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.
That is definitely true. The lack of media coverage of Lamont’s signing of the Zoning Bill has assured no one knows of it existence. The same can be said of the crime erasure Bill. The police accountability bill got some push back from the police union but that died quickly. I’ve casually asked a few well informed people I know if they heard about any of these. They were clueless. Not surprising. Jay
Have been dealing with P&Z dept in a big city in CT. Nice guys....so I mentioned the new ruling and they were at a loss for words. Some joked about time to retire. Not sure they were joking....
Have been dealing with P&Z dept in a big city in CT. Nice guys....so I mentioned the new ruling and they were at a loss for words. Some joked about time to retire. Not sure they were joking....
Every town in our state now faces the question of how to handle this new law. Zoning officials will have to decide if they are going to attempt to override it by going to their governing board and try to get 2/3 of it to agree to implement new regulations requiring zoning review of accessory apartments. I don’t think that’s going to happen in cities but will be difficult in many suburbs across our state. It’s an unnecessary process/burden the state is putting on towns. Jay
Completely agreed. She’s a nut job, but she is calling all of them out (in both parties, too). That said, if she ever advances in the political world, we’re all in for some major trouble.
Please return to the topic of the OP which is Connecticut’s Democratic Party. JayCT, Moderator
I get it, but do you not think there is political overlap in the tri-state, most evident by covid approach (for good and bad (nursing homes, Cuomo), with Lamont essentially stating his plans with Cuomo & Murphy before each action was taken? It does appear to be, Ct & NYC lurch left and right, quite often, in tandem (likely inadvertent). Thoughts?
Please return to the topic of the OP which is Connecticut’s Democratic Party. JayCT, Moderator
I didn't see your post either before I responded to Steve on the previous page so it's up to you if you want to edit it, delete it, etc. Just thought I'd mention that before I get another warning
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
I get it, but do you not think there is political overlap in the tri-state, most evident by covid approach (for good and bad (nursing homes, Cuomo), with Lamont essentially stating his plans with Cuomo & Murphy before each action was taken? It does appear to be, Ct & NYC lurch left and right, quite often, in tandem (likely inadvertent). Thoughts?
Agree with that observation. Not to get off topic again, but since it relates to this point, if Astorino gets the nomination, I think with all of Cuomo's recent baggage he'd have a chance (despite losing miserably to him in a past gubernatorial election) but if Zeldin faces him (who the party seems to want perhaps because Astorino lost to Cuomo badly in the past), will be a lot harder in spite of any past Cuomo accusations because he is associated greatly with "the election is rigged" and some of the Greene and Boebert stuff.......
That is definitely true. The lack of media coverage of Lamont’s signing of the Zoning Bill has assured no one knows of it existence. The same can be said of the crime erasure Bill.
That will double the backlash it eventually faces, as their towns enact rules they dislike just to obey the bill. Their pols will throw Lamont and company under the bus.
Yes, crazy, but she will be a senator next then run for President and win both on ice skates whether we like it or not.
Lamont and others will roller skate their way to re-election in CT. You guys know it and desperation is setting in. 1955 America is slipping away.
There's no one more far right than me on Covid and the Climate. The Green Deal folks have a target on my back.
The far right though has it's share of loony radicals too though. The one about being gay is a choice is a real head scratcher. For me that would be physically impossible.
1955? Holy crap no thank you. That’s before my parents were born lol. I want to live in current day with reasonable solutions to issues like climate change. It means addressing it here and abroad. I am in my 30s with kids. The future of planet matters to me since I will be living on it for the foreseeable future. I’m more conservative on issues like crime. I’m tired of activists pushing for second and third chances for felons who just cant respect social norms and rules.
Aoc may become a senator if she can grow up a little and stop being so hyperbolic about everything. She’s smart, articulate, warm, engaging and attractive. I’m also fully aware that the right has an edge on senate seats by having low population states with senators. I’m guessing that doesn’t bother you.
I get it, but do you not think there is political overlap in the tri-state, most evident by covid approach (for good and bad (nursing homes, Cuomo), with Lamont essentially stating his plans with Cuomo & Murphy before each action was taken? It does appear to be, Ct & NYC lurch left and right, quite often, in tandem (likely inadvertent). Thoughts?
The overlap is very limited so we can’t go off on long discussions of politics in another state unless it is tied back to our state. JayCT, Moderator
There's differences between socially liberal and fiscal liberal. On a state and local level you usually have controls to limit taxation. This is why I'd argue to have something like prop 2 1/2 or 13 in CT. Once you limit by law tax increases they have to cut spending. Same with procurement laws. Once you set standards it means compliance and penalties for violations.
Having said this I don't think that CT is to the far left. The governor clearly isn't a progressive. The issue now is pretty much those on the far left and far right scream so loud that there's no moderate telling them off. Loss aversion by both galvanizes people to the point where it attracts them.
