[JayCT]

So the unemployment rate dropped again to 4.1 percent (still above the national average though) and we have now regained 115% of the private sector jobs lost in the recession. On top of this, personal income is up, exceeding the national average. Great news. Jay

https://ctmirror.org/2018/12/20/two-...-unemployment/

[Old Dominionite]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I so disagree with this. There is no way the state should be given the leverage to override local approvals. A great example of how this type of approval fails is right here in Glastonbury at the corner of Hebron Avenue (Route 94) and Chalker Hill where the Connecticut Siting Council allowed a power generating facility to be built right in the middle of what is a completely residential area. The facility is ugly and completely out of place. It is noisy (high pitched whine) and is a nuisance to the neighbors. The council completely ignored the town's recommendations for landscaping and screening so the place sits right out there in plain sight of everyone screaming UGLY industrial. For this very reason we should not give up the local rule that our state has enjoyed for centuries. Otherwise kiss the character of our state goodbye because you will see this type of development throughout the state. Jay

My point is simply that Connecticut's current structure of government is obsolete. While perhaps appropriate for colonial times (i.e. three centuries ago), it puts the state at a significant competitive disadvantage in current times.

And the parochial mindset of "my town first" is incompatible with the global economy. We may just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I'm simply curious: how do you define the "character" of the state? As a native Nutmegger, I struggle with that word because Connecticut, in my view, struggles with a number of simultaneous identities, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other:

- a few wealthy exurban and rural enclaves
- some upper-income suburbs
- many middle-income and low-income suburbs -- a growing number of which are facing a rise in poverty
- poverty-stricken cities with some redevelopment taking place
- rural communities, some of which are relatively far better off than others
- lack of a major city
- lack of pride (over the years, the people I've met who bash Connecticut the most are not from outside the state, but rather fellow Nutmeggers).

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by Old Dominionite

I'm simply curious: how do you define the "character" of the state? As a native Nutmegger, I struggle with that word because Connecticut, in my view, struggles with a number of simultaneous identities, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other:

- a few wealthy exurban and rural enclaves
- some upper-income suburbs
- many middle-income and low-income suburbs -- a growing number of which are facing a rise in poverty
- poverty-stricken cities with some redevelopment taking place
- rural communities, some of which are relatively far better off than others
- lack of a major city
- lack of pride (over the years, the people I've met who bash Connecticut the most are not from outside the state, but rather fellow Nutmeggers).

What you describe there sounds like a lack of cohesive identity. That can hurt when trying to attract business.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Old Dominionite

My point is simply that Connecticut's current structure of government is obsolete. While perhaps appropriate for colonial times (i.e. three centuries ago), it puts the state at a significant competitive disadvantage in current times.

And the parochial mindset of "my town first" is incompatible with the global economy. We may just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I'm simply curious: how do you define the "character" of the state? As a native Nutmegger, I struggle with that word because Connecticut, in my view, struggles with a number of simultaneous identities, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other:

- a few wealthy exurban and rural enclaves
- some upper-income suburbs
- many middle-income and low-income suburbs -- a growing number of which are facing a rise in poverty
- poverty-stricken cities with some redevelopment taking place
- rural communities, some of which are relatively far better off than others
- lack of a major city
- lack of pride (over the years, the people I've met who bash Connecticut the most are not from outside the state, but rather fellow Nutmeggers).

Why do you struggle with the word character. It means a sense or feeling of a community, not one for the entire state. Most towns in Connecticut have that. In many it is reflected in a colonial style town green or Main Street. In some it is a stately group of buildings. A point of pride. We do not have a lot of ugly modern soleless sprawl which you see in other states.

I also don’t agree with your take on towns in our state. We have some pretty nice small cities that are the center of larger metropolitan areas which are very livable. You downplay the affluence and highly educated population of our state. We aren’t one of the wealthiest and best educated states for no reason and that affluence and education are pretty much across the entire state. Certainly more so than other states.

As for people who bash the state, those too exist everywhere, not just here. And those people are a LOT less than those who love our state. And don’t mistake criticism of our state for a disliking of it. Many educated people are more critical of things they do not like but that does not mean they dislike where they live.

