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 02-07-2019, 08:29 AM
 
334 posts, read 110,702 times
Reputation: 303

Advertisements

They should name it "Ganim's Law"
Cause the people in Bridgeport had to have forgotten all the laws he broke to get reelected!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2019, 12:50 PM
 
Location: On the Stones of Years
314 posts, read 89,163 times
Reputation: 330
Here's an interesting Bill. This practice is not uncommon in CT schools. Presently the fees charged supplement the budgets without raising taxes. It may offer teams and school organizations a way to purchase items and equipment to replace the old and outdated. Participation in sports and activities is voluntary. What this Bill might ensure is that if the sport or activity can't be covered by the budget, you can't have it.





Proposed Bill No. 732

ntroduced by:
SEN. FLEXER, 29th Dist.
AN ACT PROHIBITING PAY-TO-PLAY AND OTHER STUDENT
ACTIVITY FEES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
1 That title 10 of the general statutes be amended to prohibit a local or
2 regional board of education from imposing a fee on a student for the
3 participation in any student activity or any intramural or
4 interscholastic athletic activity.
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit pay-to-play and student activity fees from being charged
to students in public schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 02:15 PM
 
Location: On the Stones of Years
314 posts, read 89,163 times
Reputation: 330
While Democrats do not want to have parents pay extra for school activities, they would not have a problem having a special lane to go green and charging extra for a single driver.


Proposed Bill No. 99

AN ACT CONCERNING THE FEASIBILITY OF CREATING A LANE ON
INTERSTATE 95 FOR CERTAIN MOTORISTS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
1 That the Commissioner of Transportation study the feasibility of
2 creating a lane on Interstate 95 that only allows access to motorists
3 who travel with three or more passengers, motorists who pay a
4 premium to access the lane or motorists who drive all-electric vehicles.
Statement of Purpose:
To study the feasibility of creating a lane on Interstate 95 for certain
motorists to generate revenue, alleviate traffic congestion and promote
the use of clean energy vehicles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 03:45 PM
 
67 posts, read 21,645 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAE72 View Post
While Democrats do not want to have parents pay extra for school activities, they would not have a problem having a special lane to go green and charging extra for a single driver.
.
Connecticut is a bit late to the party on this one. There are already other states already have laws like this on the books, some run by Republicans!

https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/HOV

The link does not capture every piece of the new legislation above, but it does talk about the clean energy piece and charging for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 09:19 PM
 
1,201 posts, read 1,311,029 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAE72 View Post
Here's an interesting Bill. This practice is not uncommon in CT schools. Presently the fees charged supplement the budgets without raising taxes. It may offer teams and school organizations a way to purchase items and equipment to replace the old and outdated. Participation in sports and activities is voluntary. What this Bill might ensure is that if the sport or activity can't be covered by the budget, you can't have it.





Proposed Bill No. 732

ntroduced by:
SEN. FLEXER, 29th Dist.
AN ACT PROHIBITING PAY-TO-PLAY AND OTHER STUDENT
ACTIVITY FEES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
1 That title 10 of the general statutes be amended to prohibit a local or
2 regional board of education from imposing a fee on a student for the
3 participation in any student activity or any intramural or
4 interscholastic athletic activity.
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit pay-to-play and student activity fees from being charged
to students in public schools.
Do you really know how the play to play situation actually works for extra curricular activities?

Last edited by JayCT; 02-07-2019 at 11:48 PM.. Reason: Removed flame
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
25,290 posts, read 41,051,089 times
Reputation: 7376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAE72 View Post
While Democrats do not want to have parents pay extra for school activities, they would not have a problem having a special lane to go green and charging extra for a single driver.


Proposed Bill No. 99

AN ACT CONCERNING THE FEASIBILITY OF CREATING A LANE ON
INTERSTATE 95 FOR CERTAIN MOTORISTS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
1 That the Commissioner of Transportation study the feasibility of
2 creating a lane on Interstate 95 that only allows access to motorists
3 who travel with three or more passengers, motorists who pay a
4 premium to access the lane or motorists who drive all-electric vehicles.
Statement of Purpose:
To study the feasibility of creating a lane on Interstate 95 for certain
motorists to generate revenue, alleviate traffic congestion and promote
the use of clean energy vehicles.
What is wrong with this? It is to add High Occupancy Toll lanes on I-95. These are common in congested metro areas. Virginia and Georgia have them and those are Republican states. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
25,290 posts, read 41,051,089 times
Reputation: 7376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAE72 View Post
Here's an interesting Bill. This practice is not uncommon in CT schools. Presently the fees charged supplement the budgets without raising taxes. It may offer teams and school organizations a way to purchase items and equipment to replace the old and outdated. Participation in sports and activities is voluntary. What this Bill might ensure is that if the sport or activity can't be covered by the budget, you can't have it.





