U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2018, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
24,964 posts, read 40,607,819 times
Reputation: 7149

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
I would bet my life savings that if this story was not leaked to the press and the public, then that donor would have gotten his $5 million payout and the public would have been shafted twice; once when the state government paid out the excess $4.5 million and twice when the more valuable public land was swapped with the less valuable land. I am surprised the press outed this story as they tend to favor one party over the other one which is inherently dangerous in regard to ongoing corruption. Also people complain about corporations and lobbyists being the root of corruption but the buck stops with the politicians. They can say no and more often than not refuse to say no.
Oh come on now, just because the media tends to support Democratic candidates over Republicans does not mean they will ignore corruption. It is not a conspiracy. As I say here all the time, the media would support Republican candidates if the party had any that were worth supporting. As a Republican I am their biggest critic. Does the party really think they will get the independent votes they need to win when they keep nominating candidates like Tom Foley, Bob Stefanowski and Joe Markley? Heck those candidates had trouble getting the Republcan vote.

Just today Senate Republican Len Fasano blew off his big mouth being critical of Ned Lamont calling him “Malloy 2.0”. It’s a month and a half after the election and he is already starting. He does this type of thing so often no one takes him seriously. It’s just Len once again blowing off his big mouth saying nothing but how he is against anything the Democrats propose. I wrote him an email blasting him for not trying to work with the new Governor to do what’s best for the state instead more of the constant naysaying he is now known for. Until the party significantly changes its ways, it is doomed to keep failing here. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2018, 06:47 PM
 
16,811 posts, read 6,372,436 times
Reputation: 7133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikefromCT View Post
Hey, they don't call us Corrupticut for nothing. An aptly titled nickname, if you ask me.
Sadly accurate post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 08:12 PM
 
Location: W Hartford, CT
1,813 posts, read 3,483,263 times
Reputation: 1236
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
Oh come on now, just because the media tends to support Democratic candidates over Republicans does not mean they will ignore corruption. It is not a conspiracy.
I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy theory so much as it is an unrepentant bias against anyone with an “R” after their name much in the same way deep red states are biased towards anyone with a “D” after theirs. Putting love of party above love of country once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
As a Republican I am their biggest critic.
Yes we know — you defend the Democrats and justify their actions all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
Just today Senate Republican Len Fasano blew off his big mouth being critical of Ned Lamont calling him “Malloy 2.0”. It’s a month and a half after the election and he is already starting. He does this type of thing so often no one takes him seriously. It’s just Len once again blowing off his big mouth saying nothing but how he is against anything the Democrats propose. I wrote him an email blasting him for not trying to work with the new Governor to do what’s best for the state instead more of the constant naysaying he is now known for. Until the party significantly changes its ways, it is doomed to keep failing here. Jay
Is what Fasano did really worse than what the Democratic donor in Orange did? Fasano is (understandably) concerned that Ned will just continue down the same path that we’ve been led for the past 8 years, and many people are not enthusiastic about this. That is why he’s expressed criticism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:48 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
24,964 posts, read 40,607,819 times
Reputation: 7149
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikefromCT View Post
I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy theory so much as it is an unrepentant bias against anyone with an “R” after their name much in the same way deep red states are biased towards anyone with a “D” after theirs. Putting love of party above love of country once again.



Yes we know — you defend the Democrats and justify their actions all the time.



Is what Fasano did really worse than what the Democratic donor in Orange did? Fasano is (understandably) concerned that Ned will just continue down the same path that we’ve been led for the past 8 years, and many people are not enthusiastic about this. That is why he’s expressed criticism.
A lot of people here are critical of everything Malloy does. Not everything he does is wrong. He has reasons. I try to explain them. That does not mean I am defending him. There is a difference. There is no doubt that the Orange and Haddam deals were bad. I never said otherwise.

When have you ever seen Fasano say anything positive? He doesn’t. He stands there and rants about the Democrats with that sour face. He does not propose any solutions or come up with a plan. No wonder this state votes Democratic so often. It is time the Republicans came into the 21st Century and give up on their old fashion ideas. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:17 AM
 
2,752 posts, read 2,527,916 times
Reputation: 1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by ads94 View Post
To a retail place, this lot is worth 550k. To any one else, that is what this lot is worth.

To the state government, which wants to build a train station there, it is worth more. It costs more to have a land for a specific reason. The state does not want to throw a strip mall on here, they want to add a train station in the Town of Orange. Naturally, the price will go up from what is appraised, because of supply (tracts of land with track frontage) and demand (state wants to build a railroad station). This particular plot of land is split about 60/40 between the Milford stop and the West Haven stop.

Does it sound bad in a headline? Yeah. Is there more involved than enriching a Democratic donor? Absolutely. Land doesn't magically appear out of nowhere in a prime location to build a large mass-transit station.

I am sure if the Government appraised everyone's homes here at $50k and demanded you pay up in order to build a new transfer station or a new school people would be up in arms over it. "But this is my house! It is worth at least $450k! Besides, you need it to build the school here, I refuse to budge for any amount less than $600k."

That would be reasonable. This guy had the state right where he wanted them. I see nothing wrong with that. Sure, he paid what? 100k for it? He has a valuable commodity and has every right to ask whatever price he wants for it. Don't like this deal? You also cannot complain about a lack of a stop in Orange or overcrowding at the Milford or West Haven stations.

