[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

Up to $101million in the red. A Delta of ($40m) from last month. Now the State is blaming seniors for being conservative on their investments and blaming multimillionaires/billionaires for using legal means to sheltor money in order to reduce income tax payments. Deficit Projected at $101 Million As Wall Street Money Slows - Hartford Courant

Also, I want to point out that Greenwich Residents pays $738M to that the state and receive $4.9M back for their community. So, if you think sheltering income is right or wrong, you can't blame them when they pay so much and receive such little support back (in the form of grants) from CT. I'd try and keep a bit more for myself.

Malloy has some fantasy numbers in this budget it looks like. By all accounts, income growth and tax revenue seems to be declining. Not a good thing with a looming $1.6B deficit on the horizon. Hold on to your wallets people. This could be a bumpy ride.

I believe the residents of Greenwich get more that $4.9 million back from the money they send to Hartford. What about the money spent to maintain roads in Greenwich or the roads Greenwich residents use in other towns. Also how about the money that goes to the court system that all residents use to prosecute criminals or settle lawsuits. Or for the state social services that are given to Greenwich residents (and yes Greenwich residents do have needs for state social services). Still I agree that they do give out more than they get, but that could be said about many affluent communities and not just hose here in Connecticut. Jay

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I believe the residents of Greenwich get more that $4.9 million back from the money they send to Hartford. What about the money spent to maintain roads in Greenwich or the roads Greenwich residents use in other towns. Also how about the money that goes to the court system that all residents use to prosecute criminals or settle lawsuits. Or for the state social services that are given to Greenwich residents (and yes Greenwich residents do have needs for state social services). Still I agree that they do give out more than they get, but that could be said about many affluent communities and not just hose here in Connecticut. Jay

I think he was referring to the direct aid from the state to Greenwich. But $4.9 million does seem a bit low in any case. But the issue is how the state directly subsidizes towns and cities as opposed to the state funding services that are the province of the state like the court system or maintenance of state roads. Its problematic that cities and towns are so reliant on state funding to balance their budgets.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

I think he was referring to the direct aid from the state to Greenwich. But $4.9 million does seem a bit low in any case. But the issue is how the state directly subsidizes towns and cities as opposed to the state funding services that are the province of the state like the court system or maintenance of state roads. Its problematic that cities and towns are so reliant on state funding to balance their budgets.

Yes. Direct aid from the state. My fault, I forgot the link before.

GOP critic: Gov. redistributing income from rich towns to cities - Connecticut Post

It's interesting to see the redistribution of wealth.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

Yes. Direct aid from the state. My fault, I forgot the link before.

GOP critic: Gov. redistributing income from rich towns to cities - Connecticut Post

It's interesting to see the redistribution of wealth.

If Avon had more state owned exempt property I'd agree. A lot of the extra money from the state to the big 7 is PILOT transfers, which were sorely under paid under Rell despite the state already paying cents on the dollar if those properties were on the grand rolls. Add huge hospitals, universities, prisons, etc the cities lose a lot of taxable acres that are needed for the state to function. I think Boucher is a blow hard that isn't really concerned with the details.

[Mike 75]

It's not surprising. This is why I'm against the Hartford baseball stadium. The city has no money, is being propped up by the rest of the state and its going to spend money it doesn't have. Oh, and they're luring a team from another city in state.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

Yes. Direct aid from the state. My fault, I forgot the link before.

GOP critic: Gov. redistributing income from rich towns to cities - Connecticut Post

It's interesting to see the redistribution of wealth.

Boucher says:

So many of our towns are shrinking. I have a town of Redding that is shrinking so badly they're having a hard time fielding sports teams in their schools.

Is Redding really losing population?

[whome224]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

Boucher says:


Is Redding really losing population?

I'm not surprised. The trends are changing - most people don't want to live in Weston, Redding, Easton etc anymore, and prefer the more convenient towns, and more in town locations (there's a reason why Greens Farms homes are selling at a premium compared to the Red Coat or Coleytown areas, for instance). I'm sure this trend will reverse in the next 20 or so years, but that's what buyers want these days.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by whome224

I'm not surprised. The trends are changing - most people don't want to live in Weston, Redding, Easton etc anymore, and prefer the more convenient towns, and more in town locations (there's a reason why Greens Farms homes are selling at a premium compared to the Red Coat or Coleytown areas, for instance). I'm sure this trend will reverse in the next 20 or so years, but that's what buyers want these days.

So real estate prices in these areas are declining?

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by whome224

I'm not surprised. The trends are changing - most people don't want to live in Weston, Redding, Easton etc anymore, and prefer the more convenient towns, and more in town locations (there's a reason why Greens Farms homes are selling at a premium compared to the Red Coat or Coleytown areas, for instance). I'm sure this trend will reverse in the next 20 or so years, but that's what buyers want these days.

I agree but Coleytown is a bit much. You can be on the Post rd or Main St in 5 minutes.
And 20 years ago it was the opposite trend, everybody i knew under the sun wanted the big house in the forests.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

Boucher says:


Is Redding really losing population?

Perhaps grammar school enrollments are declining--- but Redding and Wilton are among the fastest growing towns in CT.

Formally from the 2000 & 2010 Census, Redding gained nearly 10% in population from 8,270 to 9,144. I know CERC is showing a decline from 2010 until the ACS 2013 survey, but here is a reputable source that states otherwise:

Census: Populations growing in all Fairfield County towns - Trending (Redding grew 1.5% from 2010 through 2013).

Wilton gained 3.2% over the same period (despite losing headcount in K-3).