[Stylo]

Originally Posted by ConnecticutSir

One thing I don't like about WalletHub's list is that it puts "affordability" on equal importance as "quality of life." Boston is #1 in quality of life, yet (as you pointed out) it's only 23rd overall. Who in their right mind would rather live in Oklahoma City or Cheyenne instead of Boston? Often (but not always) places cost more the better place they are to live. So in my opinion, affordability shouldn't even be factored into the equation.

In Hartford's defense it's ranked 23rd in quality of life. How on Earth is Jackson Mississippi ranked higher overall than Hartford?

Yeah, that’s crazy. Hartford doesn’t deserve to be bottom of list.

[Mike 75]

There is a kind of silver bullet thinking in Hartford that what the city needs are large projects to serve as catalysts to turn things around. This is true to a lesser extent in Bridgeport. Whereas NH and Stamford seem to take a more incremental approach to development. In other words, swinging for the fences versus hitting singles and doubles. I'm guessing that there are myriad reasons for this, but to me it starts with the quality of leadership (or lack thereof) in the respective cities.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

There is a kind of silver bullet thinking in Hartford that what the city needs are large projects to serve as catalysts to turn things around. This is true to a lesser extent in Bridgeport. Whereas NH and Stamford seem to take a more incremental approach to development. In other words, swinging for the fences versus hitting singles and doubles. I'm guessing that there are myriad reasons for this, but to me it starts with the quality of leadership (or lack thereof) in the respective cities.

This makes no sense. Metro Hartford has plenty of land and the housing is relatively affordable, even in the blue chip suburbs. Nobody has any incentive to be an urban pioneer in the Hartford ghetto. If you’re in fancy lower Fairfield County, you urban pioneer in Bridgeport because you’re priced out of everywhere else. There are no miracle projects that morph 100,000 poor people into a 21st century workforce. Given the lousy literacy rate in Hartford public schools, it’s not going to improve.

[ConnecticutSir]

CRDA grants $8.5 million to three Hartford projects, including Parkville redevelopments

Article: https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/art...redevelopments

[RunD1987]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

This makes no sense. Metro Hartford has plenty of land and the housing is relatively affordable, even in the blue chip suburbs. Nobody has any incentive to be an urban pioneer in the Hartford ghetto. If you’re in fancy lower Fairfield County, you urban pioneer in Bridgeport because you’re priced out of everywhere else. There are no miracle projects that morph 100,000 poor people into a 21st century workforce. Given the lousy literacy rate in Hartford public schools, it’s not going to improve.

Think unlike other cities in the US. CT cities don't have the large land space and the suburbs become an extension of the city. The suburbs are highly priced and the city is lower cost. There are no room for any higher prices/gentrified neighborhoods. The highways run through the city impacting growth.

[CTREInvestor]

Originally Posted by RunD1987

Think unlike other cities in the US. CT cities don't have the large land space and the suburbs become an extension of the city. The suburbs are highly priced and the city is lower cost. There are no room for any higher prices/gentrified neighborhoods. The highways run through the city impacting growth.

The banning of annexation circa 1900 was one of the biggest mistakes the Connecticut legislature made. New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford would be far larger today as they were all fantastic prior to the roaring 20s.

Abolishing county governance after Brown vs Board of Education made the problem even worse.

The state government can however reverse many of these, or in the case of Hartford and New Haven, abolish home role. Look at what Birmingham has done with the University of Alabama Medical Center. It is ranked by Forbes as the #1 place to work.

Connecticut can do this in two places - UConn in Hartford and Yale in New Haven.

[mdovell]

It is kind of funny the back and forth because in many respects we had many towns and cities that were significantly larger but then they were break off groups usually because they want to siphon off an area for themselves, usually on ethnic lines. I don't think realistically that we can see some of that happening again. Can we rejoin and merge hounds? Well yes and no.

When you look at the amount of services I don't think that you can make the argument that an individual town to provide everything 100% by itself it just doesn't happen. It doesn't happen the Connecticut and a probably doesn't happen in most of the country. For example your water and sewer is probably a regional system because it makes more sense when they buy materials to maintain it. Sometimes your dpw's might share equipment and there are shared services and neighboring agreements with police departments and fire departments. With education state governments play a significant role in funding and qualifications for standards and things like teacher licenses. Even the most affluent areas in Connecticut cannot afford to run their own pension systems for their Municipal Employees, it just doesn't happen. Only six towns in Connecticut run their own Municipal electric organizations regardless of income.

