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.
CT invest too much into it's Cities. Feel Cities have become dependent on States funds to survive. Look what happen when they capped car taxes. State shouldn't give any money to cities or towns in CT unless for housing projects or a infrastructure project that is County wide. Go County Governments CT.
Connecticut has treated its cities as containment zones for all the social ills of society so that the suburbs could get off scot-free. Back in the late '70s--early '80s our urban centers saw the beginnings of a back-to-the-city revival--South Green in Hartford, Washington Park and the South End in Bridgeport, Fair Haven in New Haven, and Hillside in Waterbury were all hotbeds of young people moving back and restoring historic structures (this was in concert with similar efforts that turned around once-decrepit neighborhoods like Park Slope in Brooklyn and the South End in Boston). But the policies of the State doomed these efforts with a vision that assumed that cities had no viable future other than to provide low-income housing. While Boston and Brooklyn became meccas for investment Hartford, Bridgeport, and Waterbury became national models of urban decline. And Cttransplant85 is correct--the amount of money poured into these cities IS insane. In Bridgeport, hundreds of millions spent demolishing the city's most historic neighborhood for a Bass Pro Shop with a 40-acre surface parking lot, a Chipotle's, and a phone store. Another $140,000,000 for a high school, and now a proposal for a $300,000,000 train station in a no-man's land on the city's East Side. Then there is the public housing that costs in excess of $300,000 per unit to construct. Back in the early years of the 20th century our beautiful old New England cities were the envy of the nation. As today's rising generation chooses urban living in place of the raised ranch on an acre of land in a distant suburb that was their parents' dream, Connecticut has shot itself in the foot.
What state policies??? If anything the state has been very supportive of its cities but they have generally had very weak leadership due to poor voter choices. Bridgeport, Waterbury and Hartford elected corrupt Mayors who abused their powers for personal gain. These choices hurt those cities. Bridgeport just reelected Joe Ganim who was convicted of corruption a number of years back. I think this is hurting the city a bit but it is too soon to tell how much.
Hartford seems to have elected a strong Mayor in Luke Bronin. He is certainly better than Perez and Sagara. Perez virtually destroyed all the progress the city made under Mayor Mike Peters who made great strides in bringing new investment into the city. Adrian's Landing with Front Street, the Convention Center and the Connecticut Science Center were all planned and initiated under his administration. When Perez came in he kicked out the original developer of Front Street and replaced them with his choice. This delayed the project and caused it to be scaled back significantly. He also lost several key companies to the suburbs, most notably WFSB, Metropolitan Life and ING (now Voya). He couldn't be bothered courting big business to stay and grow in the city.
Also note that the state did form the Capitol Region Economic Development Authority which has been VERY influential in bringing business and development to greater Hartford. In addition to the Convention Center, the Connecticut Science Center, Front Street and Rentscheler Field, the authority is responsible for arranging financing for many of the hundreds of apartments that have been built downtown over the last decade or so. The state has spent and is also spending millions in New Haven to remove the old Route 34 expressway so the land could be developed, connecting downtown with the Medical District. They also spent $2 billion on I-95 and tried to make it more attractive. The state has made investments in Stamford as well.
I am not sure why you think replacing a nearly 100 year old high school is a bad investment but I do agree that $300 million for a train station on the East Side is excessive. I know they are trying to make it nicer but I do not think that it should be nicer than the station downtown. At this point though I am not sure the state or Federal government under the current administration will fund it so it may end up getting scaled back. The investment in Steel Point is just beginning to show promise. It is not just Bass Pro Shop. There are a number of other buildings being built there now including a new residential and retail building. It should be pretty nice when finished where before it was a bunch of rundown old houses. JMHO, Jay
What state policies??? If anything the state has been very supportive of its cities but they have generally had very weak leadership due to poor voter choices. Bridgeport, Waterbury and Hartford elected corrupt Mayors who abused their powers for personal gain. These choices hurt those cities. Bridgeport just reelected Joe Ganim who was convicted of corruption a number of years back. I think this is hurting the city a bit but it is too soon to tell how much.
Hartford seems to have elected a strong Mayor in Luke Bronin. He is certainly better than Perez and Sagara. Perez virtually destroyed all the progress the city made under Mayor Mike Peters who made great strides in bringing new investment into the city. Adrian's Landing with Front Street, the Convention Center and the Connecticut Science Center were all planned and initiated under his administration. When Perez came in he kicked out the original developer of Front Street and replaced them with his choice. This delayed the project and caused it to be scaled back significantly. He also lost several key companies to the suburbs, most notably WFSB, Metropolitan Life and ING (now Voya). He couldn't be bothered courting big business to stay and grow in the city.
