Costco

There are 32 comments on the NewsTimes.com story from Jan 12, 2009, titled Costco. In it, NewsTimes.com reports that:

Proponents and opponents of the Costco expansion proposal in Brookfield are talking about the construction of entrance and exit ramps on Super 7 to accommodate the store's traffic.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsTimes.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
More Facts

Litchfield, CT

#1 Jan 12, 2009
THE FACTS ON THE RAMPS TO NOWHERE:

•“The construction of additional ramps from Route 7 to Junction Road is still being investigated and is only conceptual at this point”.*
* ref: Costco GPI Supplemental Analysis, Future Route 7 and Route 133 Interchange, Brookfield, Connecticut, November 10, 2008, Page 2, Traffic Volumes – 2010 No-Build Conditions.

•“…once this project [current Super 7 extension] is completed, an investigation will begin into the construction of an additional Route 7 interchange to Route 133.”**
** ref: Costco GPI Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed Major Shopping Center, Brookfield, Connecticut, November 2008, Page 12, Planned Roadway Improvements

• If this ever materialized into reality it would take years or decades to occur, note the Super 7 extension!

• Permits would need to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers because the construction would affect the floodplain, major waterway (Still River) and state highways.

• Business and Residential property would need to be seized by Eminent Domain to construct these ramps, resulting in the loss of many Commerce Road businesses including a portion of the Prince of Peace property.

• The State will not allow an exit/entrance onto a road within a certain distance of an exit/entrance of the highway. Therefore Commerce Drive could no longer connect to Junction Road/Route 133, so another entrance would have to be developed likely wiping out some residences along Stony Hill Road

Costco, seeking to exploit the support of the local politicians and special interest/conflict of interest groups, is proposing to build a larger big-box super store with liquor retail, on one of the last remaining historic farm properties in Brookfield thereby destroying the rural character of our community and creating traffic congestion of epic proportions.

For more information and FACTS on the Costco relocation plan's impact to the residents and taxpayers of Brookfield, see Sprawl-Busters NewsFlash Blog: http://www.sprawl-busters.com and the Brookfield First Blog: http://brookfield-first.blogspot.com/

ALSO be sure sign the local petition: http://www.stopcostco.com/

Thank you for your support to protect the quality of life of our community and residential property values of the many versus the select few special interests.
commercial property

New Milford, CT

#2 Jan 13, 2009
Who owns the property? It's not a farmer I believe its a real estate developer. Why is it that real estate developers have less rights than other property owners?
Costco is coming and we should be thrilled with there success. When the Route 7 by-pass is completed the traffic paterns will be completely different than they are now. The people who have been driving these back roads to avoid the construction delays will be taking the new highway instead of these small roads. Whether entrance or exit ramps are built is immaterial.
Get real

New York, NY

#3 Jan 13, 2009
More Facts wrote:
Costco, seeking to exploit the support of the local politicians and special interest/conflict of interest groups, is proposing to build a larger big-box super store with liquor retail, on one of the last remaining historic farm properties in Brookfield thereby destroying the rural character of our community and creating traffic congestion of epic proportions.
Come on, what is historic about this field? It has been zoned for development for years. The owners have a right to do with their property what ever they want within the regulations of the town. Why dont you donate your house for open space? If you want to preserve this property as open space, start a petition for the town to buy it. See what kind of support you get for adding $15 million to the town bonding and the increased taxes that would be.

As for the "conflict of interest" what conflict? You and others keep repeating that mantra but offer absolutly no substance to back it up. Either put up or shut up!
More Facts

Litchfield, CT

#4 Jan 13, 2009
Get real wrote:
<quoted text>
You and others keep repeating that mantra but offer absolutly no substance to back it up. Either put up or shut up!
You are obviously among the conflict of interest coalition that is threatened by concerned citizens who are pro-neighborhood, pro-value for taxpayers, and pro-transparent and honest government. Too bad you are on the wrong team...the special/conflict of interest Coalition's days in Brookfield are numbered.
More Facts

