[Tiger Beer]

What do most people generally perceive of Connecticut?

Prior to viewing photos on city-data, I always perceived 100% suburban white-picket fence-like. Surprisingly, I am finding it to have a very urban-looking feel to most of the cities.

What do most people seem to perceive of as CT? (Even if you are from CT, what is the general stereotype/feelings on your state?)

[vvolin]

I moved to CT 1.5 years ago. I have found CT to be much more rural than I thought it was. I guess I was thinking "Boston" when my husband got an offer to move to New England. The reality of living in Glastonbury is that there is no urban life nearby, the closest being New Haven probably. Hartford, which I thought would fulfill my "city girl" 's needs, is really not much of a city, although it meets my needs in terms of cultural life.

The fact is, when you have a family with children, having a city an hour away is really not much of a help, as you do not drag your kids long distance unless you have to, or you do not pay for baby sitting that would include hours spent on the road. It just does not work that way. Therefore, for me CT is a small town kind of place and I escape for a weekend at the time in NYC every time I can.

[jjbradleynyc]

Well, before I moved here, I thought of CT as the "perfect symbol of the American dream." Meaning, tremendous wealth, huge homes, quiet countryside, and well-off families. The reality is not as "perfect" as I painted it in my mind prior to moving here. Now that I've been here for almost 3 years, you realize CT's large cities have tremendous poverty and a ton of problems, as do any other cities.
The state's small villages and towns do evoke classic almost-European downtown centers, and I do love that about CT. The countryside and zoning is so strict for most areas, and I do really support that level of thinking in terms of development.
The type of people here really suit my personality. Liberal ideals (the majority anyway), but super nice and community-loving people who keep to themselves.

[brasscitybluenwhite]

Connecticut is very suburban-minded, and there is alot of disgust toward its urban centers. If you get a chance, you should check out www.wtnh.com, which is one of our news station's website. Search "Hartford Shooting". Look at the comments that the people have to say. Now, search www.wnbc.com, and search "Newark Shooting", then look at the comments.

Pay close attention to the nature of the comments. On the New York/New Jersey website, on the news channel that services 20 million people, theres 1 person that doesn't necessarily say offensive things, but just does comment in a sort of conservative fashion. However, on the Connecticut website, you can view first hand the disgust toward the cities. One of the comments on the first Hartford shooting, someone says "must be another cornbread" and another "now he wont ask me for money anymore". (remember, someone somewhere's kid died, and from what I can tell, only on a Connecticut news station would someone have the balls to poke a joke at him. Show me a news station in the country where people write comments like this, I've searched, Norfolk at www.wavy10.com, New York/New Jersey at www.wnbc.com, and www.11alive.com in the Atlanta area.)

So having grown up in a connecticut urban center and currently being in college, I can tell you that there is a large resentment for Connecticut's urban centers. It is as white-picket-fence-like as you have imagined.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite

Connecticut is very suburban-minded, and there is alot of disgust toward its urban centers. If you get a chance, you should check out www.wtnh.com, which is one of our news station's website. Search "Hartford Shooting". Look at the comments that the people have to say. Now, search www.wnbc.com, and search "Newark Shooting", then look at the comments.

Pay close attention to the nature of the comments. On the New York/New Jersey website, on the news channel that services 20 million people, theres 1 person that doesn't necessarily say offensive things, but just does comment in a sort of conservative fashion. However, on the Connecticut website, you can view first hand the disgust toward the cities. One of the comments on the first Hartford shooting, someone says "must be another cornbread" and another "now he wont ask me for money anymore". (remember, someone somewhere's kid died, and from what I can tell, only on a Connecticut news station would someone have the balls to poke a joke at him. Show me a news station in the country where people write comments like this, I've searched, Norfolk at www.wavy10.com, New York/New Jersey at www.wnbc.com, and www.11alive.com in the Atlanta area.)

So having grown up in a connecticut urban center and currently being in college, I can tell you that there is a large resentment for Connecticut's urban centers. It is as white-picket-fence-like as you have imagined.

I am not sure you can generalize people's attitudes toward Connecticut's cities by comments posted on a news websites, or even compare those comments to those found on other city's websites. It is too broad and general. Connecticut is a very suburban type state but that does not mean that we "resent" our cities.

The thing about Connecticut is that the state is made up of 169 independent towns and each one has its own LONG history. People tend to identify themselves with that town rather than a nearby major city. Why should people who live in Wethersfield, which has been around for over 350 years, identify themselves with neighboring Hartford. They live in Wethersfield, not Hartford. This is true across the entire state. When asked where you come from, you are more apt to say the exact town rather than the metropolitan area.

In other parts of the country, this independence does not exist because most of the areas surrounding major cities were either annexed years ago, were unincorporated areas (meaning they were not an organized town) or were undeveloped. When people there are asked where they live, they will identify the nearest major city because there is little or nothing else to identify their community with. I have friends who live in Alpharetta, Georgia and they identify with Atlanta, not Alpharetta, because there is not much there to identify with. It is just a large suburb of Atlanta. In comparision, Wethersfield has Old Wethersfield which has hundreds of old homes dating back over 100 years. Jay

[goldenband]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I am not sure you can generalize people's attitudes toward Connecticut's cities by comments posted on a news websites, or even compare those comments to those found on other city's websites. It is too broad and general. Connecticut is a very suburban type state but that does not mean that we "resent" our cities.

