Mark Block For Trumbull

When Will the First Selectman Start Being Straight With Trumbull?

September 14, 2026 — Trumbull residents should not have to parse carefully chosen words from Town Hall to learn what is really happening at 80 Merritt Boulevard.
The First Selectman emphasized that this was “not the new construction of a hyperscale AI facility” and said prospective customers would be “largely drawn from the financial services industry.”
Now Connecticut Public reports the property is being evaluated as a “high density, AI-ready” data center, potentially one of Connecticut's first known AI data centers.
Tesoro also told residents there would be no increase in electrical draw, noise, water use or building footprint, saying the applicant had agreed to all four.
Now we learn the Town is still figuring out how to make those promises enforceable, while the company's letter of intent is described as confidential and non-binding.
Those distinctions matter.
A promise is not protection. Understanding is not an enforceable agreement. And “not hyperscale” does not tell residents the whole story when the facility is simultaneously being positioned as “high density, AI-ready.”
Tesoro can’t have it both ways, like she tried with the senior/community center referendum, minimizing the project when reassuring residents while significant details emerge elsewhere, presenting promises as protections before they are enforceable, and claiming transparency while residents learn important facts from the news media rather than Town Hall.
So, when will Tesoro start being straight with Trumbull residents and stop playing games with carefully crafted language?
Another reassuring statement isn’t enough. Residents deserve a public accounting: When did she first learn this was being evaluated as a high-density, AI-ready facility? What did she know when she made her earlier statements? Which protections are legally enforceable today? What remains confidential and non-binding? And what prevents increased capacity in the future?
The Town Council should demand those answers and the documentation supporting them.
If an agreement is non-binding, say so. If protection isn’t enforceable, don't present it as one. If the project changes, tell residents when. And if nothing changed, explain why residents weren’t given the complete picture from the beginning.
No more carefully constructed distinctions. No more learning important facts after the fact. Trumbull residents deserve the whole story, the true story, and they deserve it now before Tesoro digs an even deeper hole.

To all those celebrating, wishing you a sweet New Year filled with good health, meaningful moments, and plenty to look forward to as we begin 5787. Shana Tova!

We remember the lives taken, the heroes who ran toward danger, and the enduring truth that even on America’s darkest day, courage, compassion, and unity shone brighter than hate.

My public comment was forwarded to the Town Council for this evening's meeting, where they will take up a resolution regarding a two-year pause on "new" data centers in town:

To: Trumbull Town Council
Date: September 10, 2026
Subject: Amend Resolution TC31-65 Two-Year moratorium on new data centers

Members of the Town Council:
I regret that I cannot attend tonight’s meeting. My family and I are preparing for the approaching Jewish High Holy Days, which begin tomorrow, and are the most sacred days on our calendar. I respectfully ask that these comments on Resolution TC31-65, which proposes a two-year moratorium on the establishment and development of new data centers in Trumbull, be included in the public record.
I have spoken previously about the need for Trumbull to slow down and conduct meaningful due diligence before allowing major data-center development or redevelopment to proceed. Tonight’s proposed two-year moratorium makes that issue even more important.
The questions surrounding data centers don't belong to one political party. They belong to every Trumbull resident who will live with the consequences of the decisions made today.
The proposed moratorium applies only to new data centers and therefore does not include the project at 80 Merritt Boulevard, the very project that brought many of these concerns to the forefront.
That creates an obvious question.
If there are enough unanswered questions about data centers to justify stopping new ones for two years, why wouldn’t we apply the same level of scrutiny to the significant data-center project already moving forward in Trumbull?
I am not saying “no, never” to Merritt Boulevard.
I am saying: slow it down, do the due diligence, and make sure we understand what Trumbull is getting into.
Before this project moves substantially further, residents deserve independent expert analysis of its electrical demand and grid implications; noise and air-quality impacts; emergency preparedness and fire response; stormwater and construction impacts; lighting and buffering; effects on neighboring properties and property values; infrastructure demands; and the actual long-term fiscal benefit to Trumbull taxpayers.
And that analysis should not simply come from those proposing or advocating for the project. It should be independent, comprehensive, and available to the public.
Data centers are unlike most traditional commercial development. Their impacts can extend well beyond the property line, and decisions made today could affect Trumbull for decades.
There will be plenty of issues on which Democrats and Republicans can disagree. This should not be one of them.
Whatever your party affiliation, any one of you should move to amend the resolution to one that imposes a two-year pause on ALL data centers, regardless of new construction or redevelopment.
This isn’t about stopping economic development. It’s about responsible economic development that is properly communicated in a fully transparent way to all our residents.
Slow it down. Get independent facts. Understand the impacts. Protect Trumbull residents and taxpayers.
And make sure, as a community, we get this right before we reach the point where we can’t get it back.
Thank you.
Mark Block
60 Ridgeview Avenue

DEMOCRATS’ DATA CENTER MORATORIUM: SMOKE AND MIRRORS?

