Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

KEVIN BURNHAM, PLEASE RETURN YOUR CALLS

For months now I have been calling Hartford's Director of Public Works Kevin Burnham regarding the Southend Wellness Center and the conditions of the building and the Police Offices housed in the building. Even before he was named permanent Public Works Director he has seemed to have problems returning phone calls, and not just from me, but others in the Community also. At one point in March I spoke with Burnham at City Hall and he stated it would all be fixed in two weeks. In fairness to him, he didn't say two weeks from when.

Possibly Burnham has received his training in message handling and returning phone calls from the John Fonfara Training Academy.

Anyway, according to several Southend residents I have spoke with, the heating and air conditioning systems at the Southend Wellness Center have been a problem ever since the City of Hartford purchased and renovated the building.

In January I was in the Southeast Police Substation, housed in the building on Maple Avenue, and since there was no heat, the temperature was 45 degrees. Last week I was in there again and since the air conditioning doesn't work and the windows don't open, it was 91 degrees.

The Department of Public Works solution to the heating problem was to place two small space heaters in the office and run wires up into the ceiling. A definite fire hazard as well as a very inefficient way of heating the offices. The solution for the air conditioning problem from DPW were two small residential air conditioners vented into the space above the ceiling. The air conditioners only run for a short time before they fill with water and shut off and then the holding containers have to be emptied to restart them.

Typical of the way the City handles construction projects, the Heating and A/C units were possibly installed by someone who used to run a hot dog cart on Union Place and was given the contract for the project. It worked on the Park Street bidding process. One would think though that at the very least some sort of warranty would be in place for rooftop units that are less than a couple years old. But then again, if the City holds the contractor accountable for their work, the campaign contributions might not be as large down the road.

On top of that, in January the Wethersfield Police "were attempting to stop" a vehicle headed north on Maple Avenue when it crashed into the front entrance of the Police office. They used to call them pursuits, but I guess that term is no longer politically correct. A light post, fencing, and shrubs were knocked over as well as the front doors being knocked out and replaced by makeshift plywood and a single door.

The intercom that visitors would ring to get into the Police Office was also broken and hangs by wires at the plywood entrance. A large plate glass window above the front entrance was also shattered by flying debris and that window is now held together with duct tape.

From what I understand, the vehicle that crashed into the building was insured, so where is the money to pay for the repairs and why does it take almost 6 months to get the building fixed and where did the money go?

I can almost guarantee that if this was the A/C or heat in the Mayor's Office or Kevin Burnham's Office, it would not take month's to fix. Maybe this is another argument for getting Department Heads to actually live in Hartford, as the city's ordinances require. Maybe the Mayor can send his "Energy Czar" to witness the inefficient use of energy and make some suggestions.

Mr. Burnham, you should have the number from the numerous messages I have left, but it is also at the top of the blog if you need it. Maybe I should try calling 311 instead.

Hopefully DPW will correct this mess as fast as they did the graves in Soldiers Field when WFSB exposed that neglect. I-team please take note :)

GOING, GOING ....GONE

Just an update, the final remaining walls of the Public Safety Complex were knocked down today.

Kudos to the Perez Management Team for another fine job well done. Efficient government at its finest.

"ONE NATION UNDER GOD" , ANOTHER THOUGHT

If a church can not be used for a graduation ceremony, then how can they be used as polling locations during elections? A different set of rules maybe?

Just off the top of my head, the Liberty Christian Center at the corner of Albany Avenue and Vine Street is one of the more active polling places in Hartford.

ACLU ? Judge Hall? Please save us .

"ONE NATION UNDER GOD", MORE THOUGHTS

After posting earlier about the Enfield school graduation conflict, an "Anonymous" commenter posted his (or her) disagreement with my ideas.

"Anonymous" cited the separation of Church and State as one of our basic fundamentals of our Democracy. It's a catchy phrase, but what exactly was meant by the "separation" and what do we choose to scrutinize and what do we choose to overlook.

If there is such a thing as separation of Church and State, what is it and where does it begin?

Let's look at the supposed "separation" starting on a local level. Millions of dollars are given out to religious organizations in Hartford for so-called community initiatives. Some are legitimate programs producing results, many are not.

And if a program funded by the City is held in a church building, how is that any different than a graduation program being forbidden from being held in a church? Are secular symbols removed for after-school or daycare programs held in or around a church building?

And when a program is publicly funded and run by a religious organization, where do we draw the line? Is it ok for a church or minister that receives funds from the City to then endorse Mayoral candidates or politicians from the pulpit? No one can deny that happens in Hartford.

Is it OK for a minister receiving funds from the City to stand behind a recently arrested Mayor and support him with a "prayer vigil"? Or is that just part of "doing business" in Hartford?

That line of separation between Church and State seems to be non-existent when it comes to Hartford. Where is the ACLU on this?

And then we go to the state level. The Roman Catholic Church probably has one of the strongest lobbying efforts at the Capitol, influencing the approval or denial of many legislative efforts. It's the way the system works, but how do you pick and choose what is acceptable and what is not.