Also note that the state did form the Capitol Region Economic Development Authority which has been VERY influential in bringing business and development to greater Hartford. In addition to the Convention Center, the Connecticut Science Center, Front Street and Rentscheler Field, the authority is responsible for arranging financing for many of the hundreds of apartments that have been built downtown over the last decade or so. The state has spent and is also spending millions in New Haven to remove the old Route 34 expressway so the land could be developed, connecting downtown with the Medical District. They also spent $2 billion on I-95 and tried to make it more attractive. The state has made investments in Stamford as well.
I am not sure why you think replacing a nearly 100 year old high school is a bad investment but I do agree that $300 million for a train station on the East Side is excessive. I know they are trying to make it nicer but I do not think that it should be nicer than the station downtown. At this point though I am not sure the state or Federal government under the current administration will fund it so it may end up getting scaled back. The investment in Steel Point is just beginning to show promise. It is not just Bass Pro Shop. There are a number of other buildings being built there now including a new residential and retail building. It should be pretty nice when finished where before it was a bunch of rundown old houses. JMHO, Jay
Spot on Jay. The idea that the state needs to simply throw more money at its cities is extremely misinformed and indicates an ignorance of the legacy of corruption and mismanagement in CT's cities. The state is subsidizing 1/3 to 1/2 of most of the large cities' budgets, and the higher the rate of subsidy, the worse the city is doing (I'm looking at you Hartford). And this doesn't include all the development and infrastructure projects which tend to be disproportionately focused in and around the cities.
And even if more money would solve the problem, where is it going to come from? The state is broke.
The white flight of the wealthy and middle class out of the cities to the suburbs greatly hurt most of the larger CT cities. They are now mostly inhabited by poor minority groups. This has unfortunately increased crime and decreased property values making them less attractive to many that might move there. Suburbanites are quite comfortable living in the suburbs and have little concern for the cities.
The CT cities are worse off than comparable out of state cities such as Providence and Worcester as they still have larger numbers of the wealthy and middle class still living within their borders.
The policies I refer to are the containing of virtually ALL of the subsidized low-income housing, the trash-to-energy plants, the regional sewage-treatment facilities, the halfway houses, the recycling businesses, and everything else that the suburbs would not tolerate in a few select municipalities. Case in point: How many units of Section 8 housing are located in the town of Fairfield vs. how many in the city of Bridgeport? I find the belief curious that low student test scores in an urban area are the fault of the building. And that $140,000,000 high school surpassed in cost the next most-expensive high school in the state by a factor of three.
The Steel Point(e) development is a sterling example of the anti-urbanist sentiment that pervades the state. It is an attempt to carve out a section of suburban sprawl in the very center of a city, a waste of prime waterfront for non-water-dependent businesses and a waste of transportation infrastructure on an auto-dependent shopping center.
The "bunch of old rundown houses" that were sacrificed for this abomination comprised one of the greatest concentrations of 18th- and early-19th-century architecture in the southwest part of the state. Shorn of fake siding and cobbled-on additions, they might have been restored as one of the most agreeable waterfront neighborhoods in the nation. Instead what we have is a wannabe chunk of the Boston Post Road in Milford.
I agree with you on the poor leadership of many of our larger municipalities over the last few decades. But enlightened guidance from the State that would actually enhance the quality of life in our cities and make them attractive to non-subsidized development has also been lacking.
My opinion is that financial support is only one aspect. It's akin to welfare, giving the cities funds but not helping them truly grow.
Our government does a very, very poor job on PR. Stamford and Norwalk have long been growing because of NYC, but the state can do more to play up their strengths. Even more so, New Haven has been going through a renaissance and is turning into a very attractive place for young people to live and work, which is still not known to the outside world. It has a massive young talent pool in many colleges nearby. Hartford absolutely has that potential too.
The state has done very little in PR for our cities. To play up their strengths and attract businesses. They are still in a 1990's mentality. Malloy is a terrible communicator, not at all aggressive, loves to pass blame, and this is a shining example of his failure to rally support for our cities.
My opinion is that financial support is only one aspect. It's akin to welfare, giving the cities funds but not helping them truly grow.
Our government does a very, very poor job on PR. Stamford and Norwalk have long been growing because of NYC, but the state can do more to play up their strengths. Even more so, New Haven has been going through a renaissance and is turning into a very attractive place for young people to live and work, which is still not known to the outside world. It has a massive young talent pool in many colleges nearby. Hartford absolutely has that potential too.
The state has done very little in PR for our cities. To play up their strengths and attract businesses. They are still in a 1990's mentality. Malloy is a terrible communicator, not at all aggressive, loves to pass blame, and this is a shining example of his failure to rally support for our cities.
How we make Waterbury, New Britain, Meriden, New London, Norwich, Derby/Ansoina to do better Middletown is doing okay
That is a very difficult task. They don't really offer all the amenities that young people look for in cities, nor do they have the school quality that families want. There's also few compelling reasons for corporations to relocate there.
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.
