Tuesday - April 10, 2007
Retributive justice in Killingsworth
I was in New Haven today, and happened to notice
this story (Woman
accused of poisoning
baby)
on the front page of the Register, as I passed
a newspaper vending machine. Sounds heinous, doesn't it? Anyway, I was finished
with my hearing, so I had time to give it a read through the little plastic
window:
MADISON — Police arrested a Killingworth woman Monday who they say inadvertently poisoned a baby less than a month old at a family gathering in Madison last summer after the woman got pesticides on her shirt while working in her garden.
Nicole Burger, 40, of 13 Buell Hill Road, turned herself in to police on charges of risk of injury to a child, a class C felony that carries the possibility of 10 years in prison, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment.
Burger was holding her infant nephew at a home in Madison Sept. 10 and at some point the baby began to have trouble breathing, said Lt. Robert Stimpson. The baby apparently had been sucking on Burger’s shirt, he added.
I am truly at a loss to understand this, and I wonder if this poor lady will get half the sympathetic press that Julie Amero did.
This woman faces 10 years in jail for, at most, negligence.
I seem to recall that there are three rationales for putting people in prison: retribution and/or rehabilitation and/or deterrence. It is rather difficult to see how either of the last two rationales will be advanced by punishing this lady, who no doubt already has suffered enough (a phrase commonly applied only to Republican crooks, but in this case probably apt). That leaves retribution, which has slowly but surely become the overriding principle in our criminal law (again, Republican crooks excepted). But even in our increasingly warped and paranoid society, are there really people who would want to punish this lady for this? Why would a prosecutor make the decision to bring charges?
Hmmm, sounds like the kind of thing that could end up being argued in a moot court competition.
The baby is fine, by the way.
MADISON — Police arrested a Killingworth woman Monday who they say inadvertently poisoned a baby less than a month old at a family gathering in Madison last summer after the woman got pesticides on her shirt while working in her garden.
Nicole Burger, 40, of 13 Buell Hill Road, turned herself in to police on charges of risk of injury to a child, a class C felony that carries the possibility of 10 years in prison, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment.
Burger was holding her infant nephew at a home in Madison Sept. 10 and at some point the baby began to have trouble breathing, said Lt. Robert Stimpson. The baby apparently had been sucking on Burger’s shirt, he added.
I am truly at a loss to understand this, and I wonder if this poor lady will get half the sympathetic press that Julie Amero did.
This woman faces 10 years in jail for, at most, negligence.
I seem to recall that there are three rationales for putting people in prison: retribution and/or rehabilitation and/or deterrence. It is rather difficult to see how either of the last two rationales will be advanced by punishing this lady, who no doubt already has suffered enough (a phrase commonly applied only to Republican crooks, but in this case probably apt). That leaves retribution, which has slowly but surely become the overriding principle in our criminal law (again, Republican crooks excepted). But even in our increasingly warped and paranoid society, are there really people who would want to punish this lady for this? Why would a prosecutor make the decision to bring charges?
Hmmm, sounds like the kind of thing that could end up being argued in a moot court competition.
The baby is fine, by the way.
Wednesday - April 04, 2007
Hey Vermont, take us with you!
There may be readers of this blog who have such
pathetic lives that they will remember that I
came out in favor of secession a couple of years ago. Nothing in the
intervening years has led me to change my mind, so I was happy to come across
this article (Will Vermont
Secede from the Union). Vermont, it seems, was a more long lived and
vibrant Independent Republic than Texas before it took the fateful step in 1791
to throw in the lot with the nascent United States. Now there's a movement among
Vermonters to change their
minds:
Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world, toward its own citizens and toward local democratic institutions. It has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans' fundamental freedoms.
Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire.
Some of us therefore seek permission to leave.
A decade before the War of Independence, Vermont became New England's first frontier, settled by pioneers escaping colonial bondage who hewed settlements across a lush region whose spine is the Green Mountains. These independent folk brought with them what Henry David Thoreau called the "true American Congress" -- the New England town meeting, which is still the legislature for nearly all of Vermont's 237 towns. Here every citizen is a legislator who helps fashion the rules that govern the locality.
Vermont seceded from the British Empire in 1777 and stood free for 14 years, until 1791. Its constitution -- which preceded the U.S. Constitution by more than a decade -- was the first to prohibit slavery in the New World and to guarantee universal manhood suffrage. Vermont issued its own currency, ran its own postal service, developed its own foreign relations, grew its own food, made its own roads and paid for its own militia. No other state, not even Texas, governed itself more thoroughly or longer before giving up its nationhood and joining the Union.
But the seeds of disunion have been growing since the beginning. Vermont more or less sat out the War of 1812, and its governor ordered troops fighting the British to disengage and come home. Vermont fought the Civil War primarily to end slavery; Abraham Lincoln did so primarily to save the Union. Vermont's record on the slavery issue was so strong that Georgia's legislature resolved that a ditch be dug around the "pestiferous" state and it be floated out to sea.
