[Stylo]

It's undoubtedly strongly subsidizing our cities.

Bridgeport - 8,007
New Haven - 8,285
Hartford - 9,280

Many rural or middle class towns in the rest of the state get very little funding too, just like the wealthy towns in FFC.

Education is tricky. The wealthy towns have an inherit advantage with their big tax bases. Some may argue that every child has a right to good education. Some may not. As long as we rely on property taxes for education funding, cities are going to require tons of subsidies.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by Stylo

It's undoubtedly strongly subsidizing our cities.

Bridgeport - 8,007
New Haven - 8,285
Hartford - 9,280

Many rural or middle class towns in the rest of the state get very little funding too, just like the wealthy towns in FFC.

Education is tricky. The wealthy towns have an inherit advantage with their big tax bases. Some may argue that every child has a right to good education. Some may not. As long as we rely on property taxes for education funding, cities are going to require tons of subsidies.

I could get into a very long discussion on ECS, but i won't.

The main point i was trying to emphasize to you was that if you look at FFC funding, you'll see that it falls short across the board in a direct comparison against similar municipalities that are outside of FFC.

[bobtn]

Back on topic, how on earth can Norwich-New London rebound b/w Pfizer, EB, and the casino cuts to naturally come as Massachuestts and New York regain their locals gambling losses? Sadly, the Economic Development team in Ct seems to get paid for doing next to nothing. Their time seems spent more often playing defense via state packages for stuff like UBS so they will not leave, instead of doing what such a department should be doing, and that is packages for new corps to come in. When on a rare occasion, they do the latter, the focus is seldom Noriwch-New London, it is FFC.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by bobtn

I doubt COL is low for that reason, as nationally, COL and wages are not always in sync. Usually, if new developments are being built continuously, existing home stock prices fall or stay falt. I live in a city where buyers pooh-pooh ten year old homes, saying "I want a new one", as developments are added monthly.

I suspect the key is both available land and interested developers who speculate, thus the latter always provides an excess of supply to demand. They bank on canibalizing other developers.

This my friend is sprawl. It is not so much housing stock that sets the price it is the land underneath the home. If the amount of land available for development is limited and there is demand, then home prices rise. Jay

[bobtn]

In many regions, its not sprawl, as much land is still available. That is the case in SE Ct, now in FFC, you'd be correct. But SE CT still has a lot of undeveloped land. They really have 2 options, continuous reduced living standards as COL and tourism are a mismatch, or new Pfizers (as an example of a corp with middle class wages) , which would at minimum allow incomes and COL to stay at status quo.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by bobtn

In many regions, its not sprawl, as much land is still available. That is the case in SE Ct, now in FFC, you'd be correct. But SE CT still has a lot of undeveloped land. They really have 2 options, continuous reduced living standards as COL and tourism are a mismatch, or new Pfizers (as an example of a corp with middle class wages) , which would at minimum allow incomes and COL to stay at status quo.

Sorry to disagree with you but anywhere where they are building seas of new homes and commercial development on raw land is sprawl. IT has nothing to do with regions. It has to do with abandoning older developed areas and building new ones further and further out. Even southeastern Connnecticut does not have a lot of developable land left. There is some but not a lot. Jay

[bobtn]

Well, Jay, w/o new Pfizers, how do they avoid terrible economic conditions. The median wage levels for things like casinos stink, and as others pointed out, if one goes to salary.com or the like for COL equivalent salaries, SE Ct is not livable for the vast majority who are not at corporate jobs. BTW, I'm not talking massive devlopment. We have it in my region, but we also still have a higher percentage of available land than SE Ct, and that is a factor in the equation. But SE Ct can take more commercial buildup than FFC, and one thing not mentioned but plausable is the reuse of existing, but unused commercial space. It would require state remediation or fed, of brownfields. But again to get off this list, SE Ct will need jobs paying well...and that means something they do not have right now. A new industry or an offshoot of an old one, perhaps.

PS, Differing views are what makes threads interesting. Going to bed soon. If I don't catch you again, have a good night.

[JayCT]

You make it sound like these are the only employers in the area. They are the largest ones but there are many others. I am not saying there could not be more but there are smaller manufacturers too and don't forget the submarine base. There are a lot of military families and retirees in the area too.

Also not all casino and tourist jobs pay poorly. I have family in that area and their jobs are all tourist related and they do just fine. They own a nice home and pay their bills. Their kids went to college. They worked hard but made a decent living. Jay

[bobtn]

The mom and pop employers don't change the economy; the large ones do. That' why UBS gets megamillions to agree to keep 7 in 10 existing jobs, while a mom and pop could go up 30% and still get nada. That's the sole reason larger employers should be the focvus.

BTW, some casino jobs do pay well, but we both know the bulk of tourism related do not pay well. The bulk are physical, and require no post secondary education. So I'm focusing on the majority; the minority, like your relatives, need no assistance. Now if the COL there were unusually low relative to the US overall, the minority could get by, too. I'd love to see the same type of stats for tourism that are often done for Wal Mart employees; it would be enlightening to see gov't assistance rates.

[JayCT]

Again you are comparing the northeast to the rest of the US. That is not correct. SE Connecticut COL is low for the northeast. Housing prices, which is really the major differences between regions, are significantly lower there than other parts of the region so it can, and has been able to be supported by the tourist industry.

I think you under estimate the depth of the economy in the area. Connecticut College, the US Coast Guard Academy and Mitchell College are major employers. The Millstone Power plant, Sonalysts, Davis Standard and Farina are decent sized employers too. The hospitals (Backus and Lawrence & Memorial) also employ a lot of people. My point is it is not all doom and gloom. This is not a large population center and to say that it is among the hardest hit by the recession is really stretching it. Jay