Litchfield, CT

#5 Jan 13, 2009
commercial property wrote:
Who owns the property? It's not a farmer I believe its a real estate developer. Why is it that real estate developers have less rights than other property owners?
Costco is coming and we should be thrilled with there success. When the Route 7 by-pass is completed the traffic paterns will be completely different than they are now. The people who have been driving these back roads to avoid the construction delays will be taking the new highway instead of these small roads. Whether entrance or exit ramps are built is immaterial.
The residents do not contend that Costco and the property owners have every right to develop the property to suit their interests and produce a profit, they are not evil and they are good corporate citizens. However to be equally protected and respected, are the rights and opinion of the residents and community who will certainly be negatively affected by the developer's and Costco's actions through the loss of their property values and increased traffic congestion of epic proportions that will degrade our neighborhoods and quality of life. In this case, the benefits to Costco, the property owner and their special/conflict of interest supporters do not outweigh the negatives for the residents, voters and taxpayers. There are plenty of alternative commercial uses for this property that will satisfy the needs of the property owner and their special/conflict of interest supporters that will not be nearly as damaging to our community. It might be a good idea that the property owner's commercial real estate broker starts looking for other less community damaging alternatives and other prospective buyers, after all that is what he is getting paid his megabuck commission to do.

On your 2nd assertion...Why don't you produce a traffic study that actually shows this as fact vs. an uniformed opinion. The FACTS are that this major shopping center will create gridlock on the adjacent and feeder streets, increase traffic accidents, increase noise, destroy our roads (which the taxpayer will have to bear the cost to repair), and will require increased town services to manage the mess it creates, which will result in a devaluing of nearby residential property values. I don't see how this will at all benefit our community.
Gotta Go

Southbury, CT

#6 Jan 13, 2009
Ramps to Super 7 would be further damaging to the appearance of our town. Why not build some pollution spewing factories while we are at it?
commercial property

Ashford, CT

#7 Jan 13, 2009
Maybe you and your neighbors should by the property and preserve it. Or you can come up with another tenant to lease the space that will suit your likes. You know someone who will pay what Costco will pay but not have any traffic. The impact to the surrounding residents will not be devalued property, that is a crock of bull. You are a typical NIMBY. Come up a traffic study that shows this nightmare and a residentail appraisal that will demonstrate the devaluation of the neighborhoods surrounding it. You won't find one, because it won't have the impact you claim.
Brookfield is a shopping center. That is what Brookfield is, deal with it. When the developer gets thru suing the pants off the town, Costco will be there anyway, and the so called, "special/conflict of interest supporters" will be buying more stuff from Costco and laughing at you m-o-r-o-n-s.
This makes great theater.
More Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The residents do not contend that Costco and the property owners have every right to develop the property to suit their interests and produce a profit, they are not evil and they are good corporate citizens. However to be equally protected and respected, are the rights and opinion of the residents and community who will certainly be negatively affected by the developer's and Costco's actions through the loss of their property values and increased traffic congestion of epic proportions that will degrade our neighborhoods and quality of life. In this case, the benefits to Costco, the property owner and their special/conflict of interest supporters do not outweigh the negatives for the residents, voters and taxpayers. There are plenty of alternative commercial uses for this property that will satisfy the needs of the property owner and their special/conflict of interest supporters that will not be nearly as damaging to our community. It might be a good idea that the property owner's commercial real estate broker starts looking for other less community damaging alternatives and other prospective buyers, after all that is what he is getting paid his megabuck commission to do.
On your 2nd assertion...Why don't you produce a traffic study that actually shows this as fact vs. an uniformed opinion. The FACTS are that this major shopping center will create gridlock on the adjacent and feeder streets, increase traffic accidents, increase noise, destroy our roads (which the taxpayer will have to bear the cost to repair), and will require increased town services to manage the mess it creates, which will result in a devaluing of nearby residential property values. I don't see how this will at all benefit our community.
ELF

Danbury, CT

#8 Jan 13, 2009
commercial property wrote:
Maybe you and your neighbors should by the property and preserve it. Or you can come up with another tenant to lease the space that will suit your likes. You know someone who will pay what Costco will pay but not have any traffic. The impact to the surrounding residents will not be devalued property, that is a crock of bull. You are a typical NIMBY. Come up a traffic study that shows this nightmare and a residentail appraisal that will demonstrate the devaluation of the neighborhoods surrounding it. You won't find one, because it won't have the impact you claim.
Brookfield is a shopping center. That is what Brookfield is, deal with it. When the developer gets thru suing the pants off the town, Costco will be there anyway, and the so called, "special/conflict of interest supporters" will be buying more stuff from Costco and laughing at you m-o-r-o-n-s.
This makes great theater.
So what does wh0ring PAY, anyway?
Your utter compliance gets me HOT!

