Is Connecticut’s Racial Imbalance Law Bad? (Fairfield: rent, find a job)
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.
I think most voters voted for the lesser of two evils. Stefanowski was a no-go long before the last election. Jay
830g seems to be your biggest hang up. The only person probably more opposed and outspoken against 830 was Stefanowski. You guys had a chance and blew it. Lamont is too busy with LGBTQ+xz= Pride and banning combustion engines to care about 830g and town charm and character.
A 13%point win says most of CT is onboard with 830g. That's the equivalent of the Patriots beating the Jets 48-7 or the Mets beating the Marlins 12-2 or the Whalers beating the Nordiques 6-1
830g seems to be your biggest hang up. The only person probably more opposed and outspoken against 830 was Stefanowski. You guys had a chance and blew it. Lamont is too busy with LGBTQ+xz= Pride and banning combustion engines to care about 830g and town charm and character.
A 13%point win says most of CT is onboard with 830g. That's the equivalent of the Patriots beating the Jets 48-7 or the Mets beating the Marlins 12-2 or the Whalers beating the Nordiques 6-1
Sorry but as I said, I voted for the lesser of the two evils. Stefanowski out and out lied to voters the first time he ran by saying he would eliminate the state income tax. He was pandering to the conservative vote by telling them what they wanted to hear rather than the truth which is that we can’t eliminate the state income tax without massive cuts to the state budget. I won’t vote for a politician that does that. It shows poor leadership IMHO. He toned it down the second time around but the damage was done and my trust broken.
Except for differences on the affordable housing and police accountability issues I agree with Lanont on most issues (abortion, gun control, spending, etc.). He’s done a good job instituting fiscal restraint and paying down our obligations and now cutting taxes. I guess that trumps his stance on affordable housing and police accountability in my mind. I’ll still speak our on those issues. I’ve even sent Lamont an email on it. Hopefully he will listen. Jay
So, the racial imbalance then, plus 8-30g, are they, in your view, lesser issues? Interesting, as they are dominating this board in posts.
In reality, Jay, in the 21st century, we are a one party state. The gap in campaign platforms from the GOP the last several times has been fairly wide, but the results have been the same.
That means Fairfield plus 168 other communities will be dealing with 8-30g plus racial imbalance regs for decades to come.
Certainly less than lying to voters to gain votes.
As you know we have a very lengthy thread on the failures of the Connecticut Republican Party. I’m sorry but I just can’t vote for a politician that panders to voters and the Republicans certainly have done that in spades.
I know that you’ll contend “all politicians lie to get votes” and that may be true but the Republicans have done it far more than the Democrats from what I see. Jay
Sorry but as I said, I voted for the lesser of the two evils.
Racial Imbalance laws, and 8-30g rules are part of that vote, Jay. You are getting what you asked for, in that, like every voter, every position of whoever they vote for is part of what they voted for, as to use the analogy, the baby cannot be split.
I do like that both have been enacted and would only be ok if they were to be replaced, not eliminated. I do NOT trust most towns on these issues, as our history has hardly been uplifting on such issues. If towns can show they meet the metrics each legislation mandates, this should not be a concern to them. If they can't, IMHO, it must be a concern to them, and they should not be left to decide on their own long term, how to get from Point A to Point B, as they failed to earn that right.
Be it Fairfield, Milford, or 167 other communities, no one should be above the rules.
Last edited by BobNJ1960; 08-10-2023 at 07:00 PM..
Of course McKinley performs lower than Fairfield’s most stellar schools but by how much would you say is reasonable? 20%? 10%? 5%? That would be arbitrary at best and up for heated debate.
I asked if it underperforms Fairfield on average, which is a fair metric. I did not ask if it was below the towns best.
Racial Imbalance laws, and 8-30g rules are part of that vote, Jay. You are getting what you asked for, in that, like every voter, every position of whoever they vote for is part of what they voted for, as to use the analogy, the baby cannot be split.
I do like that both have been enacted and would only be ok if they were to be replaced, not eliminated. I do NOT trust most towns on these issues, as our history has hardly been uplifting on such issues. If towns can show they meet the metrics each legislation mandates, this should not be a concern to them. If they can't, IMHO, it must be a concern to them, and they should not be left to decide on their own long term, how to get from Point A to Point B, as they failed to earn that right.
Be it Fairfield, Milford, or 167 other communities, no one should be above the rules.
Once again I will point out that 8-30g had 10% as a goal which is something for towns to aspire to, not definitely must have. The law also has no date to attain that 10% goal so NO ONE can say that they aren’t in compliance.
Also note that 8-30g does not count ANY privately owned affordable housing units unless they have a defined Affordable Housing Plan. That precludes thousands of affordable units in privately owned multi family homes. Fairfield, which seems to be the epicenter of 8-30g projects, has hundreds of affordable units owned by live-in landlords that don’t count toward its 10% goal. How is that fair? Why aren’t they counted? That’s why 8-30g is a bad law. It makes no sense. Jay
Once again I will point out that 8-30g had 10% as a goal which is something for towns to aspire to, not definitely must have. The law also has no date to attain that 10% goal so NO ONE can say that they aren’t in compliance.
Also note that 8-30g does not count ANY privately owned affordable housing units unless they have a defined Affordable Housing Plan. That precludes thousands of affordable units in privately owned multi family homes. Fairfield, which seems to be the epicenter of 8-30g projects, has hundreds of affordable units owned by live-in landlords that don’t count toward its 10% goal. How is that fair? Why aren’t they counted? That’s why 8-30g is a bad law. It makes no sense. Jay
They should not be counted, unless they are barred, permanently, from no longer offering the units as affordable housing up the road.
Now, if there exists a mechanism to require a permanent offer of affordable housing in private homes, and they are legally bound to do so, I would want such units counted.
I asked if it underperforms Fairfield on average, which is a fair metric. I did not ask if it was below the towns best.
How is that a fair metric. Fairfield schools perform very high on standardized tests so the average is very high. As you know the average is a total of all schools divided by the number of schools. That means that about half the schools will perform above the average and half below it. Because McKinley has a high percentage of students from homes where English is a second language, it would perform below that average.
A MUCH better measure would be the State Average which is an average of all students in the state. McKinley performs above that so the state should back off. It serves no real purpose other than to suit yet another arbitrary State mandate. Jay
How is that a fair metric. Fairfield schools perform very high on standardized tests so the average is very high. As you know the average is a total of all schools divided by the number of schools. That means that about half the schools will perform above the average and half below it. Because McKinley has a high percentage of students from homes where English is a second language, it would perform below that average.
A MUCH better measure would be the State Average which is an average of all students in the state. McKinley performs above that so the state should back off. It serves no real purpose other than to suit yet another arbitrary State mandate. Jay
I disagree, no school in any town, should be far below the TOWN average. A 25% variation is quite lenient.
I would bet few towns have disparities as high as this Fairfield school.
The state average for an above average income suburb is far too low a bar, and its disingenuous to expect such a low standard.
They should not be counted, unless they are barred, permanently, from no longer offering the units as affordable housing up the road.
Now, if there exists a mechanism to require a permanent offer of affordable housing in private homes, and they are legally bound to do so, I would want such units counted.
That’s ridiculous. Why alienate homeowners? An apartment owner isn’t going to get $4,000 a month for an $1,800 a month apartment. Just another reason the state should keep its nose out of local affairs. Jay
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.
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.