Trumbull Democrats, who control the Town Council and its agenda, are proposing a two-year moratorium on new data centers.
It sounds tough, until you read the fine print.
The moratorium excludes the data center at 80 Merritt Boulevard, the very project that sparked residents’ concerns in the first place.
Residents asked for a pause on new or expanded data centers. Instead, Democrats crafted a resolution covering only “new” facilities, allowing Merritt Boulevard to move forward.
So let's call the question: Is this real protection or political smoke and mirrors?
If data centers raise enough unanswered questions to justify a two-year moratorium, those same concerns should apply to the project happening right now.
The Democratic majority should amend its resolution before passage. Include significant expansions or redevelopment of existing data centers and require an independent review of the Merritt Boulevard project's impacts before additional approvals are granted.
Don't stop hypothetical data centers while giving the one already before us a pass.
Fix the resolution. Include Merritt Boulevard. Give residents the independent answers they have been asking for.
Trumbull doesn't need political cover from Democrats. It needs bipartisan action.

DON’T USE OUR SENIORS TO REWRITE YOUR POLITICAL RECORD

National Senior Center Month should be about honoring Trumbull’s seniors, not political damage control.
The timing of First Selectman Vicki Tesoro’s proclamation is impossible to ignore. Less than a year after Trumbull voters rejected her administration’s community/senior center referendum, Town Hall is suddenly using National Senior Center Month to publicly emphasize just how important senior centers are.
How politically convenient.
After losing the referendum, the administration now has every incentive to repair the political damage, reposition itself as the champion of Trumbull’s seniors, and begin rewriting the narrative surrounding one of its most visible defeats.
But a September proclamation doesn’t erase what happened at the ballot box. And it certainly doesn’t answer the question Town Hall would apparently rather avoid:
If the senior center was such an important priority, why was the chair who had nearly a decade to get it done allowed to remain in charge after the effort ultimately produced a proposal voters rejected?
Where was the accountability then?
You cannot spend years overseeing a project, lose the referendum, change nothing at the top, and then months later discover National Senior Center Month as an opportunity to showcase your commitment to seniors without expecting residents to notice the political choreography.
Trumbull’s seniors deserve to be celebrated. They should not be used as props in a political rehabilitation campaign following a referendum defeat.
So yes, recognize National Senior Center Month.
But spare taxpayers the attempt to turn a ceremonial proclamation into political cover.
The timing tells the story: lose the senior center referendum, avoid accountability, then use National Senior Center Month to start rebuilding the narrative.
A proclamation may make for a nice photo opportunity.
It cannot rewrite the record of a failed administration.

WHO CHANGED THE RULES — AND WHY WASN’T ANYONE TOLD?

Trumbull deserves an immediate explanation regarding the interpretation and enforcement of its temporary sign ordinance.
Section 14-8(e) of the Trumbull Municipal Code states that temporary signs connected to a specific event, including an election, “shall not be erected more than forty-five (45) days prior to the event to which such signs are applicable.” The ordinance refers to an election as the event; it does not expressly say “early voting,” “the beginning of voting,” or some other date selected administratively.
For 2026, Trumbull itself identifies Tuesday, November 3, 2026 as the date of the General Election. The town separately identifies October 19 through November 1 as the early-voting period.
That distinction raises an obvious question: What date is “the event” for purposes of Section 14-8(e), and who has the authority to decide?
If Town Hall has obtained a new legal interpretation concluding that the 45 days should be calculated from the beginning of early voting rather than Election Day, residents and political organizations deserve to see that interpretation, understand its legal basis, know when it was requested, and know when the town decided to begin operating under it.
Just as importantly, any change in the town’s interpretation should be communicated openly and consistently to everyone affected.
If, as has been alleged, a legal opinion concerning political signs and the upcoming election was obtained without contemporaneous notice to Republican leadership, that process warrants an explanation. The relevant questions are straightforward:
Who requested the legal opinion? When was it requested? What question was presented to counsel? What was counsel's complete response? When did Town Hall receive it? Who was informed of the interpretation? And when was the public told that the town would calculate the 45 days differently?
Those questions can and should be answered with documents, not political rhetoric.
The issue is larger than campaign signs. Election-related regulations should be administered predictably, transparently, and evenhandedly. Political organizations should not have to discover after the fact that Town Hall has adopted an interpretation affecting when they may engage in political expression.
If the town believes its interpretation is correct, it should release the complete legal opinion and explain the reasoning publicly. If the interpretation represents a departure from prior practice, it should explain why that practice changed and when the change became effective.
There should be one rule, publicly known in advance and applied equally to everyone.
Release the opinion. Release the communications surrounding it. Explain the interpretation. And tell Trumbull exactly when and why the rules were determined to mean something different.
Transparency should not depend upon which political party is asking the question.