And so much for that separation when both Congress and our State Legislature begin every session, every single day with a prayer.

And one of the most interesting "separation's" to me that seems to really cloud that "separation" theory is the Obama Administration's Office of Faith Based Initiatives.

While some see religion being brought into society as a bad thing, is religion not what has held our communities together during good times, but especially during bad times. No one is "forced" to accept or abandon religion, the same as no one is forced into a life of crime or drugs. It is a conscious decision one makes and the same as a decision to use drugs, if it is not your thing, "just say no".

I think I've said enough about this a long time ago, but it just seems bizarre to me that a couple of parents would go to the extremes to alienate their children from religion, rather than explain that diversity is what makes this country great.

You are free to make decisions for yourself. Believe in God, don't believe in God. Choose to drink alcohol, choose not to drink alcohol. The list can go on and on, but will looking at a cross as you walk into an auditorium to receive your diploma really scar you for life?

And is a little more civility and tolerance really a bad thing for us to strive for today?

ARE WE REALLY "ONE NATION UNDER GOD"?



I don't consider myself an overly "religious" person, but for some reason the Federal Judge's decision in the Enfield graduation case is bothering me. To me, your religious beliefs aren't something you wear on your sleeve, but they hopefully come across in the way you live your life and treat others.

I guess the core of the matter revolved around the decision by the Enfield Board of Education to hold graduation ceremonies at the First Cathedral in Bloomfield. After the decision was made, three students and two of their parents objected and the ACLU apparently took up the charge and filed a federal suit.

Long story short, the hearing in Federal Court was fast tracked and yesterday Federal Judge Janet Hall issued her decision. In essence, graduation at the First Cathedral was off, Judge Hall claims it violates the First amendment of the US Constitution.

I guess the first thing that troubles me is that three "Jane" or "John" Doe's can file a lawsuit changing the course for a much larger group of people. This wasn't a majority decision, not even close. This was a decision by three students out of several hundred students and two of their parents

All five plaintiffs in the lawsuit requested "anonymity". So much for taking a stand for something you believe in. And what about that old standard to be able to face your accuser? How can you face an "anonymous" accuser?

Further more, the Judge toured the First Cathedral and as "neutral" as the Cathedral's leaders tried to make the building, there were still "secular" symbols that couldn't be hidden, such as the large cross atop the building.

If secular symbols are the issue, I think the parents and the three students must have much greater problems surviving in our society today. What do they use for currency if they object to secular symbols and statements? Do they refuse their paychecks and object to cashing them because of the phrase on every bill "IN GOD WE TRUST"?

Do they leave a ball park when "God Bless America" is sung? I totally agree that religion should not be forced on anyone, it should be a choice. But then again, for a couple of hundred years religious freedom has been a cornerstone of this country. Walking into a church is not going to make anyone a "bible thumping Christian" (no offense to bible thumping Christians intended) anymore than walking into a bar is going to convert someone into an alcoholic.

As adults, something these three students will eventually be forced to become, we face choices and decisions everyday. Some call for difficult decisions that are not always pleasant, but are one person's rights more important than the majority's rights?

And I'm not sure where the Judge's decision is coming from also. If it is based in the theory that "secular symbols" that can't be removed will somehow force religious beliefs upon the three students and their parents, this could end with an ironic twist.

If by some chance this should end up at the US Supreme Court, the students and their parents will be confronted with numerous "secular symbols".

As they walk up the front steps of the US Supreme Court, if they look up at the stately facade, they will see Moses holding the ten commandments in his lap. Not good for non-believers as they feel the pressure of organized religion staring back at them.




Then , if they make it as far as the entrance to the actual Supreme Court courtroom, they hopefully wont be offended as they pull open the doors to the courtroom, they have the symbols of the 10 commandments engraved into the doors



And then after they take their seats, God forbid (sorry bad choice of words mentioning God). I'll try again.... and then after they take their seats, Heaven forbid,sorry, another religious term. I guess you just can't get away from religious symbols and terms in this country.

After they take their seats, if they look up above the bench where the Supreme Court justices are seated, they will once again see a religious symbol of Moses carved in his full religious glory.



If a little religion is acceptable for the US Supreme Court, will it really hurt a couple of students from Enfield?

And finally, in the words of our 4th President of the United States and a founding father of our country and our Constitution James Madison;"We have staked the whole of all our political Institutions upon the capacity of mankind for Self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God."

Monday, May 31, 2010

GOING, GOING, ALMOST GONE



I guess it is now official, the Perez Administration's attempts at historic "preservation" are a failure.

In what was supposed to be the stately new entrance to Hartford's Public Safety Complex now lies a pile of bricks and debris. Due to what many have called an act of incompetence, the attempts to preserve the 1800"s era school building have resulted in the collapse and eventual demolition of the buildings shell.

You can read my previous posting "The Perez Legacy of Incompetence Continues" by clicking here.



The picture above serves as a testament to the acts of the Perez Administration

Only two parts of the wall from the southwest corner of the building now remain.

There are no estimates available at this time as to what additional costs are now added to the project for demolition and re-design of the building, a project that was never fully funded to begin with.