I sh1t on you and your ilk.
Get real

New York, NY

#9 Jan 13, 2009
More Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
You are obviously among the conflict of interest coalition that is threatened by concerned citizens who are pro-neighborhood, pro-value for taxpayers, and pro-transparent and honest government. Too bad you are on the wrong team...the special/conflict of interest Coalition's days in Brookfield are numbered.
Typical, you have no facts so you just acuse! As a matter of fact, I have no financial interests in this deal, I am just a taxpayer and I happen to drive past this property everyday on my way to work.

I simply respect the rights of all and I dont assume people are guilty of something without any evidence nor just because I disagree with their actions.

You should read the constitution of the US. Perhaps you might learn to be not just a better citizen, but a better person and neighbor.
street

Baldwin, NY

#10 Jan 13, 2009
I am a brookfield resident and i am for the move of costco to the "cornfield". Its commercial property. Maybe the owner put it on the market and costco was the high bidder. What if you were selling your home or property and your neighbors were aloud to tell you who you can sell to. I dont think that will happen. Now you keep talking about other areas to build but i don't know where you are talking. what the difference if you buid a strip mall or a big box store. Most likely youll get more tax dollars and have a long lasting tenant than those in strip malls. As for the church and schools on that road, school starts before costco would be open and what about love thy neighbor. Costco will continue to bring tax dollars to this town, jobs, good shopping and a good business. DO NOT USE MY HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS TO FIGHT ANY FRIVOLOUS POLITICALLY DRIVEN LAW SUITS TO STOP COSTCO. IF IT MEETS ALL BUILDING AND ZONING REGULATIONS THEN LET THEM BUILD.
George Bailey

Litchfield, CT

#11 Jan 13, 2009
commercial property wrote:
Maybe you and your neighbors should by the property and preserve it. Or you can come up with another tenant to lease the space that will suit your likes. You know someone who will pay what Costco will pay but not have any traffic. The impact to the surrounding residents will not be devalued property, that is a crock of bull. You are a typical NIMBY. Come up a traffic study that shows this nightmare and a residentail appraisal that will demonstrate the devaluation of the neighborhoods surrounding it. You won't find one, because it won't have the impact you claim.
Brookfield is a shopping center. That is what Brookfield is, deal with it. When the developer gets thru suing the pants off the town, Costco will be there anyway, and the so called, "special/conflict of interest supporters" will be buying more stuff from Costco and laughing at you m-o-r-o-n-s.
This makes great theater.
<quoted text>
A lawsuit against the town is a baseless threat and scare tactic, perpetrated by the special/conflict of interest supporters of this abomination. The bottom line is: Costco and the owners of the cornfield won't have any grounds to sue the Town when Zoning denies their application in accordance with Town regulations. If they do, that would be a Public Relations nightmare for Costco, the property owners and their special/conflict of interest supporters (exposing them for the rats they are). I for one, as well as many others would support our Town's rigorous legal defense to defend our residential property value and quality of life. A community that refuses to defend itself deserves what it gets.
George Bailey

Litchfield, CT

#12 Jan 13, 2009
Get real wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical, you have no facts so you just acuse! As a matter of fact, I have no financial interests in this deal, I am just a taxpayer and I happen to drive past this property everyday on my way to work.
I simply respect the rights of all and I dont assume people are guilty of something without any evidence nor just because I disagree with their actions.
You should read the constitution of the US. Perhaps you might learn to be not just a better citizen, but a better person and neighbor.
Conflicts of interest that has and is occuring ranges from blatant violations in which several people have recused themselves ONLY after being called on it however after imposing influence on decisions until they were forced to remove themselves from the process, to behind the scenes maneuvering in special closed meetings, and other various degrees of misconduct. These activities are like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography - you know it when you see it. They range from outright Ethics violations, which are reported with facts and are being investigated with the enforcement board, to questionable and sleazy behavior that falls within the gray zone. Regardless, all of it is unacceptable and not in the best interest of our community, but always in the interest and to suit the selfish aim of the perpetrator and their coalition. Aren't you in the least bit concerned as a taxpayer?!