Another poster here commonly complains about the NIMBYism in our state. If people did not care so deeply about their communities, you would not see any of that here. It is pride that brings them out. And to me that is the very escience of character. Jay

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by Old Dominionite

This op-ed in the Courant speaks very well to the fractured and obsolete forms of government that are dragging Connecticut down in the 21st century. I'm not saying Connecticut ever had a real chance with Amazon per se, but it has a real chance in being significantly more competitive in the global marketplace.

https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-e...rnu-story.html

Amazon is old news by now; Connecticut didn't make the cut from either Google's or Apple's recent one billion dollar (each) expansion plans.


https://www.usnews.com/news/business...ampus-in-texas




In theory suppose workers from either Google's or Apple's offices in Manhattan could commute to Connecticut.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I so disagree with this. There is no way the state should be given the leverage to override local approvals. A great example of how this type of approval fails is right here in Glastonbury at the corner of Hebron Avenue (Route 94) and Chalker Hill where the Connecticut Siting Council allowed a power generating facility to be built right in the middle of what is a completely residential area. The facility is ugly and completely out of place. It is noisy (high pitched whine) and is a nuisance to the neighbors. The council completely ignored the town's recommendations for landscaping and screening so the place sits right out there in plain sight of everyone screaming UGLY industrial. For this very reason we should not give up the local rule that our state has enjoyed for centuries. Otherwise kiss the character of our state goodbye because you will see this type of development throughout the state. Jay

It is for sure an issue. Having different rules in every town is a major drag on our economy. The zoning laws also are a pain. At the very least the state needs to put some restrictions on what towns can do but I don't see it happening. Regional planning would also work. That's not to say anything can be built anywhere but if you want the economy to flourish you need some development around those historic town centers that create the Character.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by East of the River

It is for sure an issue. Having different rules in every town is a major drag on our economy. The zoning laws also are a pain. At the very least the state needs to put some restrictions on what towns can do but I don't see it happening. Regional planning would also work. That's not to say anything can be built anywhere but if you want the economy to flourish you need some development around those historic town centers that create the Character.

I do not want some bureaucrat in a far off city making decisions on what is happening in my town. As I pointed out, this is a recipe for failure. Do you want to see high rises in suburban areas? Industrial uses in residential neighborhoods? The spread of suburban sprawl? Do you want to destroy our highly successful education system? I don't and I doubt most people would when they see the real danger of large scale government. Bigger is not better.

We have regional planning agencies that oversee planning on a regional basis. They also provide towns with a cooperative to buy goods and services at reduced rates. Their programs are expanding to include more things that will help save towns money. I do not want to risk what good we have for the sake of saving what really is a couple of pennies. Jay

[OyCrumbler]

Maybe the restrictive development in the suburbs could be a boon to the cities by shunting more development and residents to the cities. After all, several of those cities once had much larger populations. Plus, new buildings generally have more character than parking lots.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I do not want some bureaucrat in a far off city making decisions on what is happening in my town. As I pointed out, this is a recipe for failure. Do you want to see high rises in suburban areas? Industrial uses in residential neighborhoods? The spread of suburban sprawl? Do you want to destroy our highly successful education system? I don't and I doubt most people would when they see the real danger of large scale government. Bigger is not better.

We have regional planning agencies that oversee planning on a regional basis. They also provide towns with a cooperative to buy goods and services at reduced rates. Their programs are expanding to include more things that will help save towns money. I do not want to risk what good we have for the sake of saving what really is a couple of pennies. Jay

The other way to spin this is that you’re a proponent of socioeconomic segregation. You support using zoning and “planning” to keep all those undesirable things like poor people out of your affluent enclave. Mostly, this is keeping high density and affordable housing out of your town. I support the same thing. I don’t want housing projects in my town. It trashes the school system and hurts property values driving up property tax rates. Look at how socioecinonically mixed West Hartford gets crushed by it. Spend less than the state per pupil average in the school system and still have a crushing mill rate with very depressed housing prices. Any other leafy suburb takes that as an object lesson and fights high density housing to the death. It’s the behavior you’d expect when property taxes fund education and schools are 100% local.

It would hurt me but it would be more fair to have regional schools with competitive admissions funded at the state level. It takes most of the incentives for socioeconomic segregation out of play.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

The other way to spin this is that you’re a proponent of socioeconomic segregation. You support using zoning and “planning” to keep all those undesirable things like poor people out of your affluent enclave. .

Accurate assessment. Its the zoning equivalent of NIMBY, except in this case, certain people are excluded.

I tend to prefer local rule, but NOT involving housing or institutions designed to help those most needing it. In those cases, I favor allowing local decisions only if they meet minimum quantities of say, low income housing, spelled out objectively (as units per '000s residents) by the state or Feds.