SAME SEWER POLICY. DIFFERENT PARTY. WHERE DID THE OUTRAGE GO?

There is a remarkable irony in seeing this old WPCA post pulled out again, because it provides a pretty good lesson in the difference between campaign rhetoric and governing reality.
Years ago, Republicans were attacked over the WPCA’s decision to calculate sewer bills using actual water consumption, including water used for pools, lawns and irrigation. The accusation was simple: the previous administration-appointed WPCA had imposed an unfair policy on Trumbull residents.
But there was an important part of the story that conveniently disappeared from the political attack.
The Town’s own February 2012 explanation said that Trumbull had previously used winter averaging specifically to reduce the effect of outdoor water consumption. The problem was that Bridgeport did not recognize that averaging system. Under the arrangement then in effect, Bridgeport charged Trumbull based on metered water consumption, including water used outdoors, and Trumbull estimated that maintaining the averaging policy was creating a revenue shortfall exceeding $500,000 a year.
So, what happened after the Tesoro and Democrats took control of Town Hall, having campaigned against the policy, and has had years to correct this supposedly outrageous Republican policy?
Tesoro kept it.
Today, under Vicki Tesoro, Trumbull’s own website says sewer bills are still based on actual water consumption reported by Aquarion. The Town’s FAQ is even more explicit: the amount of water entering the house, as measured by the water meter, determines the consumption component of the sewer bill. And residents with access to the sewer system also pay a quarterly unit charge, even if they are not connected.
And the underlying relationship with Bridgeport hasn’t magically disappeared either. In 2025, Tesoro herself explained that Trumbull is contractually tied to Bridgeport’s sewer system and is charged under that agreement.
That’s the part worth remembering.
When Republicans were governing, this was portrayed as an outrage. When Democrats got elected and actually had responsibility for running the system, suddenly the realities that drove the policy mattered.
Eight years later, the policy that was supposedly evidence of Republican mismanagement remains essentially intact.
That’s not accountability. That’s political hypocrisy. Some might say, outright lying.
It’s easy to stand on the sidelines during an election and tell residents that every difficult decision is somebody else’s incompetence. This administration has perfected that form. It’s considerably harder when you win, inherit the books, see the contracts, and discover that the facts don’t fit the campaign narrative.
So perhaps before recycling an eight-year-old Facebook post and asking, "What say you?", we should ask a better question:
If this policy was so unfair, so unnecessary and so clearly the fault of Republicans, why hasn’t Tesoro eliminated it after all these years?
The answer tells you considerably more about the politics of the original accusation than the old social media post ever did.

While recently discussing impeachment, yet again, one of the most serious powers Congress possesses, lazy Congressman Raskin couldn't resist turning it into another partisan sneer: “When we contemplate impeachment, we have to be realistic about the Republican Party as an authoritarian cult of personality.” There it is: not evidence, not governing, not improving anyone’s life, just another tired Washington politician feeding the same old partisan hatred that keeps people like him around. Not relevant, just around.
Raskin has spent years cultivating a national profile as a professional antagonist. But outside the Washington outrage machine, most Americans aren't sitting around wondering what Jamie Raskin thinks of Republicans. They're wondering whether they can afford their homes, groceries, utilities, health care, and taxes.
Maybe the congressman should spend less time fantasizing about the next impeachment and insulting tens of millions of Americans and more time asking what he has actually accomplished to make life better for the people who sent him to Congress.
The constant lectures, investigations, inflammatory labels, and partisan theatrics are getting old. Jamie Raskin isn't the indispensable guardian of democracy he seems to imagine himself to be. He's one congressman with a district to represent and a job to do. One he seems to care little for doing.
Enough auditioning for yesterday's cable-news fight. Enough political vengeance masquerading as principle.
Do something useful for your constituents Congressman. Maybe then, just maybe you'll be viewed as relevant.