Open Water Street soon
The West Haven Board of Police Commissioners’ vote to reopen Water Street to traffic is a welcome decision for the thousands of city residents who have had to endure the daily traffic tie-ups going both in and out of town. Those problems are exacerbated during rush hours.
The board’s decision comes in the wake of reports the Simon Group has given up on its Haven project, and is seeking to raze the remaining buildings, cut its losses, and sell the property. Though Mayor Nancy Rossi will not admit it publicly, the fact she admitted to having meetings with the Simon Group “and interested parties” as stated in our Sept. 1 edition gives the game away in our estimation. “Interested parties” seems to indicate those who might want the property once it is cleared. While some may call this speculation, the fact the developers are not refuting published reports that are devastating to the future of the proposed mall, leads many officials, both state and municipal, to the conclusion the Haven project as proposed is dead.
The immediate problem for residents, however, is the ingress and egress to and from the city they experience daily. West Haven has never been an easy place to get to by auto, and recent reconstructions by the state Department of Transportation have made that commute even more tedious. The loss of the clover leaf Exit 43 into the newer Boulevard route has served to elongate the long lines during the evening, for example.
Getting out of the city, especially now that school is in session, arteries leading to Elm Street, are clogged with traffic. Commuters must add extra time on their schedules to navigate these jams.
The opening of Water Street will alleviate some of the pressure coming into going out of the city. We urge quick opening of the street, while further decisions are made on the future of the project area.
A needless controversy
We sometimes wonder if city politicians look to get themselves into petty squabbles just for the sport of it. Take for example the city’s abrupt decision to stop live streaming city meetings now that the Covid-19 pandemic is over. While the decision was certainly legal, we wonder about the way it was done.
City residents, used to having the service, were upset they were not able to see or hear the debate in a recent City Council meeting. No notice was given the live streaming would cease, and therein is part of the problem. If the city determined there was no need to continue the service, why not give adequate notice to the public.
It’s a small thing, but it causes unnecessary controversy, and gives just one more example things are not handled with the public in mind – the people paying the bills. In an administration besought with big and small controversies, is this really the best way this could have been handled?
Whether the meetings are live streamed or not is of little concern to most of the public; however, there is a group where this was used when going to things like City Council meetings could not easily be done. The cost is minimal – about $150 per session. We are sure the city can find the necessary funding in a budget as large as ours.
This is an unnecessary flare up, pure and simple. In an administration that calls itself transparent, a decision to stop live streaming meetings with no notice belies that notion.