There are topics that used to be considered liberal but frankly aren't going "back". Same sex marriage is the law the land. No one in their right mind on the right would run on a position to get rid of it. If you are really conservative you wouldn't want the government interfering with a social contract between two adults (that's what a marriage legally is). Health care access can be debated and frankly health care by itself doesn't mean health. Diet, exercise and environment play into it. How many rich people in CT smoke? CT has some of the lowest rates of smoking in the country. Yes we can debate that taxes are a factor here but I really don't see that many smoking (at least opening) in CT. Raising tobacco taxes wouldn't have any ramifications on me at all. https://www.cdc.gov/statesystem/cigaretteuseadult.html
Some issues are more environmental. If we have a plastic bag ban or a charge that's fine because I bring my own. Some might say that's a regressive tax. I don't want to see plastic bags hanging on trees or in streams etc. CTDOT just came to the front of my driveway and cleaned out debris due to this massive rainfall we've been having. I don't think that's progressive, that's just maintenance.
One of the biggest issues I see with the left (including CT) is that there is this short term focus on immediate needs based on the slightest bit of discomfort. Basic needs like food (food stamps), water (It's relatively cheap and clean), shelter (section 8 or public housing), a tad of cash assistance (clothing mostly). You add in some public transit and telecommunications (lifeline phone (not "obamaphone, Reagan started it) and that should be it.
A job is the best social program there is and if you look at international development we often see countries that do NOT want more aid. If everything is provided there's no incentive to work and no real baseline for an economy. If you give out free food then the fruit vendors might not have demand to sell. William Easterly wrote years ago about malaria nets. In areas where they were just given out they were tossed like rags. But once you charge a slight bit they stopped. My girlfriend is a teacher in CT and the chromebooks given to students for free are trashed. At no point is a deposit required. You see this sometimes in public services. If a public service has a fee it kicks out those that are cheap and it creates a revenue stream to maintain it. I don't think this is being liberal it's simply stating the facts. If everything is free and for everyone eventually you run out of funding and it turns to utter #%^#.
With respect to crime I can understand second chances, maybe thirds with minor crime say if they are in their early 20's. But what do you do with a 49 year old on their 4th heroin distribution charge? I've got a bad apple in my family thankfully in the midwest. He is probably 35. He has at least 49 felonies. He's and addict and has tried rehab a number of times. Two years extra for high school. The thing is cleaned up so that he isn't violent so then 3 strikes doesn't apply. Prison full? They take him out to put in someone that violent. The thing is he steals...alot and has for decades. Cash? Yeah right that's simple. Checks, credit cards, social security numbers. He's even forged currency. He was offered prison work and complained. He got out and was almost offered a retail job until the searched the record. He was offered one last chance for a landscaping job but didn't show up.
Some places check backgrounds in different ways. I know someone that was caught dealing. Literally 20 years ago I thought he'd get 25 years. Two drugs and a DUI. Cops screwed up in the search and all he got was a suspended license. Totally cleaned himself up. Company got bought out by another (family owned to overseas). Well it didn't matter if he was making 60K or so in your 20's without a degree he was let go. He tried to find work but didn't get anything for quite some time. He didn't seal his record. My brother on the other hand had a DUI. He paid the price for higher insurance, some addiction services (he's fine now) etc. Company bought out by another (sound familiar?) Initially they said they'd let him go. Well he managed to get a much better job at another area. Ironically he's at a place where for awhile they didn't even hire anyone if they were arrested for anything. Forget about if charges were actually dropped let alone conviction.
Eventually we get into arguments on crime but it boils down to a few things. Is this for punishment, detention or rehabilitation? I would argue that above all else we don't need violent people out on the streets. If they have a family and want to make free phone calls and prison visits that's fine. If we don't have a deterrence for violent crime then it's the end. But if someone has a rap sheet and they aren't violent then what? It's not like we have dumb grunt manufacturing anymore and there's only so many jobs in landscaping.
I'd argue we should bring back the mental health funding and facilities we had closed since the 1960's onward. If we can get people off of drugs and in an environment out of access but with support it can help. But prison time and rehabilitation time is not really productive. Criminality has a cost and can compound.
Tying this into CT policy the idea that the government should provide things simply because someone can't afford it and it risks criminality to get the funds for it is akin to a bribe. One could argue this has been the way for 140 or so years. Having said this though what's the limit? Not only does criminality compound but it also provides excuses for the next generation. Dropping out of high school might not have been a big deal 55 years ago but you try telling that to someone's grandkid. If their influence is their parents and grandparents that survived on systems and things seemed OK it's hard to give another push. Concentrating poverty doesn't help. If poor people could help other poor people we would have seen that by now. This is why mixed used development can kinda help. If you don't want section 8 and don't want market rate that's the only alternative. Now I'm sure they'll be some parents thinking you can't teach their kids things and God forbid you get labeled a Karen for pointing things out but if you want to succeed you have to do what other successful people do (save, invest, maintain health, build wealth etc). and don't do what unsuccessful people do (smoking, heavy drinking, hard drug use, not exercising, violent crime, dropping out of high school etc)
If CT's progressives really want to win then show the plan. When should people be able to get off of systems and exist on their own? Isn't this what Bill Clinton did in the 90s? You take homeless people outside and put them in shelters. Assess the need and gets a job and into public housing and then eventually their own apartment or house. We need to reward work and accomplishments.
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.