If you were actually an involved concerned citizen, rather than sitting behind your keyboard spewing your opinion, you would understand otherwise. Perhaps during your daily drive you should stop by Town Hall and actually read the Ethics complaints to enlighten yourself.
street

Baldwin, NY

#13 Jan 13, 2009
George Bailey wrote:
<quoted text>
Conflicts of interest that has and is occuring ranges from blatant violations in which several people have recused themselves ONLY after being called on it however after imposing influence on decisions until they were forced to remove themselves from the process, to behind the scenes maneuvering in special closed meetings, and other various degrees of misconduct. These activities are like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography - you know it when you see it. They range from outright Ethics violations, which are reported with facts and are being investigated with the enforcement board, to questionable and sleazy behavior that falls within the gray zone. Regardless, all of it is unacceptable and not in the best interest of our community, but always in the interest and to suit the selfish aim of the perpetrator and their coalition. Aren't you in the least bit concerned as a taxpayer?!
If you were actually an involved concerned citizen, rather than sitting behind your keyboard spewing your opinion, you would understand otherwise. Perhaps during your daily drive you should stop by Town Hall and actually read the Ethics complaints to enlighten yourself.
Thats your opinion, like others its there opinion to be in favor of costco. Not everyone feels sour about the costco move. Spew your thoughts and allow others to do the same.

Costco supported and 10 year resident of Brookfield...
reality

Shelton, CT

#14 Jan 13, 2009
George Bailey wrote:
<quoted text>
A lawsuit against the town is a baseless threat and scare tactic, perpetrated by the special/conflict of interest supporters of this abomination. The bottom line is: Costco and the owners of the cornfield won't have any grounds to sue the Town when Zoning denies their application in accordance with Town regulations. If they do, that would be a Public Relations nightmare for Costco, the property owners and their special/conflict of interest supporters (exposing them for the rats they are). I for one, as well as many others would support our Town's rigorous legal defense to defend our residential property value and quality of life. A community that refuses to defend itself deserves what it gets.
George,

Please enlighten us as to what Town Regulation and zoning rules will they use to turn down the application. Traffic to surrounding areas is not allowed per CT Surpreme court ruling.

I do not want my tax dollars used to fight a lawsuit because of the NIMBY's of Brookfield pressured the zoning board to turn down the application.
reality

Shelton, CT

#15 Jan 13, 2009
Quick question, I know in Danbury that they will not allow a church to be built in a commercially zoned area. What is the zoning for the property the two churchs are on. Did they get a special varience from zoning to be built there.
George Bailey

Litchfield, CT

#16 Jan 13, 2009
reality wrote:
<quoted text>
George,
Please enlighten us as to what Town Regulation and zoning rules will they use to turn down the application. Traffic to surrounding areas is not allowed per CT Surpreme court ruling.
I do not want my tax dollars used to fight a lawsuit because of the NIMBY's of Brookfield pressured the zoning board to turn down the application.
What is the specific CT State Supreme court ruling that permits commercial developers to run roughshod over a community with ill-conceived traffic generating developments?
street

Baldwin, NY

#17 Jan 13, 2009
George Bailey wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the specific CT State Supreme court ruling that permits commercial developers to run roughshod over a community with ill-conceived traffic generating developments?
You see you are talking from your feelings not by fact...
George Bailey

Litchfield, CT

#18 Jan 13, 2009
street wrote:
<quoted text>
You see you are talking from your feelings not by fact...
Right. If you and your friend know so much then, What is the specific CT State Supreme court ruling that permits commercial developers to run roughshod over a community with ill-conceived traffic generating developments?
Danbury Native

East Hampton, CT

#19 Jan 13, 2009
Is the Newst-Times opposition based on lack of local advertising? One wonders! Maybe Costco should look at the Lee Farms property at Fry's Corner in Danbury!
George Bailey

Litchfield, CT

#20 Jan 13, 2009
reality wrote:
Quick question, I know in Danbury that they will not allow a church to be built in a commercially zoned area. What is the zoning for the property the two churchs are on. Did they get a special varience from zoning to be built there.
So are you suggesting that Costco should petition Brookfield Zoning for a variance to become a church? Wow, that's a great idea, I can then get salvation and buy in bulk all in one trip!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brookfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Teen lacrosse player wants to build field to ho... 6 hr New Fairfield Wat... 1
News Danbury man faces assault charges after ex-wife... (Feb '08) Aug 17 In the know 417
Bernie Sanders/never Hillary Aug 8 Harper 2
Denise ison Aug 4 Just curious 1
New Sandy Hook school. Jul 30 Sammy 1
News Volunteers call for changes at pound (Feb '08) May '16 You dont scare no... 61
News Teacher's Aide Offered Boy, 15, Money to Keep S... (Dec '15) Jan '16 Citizen44 18

Brookfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brookfield Mortgages