Letter: All Scares, No Plans: The Rosasco Campaign’s Deceits and Distortions

Fuzzy Math and Fake Deadlines Insult Woodbridge Voters

Norman is a registered Republican and Sudhir is a registered Democrat who serves on the Amity Board of Education. We don’t always agree — but we share one important conviction: voters deserve the truth. This weekend’s Rosasco–Common Ground mailer—a brazen mix of fuzzy math and fabricated facts prompted us to write this letter.

The mailer claims the town could have lowered property taxes for everyone whose bills increased through a “phase-in,” and that First Selectman Mica Cardozo missed an October 1 “homestead-exemption deadline” to help residents. Both claims are false—misinformation that insults voters’ intelligence and disrespects our community.

A phase-in doesn't reduce taxes; it simply forces homeowners whose home values grew less to pay more so others can pay less. That's not tax relief—that's tax redistribution that many would consider fair. Rosasco points to Orange as proof it works, but Orange's tax base is 31 percent commercial while Woodbridge's is only 7 percent. Orange can shift more of the burden to businesses; we can’t. In Woodbridge, a phase-in would mean raising taxes unfairly on many residents and hurting our small businesses.

The October 1 "homestead exemption deadline" is pure fiction. Towns can adopt exemptions later. This was a cynical attempt to frighten voters for political gain. Further, even New Milford—the first Connecticut town to adopt a homestead exemption—has litigation concerns, a warning to proceed carefully rather than rush in haste.

Unfortunately, this fits a broader pattern of fearmongering and distortion. The Rosasco slate misrepresents the Country Club plan as a development grab when it actually preserves over 115 acres of open space—trails, orchards, and community areas—while using about 35 acres of mostly disturbed land for limited senior housing and assisted living. Developed through extensive community input, the plan can generate $1.5–$1.9 million annually, roughly 3–4% of town revenues. While we appreciate that some want no development on the site, many taxpayers appreciate a balanced approach that also alleviates the tax burden, helps support schools and yet keeps it mostly an open-space community asset Woodbridge can be proud of. 

On Fountain Street, Rosasco's team twists Mica’s careful neutrality into "shirking responsibility" The truth? It's commonsense legal prudence. With an affordable-housing lawsuit pending, any interference could harm the town's case. Letting the TPZ decide on the merits—where the proposal seems likely to fail due to its own shortcomings—protects Woodbridge's zoning autonomy.

Even the "Common Ground" label is deceptive. Most top of the slate candidates are longtime Republicans who have repeatedly run on Republican tickets. Their "unaffiliated" candidates also appeared on past Republican slates. Many of these candidates campaigned against supporting Amity budgets. Adding a couple of disaffected Democrats down the slate doesn't make it "Common Ground"—just old wine in a new bottle designed to mislead voters.

Deceit and drift aren’t plans. Let’s move Woodbridge forward by voting for Mica’s community-driven, thoughtful plan for conservation-led growth that can keep taxes under control — not backward into fear, falsehoods, and reflexive “no”s to every solution.

Norman Bender and Sudhir Karunakaran