[Stepfordct]

They should name it "Ganim's Law"
Cause the people in Bridgeport had to have forgotten all the laws he broke to get reelected!

[SAE72]

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 It may offer teams and school organizations a way to purchase items and equipment to replace the old and outdated.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.

[SAE72]

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.

[NUHuskies01]

Originally Posted by SAE72

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.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by SAE72

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?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by SAE72

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

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by SAE72

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

[beer belly]

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).

[beer belly]

Originally Posted by SAE72

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.

Originally Posted by JayCT

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

[KH02]

Originally Posted by JayCT

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.