Proposed Bill No. 732

ntroduced by:
SEN. FLEXER, 29th Dist.
AN ACT PROHIBITING PAY-TO-PLAY AND OTHER STUDENT
ACTIVITY FEES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
1 That title 10 of the general statutes be amended to prohibit a local or
2 regional board of education from imposing a fee on a student for the
3 participation in any student activity or any intramural or
4 interscholastic athletic activity.
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit pay-to-play and student activity fees from being charged
to students in public schools.
Another what is wrong with this? The problem with charging kids to play school sports is it excludes kids who come from poorer families. Not every family can afford to pay what could be a couple hundred dollars to be in school sports. This stops that practice and opens sports up to everyone. Again, what is wrong with that? Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2019, 04:37 AM
 
Location: SW Corner of CT
1,874 posts, read 1,395,949 times
Reputation: 2320
A simple item such as requiring a yearly motor vehicle inspection, as they do in NY, would put some cash in the coffer. I've seen too many unsafe vehicles on the road with no Brake Lights, Headlights and worn tires. $20 per vehicle would generate some nice change....not to mention the money the shops would make on repairs (and pay taxes) and may create a few jobs (more taxes).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2019, 04:42 AM
 
Location: SW Corner of CT
1,874 posts, read 1,395,949 times
Reputation: 2320
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAE72 View Post
Here's an interesting Bill. This practice is not uncommon in CT schools. Presently the fees charged supplement the budgets without raising taxes. It may offer teams and school organizations a way to purchase items and equipment to replace the old and outdated. Participation in sports and activities is voluntary. What this Bill might ensure is that if the sport or activity can't be covered by the budget, you can't have it.





Proposed Bill No. 732

ntroduced by:
SEN. FLEXER, 29th Dist.
AN ACT PROHIBITING PAY-TO-PLAY AND OTHER STUDENT
ACTIVITY FEES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
1 That title 10 of the general statutes be amended to prohibit a local or
2 regional board of education from imposing a fee on a student for the
3 participation in any student activity or any intramural or
4 interscholastic athletic activity.
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit pay-to-play and student activity fees from being charged
to students in public schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
Another what is wrong with this? The problem with charging kids to play school sports is it excludes kids who come from poorer families. Not every family can afford to pay what could be a couple hundred dollars to be in school sports. This stops that practice and opens sports up to everyone. Again, what is wrong with that? Jay
I agree 100%, Jay. There could be a few who would depend on getting sports scholarships for College if just given the chance
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2019, 05:29 AM
 
2,770 posts, read 8,957,122 times
Reputation: 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
Another what is wrong with this? The problem with charging kids to play school sports is it excludes kids who come from poorer families. Not every family can afford to pay what could be a couple hundred dollars to be in school sports. This stops that practice and opens sports up to everyone. Again, what is wrong with that? Jay
I think what is wrong with this is it won't make any kids pay. Some sports have to be subsidized by the parents to be able to make it work financially. Sports like soccer and volleyball are very low cost and typically charge nothing. Other sports like Crew (where a single boat costs over $20,000) simply cannot be paid for by a school district on its own.

All the schools I've known charge for sports like that and football to be able to offer it. All the schools I know also have a parent booster aspect that will pick up fees for kids who have hardships already. So everyone can participate with or without the money.
If you get NO money from any parents for sports like that the school will simply get rid of the entire sport. Why punish some kids from losing the sport they love?

IPerhaps there are some districts where boosters clubs won't cover the costs, but I haven't encountered any.

Also, last I checked schools were there to provide education to all children...which they do. I don't think extracurriculars and sports really need to be included in that.

If a kid gets into a college they really want to go to, but the family can't afford it, but make too much money to qualify for enough financial aid...those kids can't go. We sacrifice things we want all the time if we can't afford them, unfortunately it's part of life.

But again, I'm pretty sure most sports WILL already help out the few that can't pay.

Last edited by KH02; 02-08-2019 at 05:52 AM..
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.

2005-2019, 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