To The Editor:
I am an alternate on the Woodbury Zoning Commission. I write in my personal capacity. On July 31st, I was at a workshop relating to some proposed amendments to some of the existing Regulations. One of the proposals related to political signs. I have been reported as saying I prefer to see the political sign regulation eliminated.
To avoid any disappointment to anyone who might be interested, my statement as reported is accurate, but not complete. In the workshop, I was considering the best way in which any change might be made, in the light of the Regulations as a whole. I expressed the view that an overall size limit for signs, rather than a separate category for political signs might be preferable, and my preference for eliminating one provision was because I preferred the insertion of another.
My answer to a question in a workshop is one thing. My vote, were I to be seated at the time of a motion, would depend on the precise wording of the Motion on which the vote was being taken, and would be based on all the evidence in the record at the time, and in the light of input from the public during the public hearing and from the Commissioners at the subsequent discussion.
Many statements have been made, and arguments put forward for and against change, and the debate will continue. For myself, I take to heart the words of Oliver Ellsworth, a Connecticut resident and Third Chief Justice of the United States, talking of the proposition that dual sovereignty of states within nations could not exist, “I ask, why can they not? It is not enough to say they cannot. I wish for some reason.” I urge all voters of Woodbury to read all proposed amendments in the light of the Regulations as a whole, and to attend the public hearings in person or by letter to the Commission, to make known your views and your reasons for them.