Targets councilman for residency 'ethics'
Published 5:15 pm, Wednesday, May 4, 2011
To the Editor:
Interesting question ... and one New Milford First has been raising for years. It's nice to see someone else tackling the issue.
Here are the facts, as I know them: Mr. Guendelsberger
Is an elected member of the New Milford Town Council.
Owns a pair of two-bedroom condos in New Milford (one purchased in 2000 and the other, with his daughter, in 2006).
Owns a three-bedroom, lakeside house in Brookfield (assessed at more than three quarters of a million dollars, purchased in 1987).
Here are the questions:
Did he and his family of five live in a one-bedroom, New Milford condo while his three-bedroom, lake house sat empty 20 minutes away?
Did he send his three children to New Milford schools (at New Milford taxpayers' expense) while his family of five was living in a two-bedroom condo with his three-bedroom lake house a 20-minute ride away?
Mr. Guendelsberger says the residency charge was debunked years ago.
Now, even more to the point: New Milford's budget books are in a mess, have been for at least five years and the state has made it official in recent documents.
This is another issue New Milford First has been raising for years.
Economic conditions now make questioning the New Milford's fiscal health all the more important and Mr. Sherry is asking the right questions.
The issue is not whether Mr. Guendelsberger has the legal right to serve on the New Milford Town Council. As a property owner in town, he does.
Rather, does he have the moral and ethical right to do so?
And why, when there are so many competent, dedicated New Milford residents, would anyone want a Brookfield resident representing them on the council?
New Milford First