I agree that we should be cautious about sweeping generalizations, but there's definitely an undercurrent in CT that's more present than in some other areas. Racial divisions are pretty strong in CT, and tend to correlate strongly with socioeconomic divisions. There's not really anyplace I can think of that's embraced the "melting pot" ideal in practice, at least not the way I've seen in some other parts of the country.

I mean, to be blunt about it, I think that a lot of the negative comments directed at urban areas in CT are motivated by racial tensions and antipathies, especially (though not exclusively) anti-Latino sentiment. It's pretty much impossible to talk about the decline of CT's cities and not talk about how race played a part in that. For instance, I've known multiple people who lived in CT 40+ years ago and who, though otherwise very liberal and anti-racist in their politics, have no qualms about attributing the decline of (say) Bridgeport to the influx of Puerto Rican migrants in the middle of the century.

Whether you blame the migrants for that, or you blame the white Europeans who "white flight-ed" their way out of there, is at least partly a question of one's own politics. But it's also a pointless discussion, since that train left a long time ago: the question is, what do we do now to make things better, and to make it so that more people can live side by side, rather than in their own separate enclaves?

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by goldenband

I agree that we should be cautious about sweeping generalizations, but there's definitely an undercurrent in CT that's more present than in some other areas. Racial divisions are pretty strong in CT, and tend to correlate strongly with socioeconomic divisions. There's not really anyplace I can think of that's embraced the "melting pot" ideal in practice, at least not the way I've seen in some other parts of the country.

I mean, to be blunt about it, I think that a lot of the negative comments directed at urban areas in CT are motivated by racial tensions and antipathies, especially (though not exclusively) anti-Latino sentiment. It's pretty much impossible to talk about the decline of CT's cities and not talk about how race played a part in that. For instance, I've known multiple people who lived in CT 40+ years ago and who, though otherwise very liberal and anti-racist in their politics, have no qualms about attributing the decline of (say) Bridgeport to the influx of Puerto Rican migrants in the middle of the century.

Whether you blame the migrants for that, or you blame the white Europeans who "white flight-ed" their way out of there, is at least partly a question of one's own politics. But it's also a pointless discussion, since that train left a long time ago: the question is, what do we do now to make things better, and to make it so that more people can live side by side, rather than in their own separate enclaves?

Agree completely. In CT, the racial boundaries = the gap between rich and poor. Sad, but true.

[goldenband]

Definitely, and furthermore, I think a lot of people in CT don't realize that it isn't always that way everywhere. There are places in our country where (for example) middle- or working-class white, black, and/or Latino people live side-by-side. They're somewhat exceptional, but they exist nonetheless.

Of course, this goes back to the million-dollar question (really more of a billion- or trillion-dollar question): what is to be done about the disproportionate population of poor people, especially minorities, in CT cities?

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by goldenband

Definitely, and furthermore, I think a lot of people in CT don't realize that it isn't always that way everywhere. There are places in our country where (for example) middle- or working-class white, black, and/or Latino people live side-by-side. They're somewhat exceptional, but they exist nonetheless.

Of course, this goes back to the million-dollar question (really more of a billion- or trillion-dollar question): what is to be done about the disproportionate population of poor people, especially minorities, in CT cities?

Depends on who you ask.

Do we spend time and resources on making Hartford's (Bridgeport, Waterbury, etc) schools and neighborhoods better, even if most of the parents in those communities couldn't care less about education? Or do we spend more time and resources on the outstanding districts, helping those who desire to succeed, do so in a greater way?

I hate to say it, but much of the reason for the uneducated populace in many of CT's cities (leads to crime, obesity and other health problems, among other things) are a direct result of the failing schools. Bad schools are largely the result of parents who have no interest in their child's abilities or the performance of the school [district] as a whole.

[goldenband]

In my previous post, I was going to jokingly post something to the effect that the liberal strawman would say "More spending!", the fiscal conservative strawman would say "Cut off all help and let 'em work, starve, or leave", and the religious-right strawman would say "God is the only answer".

But I think the bottom line is that there is no simple solution, especially on a policy level. It ultimately depends on people, of every race and economic class, to do good work. One or two truly amazing teachers can be all it takes to turn a school district around; one or two good cops can be all it takes to make a neighborhood ten times safer; one or two good businesses can be all it takes to revive a depressed area.

And a lot of things in life depend on belief: not faith in a religious sense, but rather the willingness to believe in a place, in an environment, in the integrity of one's own efforts and personal relationships. So the energy we spend here could, perhaps, be better spent tutoring a kid from (say) Frog Hollow, helping to give that kid insights that will someday make him/her part of the "critical mass" of belief.

The flip side, though, is that some problems are unfixable. Some people -- kids and adults -- are permanently damaged, and will never be able to participate on the level necessary for a working society. What do we do about them? Where should they live and work?