This is a manufactured scandal out of nowhere. Nothing to see here.
Crowley was going to get 10x the state appraised value before the deal got killed. He also gave $20k to the Dems, even though he is a registered Republican. And the deal was structured as grant to the town of Orange, so as to not be subject to the State Properties Review Board, which would review the transaction if the state purchased it directly. The optics on this deal alone make it problematic, and given the history of corruption in this state, I'm not going to give Malloy, Barnes or Crowley the benefit of the doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Hartford County, CT
835 posts, read 402,999 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike 75 View Post
Crowley was going to get 10x the state appraised value before the deal got killed. He also gave $20k to the Dems, even though he is a registered Republican. And the deal was structured as grant to the town of Orange, so as to not be subject to the State Properties Review Board, which would review the transaction if the state purchased it directly. The optics on this deal alone make it problematic, and given the history of corruption in this state, I'm not going to give Malloy, Barnes or Crowley the benefit of the doubt.
Optics are bad? Sure they are. Smacking of corruption? Probably. The fact of the matter is if you want a train station in Orange there are very, very few places you can put it without being too close to the West Haven or Milford stops. This makes the individual that owns the land smart. He was going to profit well from having a highly valuable commodity (frontage along the rail line) that the state desired to ease congestion.

It was done this way because of this very reason, everyone would get upset that there was a couple million being spent on a lot for a new railway station.

Now the deal is dead, so that means Orange cannot get a new railway stop and residents will continue to have to use West Haven or Milford stops which means increased traffic on the roadways to these stations as well as congestion in the parking lots.

I've attached an image of the parcel in question. Please point to me where else a stop in Orange can be placed along the railway line. Point being, this is the only empty lot in the town of Orange along the line.

Want a station? Pay the price of the land privately held.
Attached Thumbnails
Democrat Donor in Orange gets 10x appraised value of land-mnrr.png  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
24,964 posts, read 40,607,819 times
Reputation: 7149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ads94 View Post
Optics are bad? Sure they are. Smacking of corruption? Probably. The fact of the matter is if you want a train station in Orange there are very, very few places you can put it without being too close to the West Haven or Milford stops. This makes the individual that owns the land smart. He was going to profit well from having a highly valuable commodity (frontage along the rail line) that the state desired to ease congestion.

It was done this way because of this very reason, everyone would get upset that there was a couple million being spent on a lot for a new railway station.

Now the deal is dead, so that means Orange cannot get a new railway stop and residents will continue to have to use West Haven or Milford stops which means increased traffic on the roadways to these stations as well as congestion in the parking lots.

I've attached an image of the parcel in question. Please point to me where else a stop in Orange can be placed along the railway line. Point being, this is the only empty lot in the town of Orange along the line.

Want a station? Pay the price of the land privately held.
I am not sure that Orange really needs its own train station. When CTDOT was looking at adding a station between New Haven and Milford, they looked at sites in both West Haven and Orange but there was only going to be ONE station in either town. The choice of the new West Haven station was made as the best site. The property was cheaper, conveniently located right off I-95, had the best potential for major transit oriented development and was near densely populated areas. The train line in Orange is very short so there are limited choices for station locations. That area is far removed from dense population areas and is not all that convenient to the rest of the town. I really think the whole idea of a station in Orange should be dropped or at least put on a very low priority for funding. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:38 PM
 
2,752 posts, read 2,527,916 times
Reputation: 1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by ads94 View Post
Optics are bad? Sure they are. Smacking of corruption? Probably. The fact of the matter is if you want a train station in Orange there are very, very few places you can put it without being too close to the West Haven or Milford stops. This makes the individual that owns the land smart. He was going to profit well from having a highly valuable commodity (frontage along the rail line) that the state desired to ease congestion.

It was done this way because of this very reason, everyone would get upset that there was a couple million being spent on a lot for a new railway station.

Now the deal is dead, so that means Orange cannot get a new railway stop and residents will continue to have to use West Haven or Milford stops which means increased traffic on the roadways to these stations as well as congestion in the parking lots.

I've attached an image of the parcel in question. Please point to me where else a stop in Orange can be placed along the railway line. Point being, this is the only empty lot in the town of Orange along the line.

Want a station? Pay the price of the land privately held.
Seems like the old adage that pigs get slaughtered is applicable here. If Crowley asked for 2 or 3x (maybe even up to 5x), there likely isn't an issue, as you correctly point out, this is one of the few spots where you can put a train station in Orange. And that is worth something - but only if and when the state improves the land. He got too greedy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Hartford County, CT
835 posts, read 402,999 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike 75 View Post
Seems like the old adage that pigs get slaughtered is applicable here. If Crowley asked for 2 or 3x (maybe even up to 5x), there likely isn't an issue, as you correctly point out, this is one of the few spots where you can put a train station in Orange. And that is worth something - but only if and when the state improves the land. He got too greedy.
I agree with this statement exactly. I feel he could have gotten 5 times his price easily. He got too greedy and probably did try to leverage his political donations a little bit. I think this is less a case of "corrupt political donor" and more a case of "Malloy wants to be Mr. Transportation."

Regardless, the deal is dead so it's still a non-story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top