of transparency and disclosure by someone who wants to represent New Canaanites on our Town Council is troubling to me

      • Roy:
        When very recently a husband and wife served concurrently on TC and BOE, no one raised any conflict concerns. And I think, if you do a little bit of work, you’ll see that my support for the New Canaan Library long predates my husband’s tenure on the board.
        As for the rest of your allegations, I won’t dignify them with a response. They are absurd on their face.
        I wish you well, Roy,

    • Hi Sarah:

      I am not inclined to support electing P&Z, but would of course consider it if the charter revision commission presented it as an option. Though I don’t agree with all of their decisions, I generally think they do a very good job. If P&Z needs more oversight, perhaps a good compromise would be having TC vote on prospective members like it does for Audit & Ethics Committees and the Board of Finance. And if nothing else, I would hope we could evolve past considering certain seats “Republican” or “Other Party” seats and appoint people based on qualification alone.

      Thanks for the question. Hope that helps clarify my position. We can also chat further about this offline if you would like.