I've had my arguments with communities that argue that somehow they think that they know what's best for them. For the most part that can be true but you still have to comply with state and federal standards. You can't tell me that a town to do whatever they want when 25% of their budget comes from the state and these are affluent communities mind you. And they burn Massachusetts even the most affluent ones in the states still get three to 5% of their budget from the state. You can't cut three to five percent across-the-board. You can't buy half a fire truck.

Much of the development I see in the Hartford area is Apartments. There's nothing wrong with building apartments but if that's the default concept without doing any laying around them then I don't think it's going to really help in the long run. I get it you want young educated people to live in areas with a lot of disposable income and to spend it around. However the trouble is They Don't Really stay there. More importantly as so many jobs have become remote why would they go to an area to work remote if they can work remote at home.

[CTREInvestor]

Originally Posted by mdovell

It is kind of funny the back and forth because in many respects we had many towns and cities that were significantly larger but then they were break off groups usually because they want to siphon off an area for themselves, usually on ethnic lines. I don't think realistically that we can see some of that happening again. Can we rejoin and merge hounds? Well yes and no.

When you look at the amount of services I don't think that you can make the argument that an individual town to provide everything 100% by itself it just doesn't happen. It doesn't happen the Connecticut and a probably doesn't happen in most of the country. For example your water and sewer is probably a regional system because it makes more sense when they buy materials to maintain it. Sometimes your dpw's might share equipment and there are shared services and neighboring agreements with police departments and fire departments. With education state governments play a significant role in funding and qualifications for standards and things like teacher licenses. Even the most affluent areas in Connecticut cannot afford to run their own pension systems for their Municipal Employees, it just doesn't happen. Only six towns in Connecticut run their own Municipal electric organizations regardless of income.

I've had my arguments with communities that argue that somehow they think that they know what's best for them. For the most part that can be true but you still have to comply with state and federal standards. You can't tell me that a town to do whatever they want when 25% of their budget comes from the state and these are affluent communities mind you. And they burn Massachusetts even the most affluent ones in the states still get three to 5% of their budget from the state. You can't cut three to five percent across-the-board. You can't buy half a fire truck.

Much of the development I see in the Hartford area is Apartments. There's nothing wrong with building apartments but if that's the default concept without doing any laying around them then I don't think it's going to really help in the long run. I get it you want young educated people to live in areas with a lot of disposable income and to spend it around. However the trouble is They Don't Really stay there. More importantly as so many jobs have become remote why would they go to an area to work remote if they can work remote at home.

Connecticut is living proof communities don't know what to do for themselves, or are unable to do anything substantive due to capital restraints.

Nowhere in the country do we have disparities like Bridgeport and Fairfield. Literally nowhere.

Unfortunately, the moderator of this forum routinely makes this claim, despite all evidence to the contrary, hence a discussion we should be having would happen.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by CTREInvestor

Nowhere in the country do we have disparities like Bridgeport and Fairfield. Literally nowhere.

Yeah there is, tons of it, literally, all over the country and then some. May I introduce you to my former neighborhood out west.
Though CT does have immense income disparity, the rich are rich as hell, Bridgeport and Fairfield on the border are indistinguishable and Fairfield's not even the richest town. It's in the B division.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by CTREInvestor

The banning of annexation circa 1900 was one of the biggest mistakes the Connecticut legislature made. New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford would be far larger today as they were all fantastic prior to the roaring 20s.

Well respectfully, most suburbanites would disagree with this assessment. If we wanted to live in a city, we'd be there. As I said before and will say again, annexing suburbs would not rid the problem of the largely blighted areas within the current city limits, something todays' city leaders have proven utterly ill-equipped to deal with. We need to drop this idea of dragging neighboring towns down with their urban neighbors, because it is not going to happen. The people who so often promote this as the solution live nowhere near the municipalities that would be impacted by this, so it's puzzling why they presume to know what's in our best interest. If they feel so passionately about it, they themselves can move to the city and let us know how they do there.

Originally Posted by CTREInvestor

Abolishing county governance after Brown vs Board of Education made the problem even worse.

And yet, many of the suburban schools are more multiethnic than ever.

Originally Posted by CTREInvestor

Nowhere in the country do we have disparities like Bridgeport and Fairfield. Literally nowhere.

I can name several places in various states outside of where there is a contrast between city and suburb. Garden City vs. Hempstead (Long Island), South Orange and Maplewood vs. Newark, Collingwood vs. Camden (New Jersey) are just a few that come to mind. Many of the people in these leafy enclaves left the neighboring cities by working hard and working their way out of these places, and they have no inclination to return to them or be made a part of them again. Maybe if the cities were more attractive, enticing places to be with less crime, people would return there.