...
It's quite simple. The United States has destroyed the 10th Amendment, which says that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The present movement for secession has been gathering steam for a decade and a half. In preparation for Vermont's bicentennial in 1991, public debates -- moderated by then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean -- were held in seven towns before crowds that averaged 230 citizens. At the end of each, Dean asked all those in favor of Vermont's seceding from the Union to stand and be counted. In town after town, solid majorities stood. The final count: 999 (62 percent) for secession and 608 opposed.
This may sound like a pipe dream, but there are good reasons, even aside from Empire, to think that the U.S. has exceeded the size that even Jamie Madison would have believed was feasible. One small example: it seems unlikely that this country will ever have a transportation policy that makes sense on the coasts. Why? Because the people in the interior, rich in Senators and poor in population, can't even understand the need and see no reason to turn the flow of money from here to there back in the other direction. And don't get me started, once again, about how great it would be if we could shed our affiliation with the religious nuts that are running this country.
Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world, toward its own citizens and toward local democratic institutions. It has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans' fundamental freedoms.
Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire.
Some of us therefore seek permission to leave.
A decade before the War of Independence, Vermont became New England's first frontier, settled by pioneers escaping colonial bondage who hewed settlements across a lush region whose spine is the Green Mountains. These independent folk brought with them what Henry David Thoreau called the "true American Congress" -- the New England town meeting, which is still the legislature for nearly all of Vermont's 237 towns. Here every citizen is a legislator who helps fashion the rules that govern the locality.
Vermont seceded from the British Empire in 1777 and stood free for 14 years, until 1791. Its constitution -- which preceded the U.S. Constitution by more than a decade -- was the first to prohibit slavery in the New World and to guarantee universal manhood suffrage. Vermont issued its own currency, ran its own postal service, developed its own foreign relations, grew its own food, made its own roads and paid for its own militia. No other state, not even Texas, governed itself more thoroughly or longer before giving up its nationhood and joining the Union.
But the seeds of disunion have been growing since the beginning. Vermont more or less sat out the War of 1812, and its governor ordered troops fighting the British to disengage and come home. Vermont fought the Civil War primarily to end slavery; Abraham Lincoln did so primarily to save the Union. Vermont's record on the slavery issue was so strong that Georgia's legislature resolved that a ditch be dug around the "pestiferous" state and it be floated out to sea.
...
It's quite simple. The United States has destroyed the 10th Amendment, which says that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The present movement for secession has been gathering steam for a decade and a half. In preparation for Vermont's bicentennial in 1991, public debates -- moderated by then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean -- were held in seven towns before crowds that averaged 230 citizens. At the end of each, Dean asked all those in favor of Vermont's seceding from the Union to stand and be counted. In town after town, solid majorities stood. The final count: 999 (62 percent) for secession and 608 opposed.
This may sound like a pipe dream, but there are good reasons, even aside from Empire, to think that the U.S. has exceeded the size that even Jamie Madison would have believed was feasible. One small example: it seems unlikely that this country will ever have a transportation policy that makes sense on the coasts. Why? Because the people in the interior, rich in Senators and poor in population, can't even understand the need and see no reason to turn the flow of money from here to there back in the other direction. And don't get me started, once again, about how great it would be if we could shed our affiliation with the religious nuts that are running this country.
Saturday - March 31, 2007
Connecticut: Proudly more backward than Alabama
Well, maybe that's a tad unfair, at least for the
moment. Still, this ( More
of State's Poorest are Feeling Tax Burden , from today's Courant) is
alarming:
When Connecticut's state income tax was implemented in 1991, the threshold at which a family of four started paying the tax was $24,100 or 73 percent above the federal poverty line at that time. It was the highest threshold in the nation for a state income tax.
Today, that threshold stands just 17 percent above the poverty line, a drop of 56 percentage points and the largest percentage decline in the nation, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities based in Washington, D.C.
Although most of the 42 states with income taxes have adjusted for inflation and increased their tax thresholds relative to the poverty level, only Connecticut and Alabama have not increased their thresholds since 1991, the report said. Alabama recently passed legislation that will begin to raise its threshold later this year.
There's no excuse for this, nor is there an excuse for this, which is even worse:
Under Connecticut's current tax system, wealthy residents pay a far smaller share of their income in state and local taxes (4.4%) than do lower-income residents (10%) and middle-income residents (9.5%), according to Connecticut Voices for Children, a nonprofit family advocacy group in New Haven.
This argues for a more progressive income tax, balanced by a reduction in the sales tax, the tax that hits the poor the hardest. Time to make use of that veto proof majority, Dems (not that they will). If that 4.4% figure is correct, it puts the lie to the notion that the rich will leave in droves if we raise their taxes a bit. They've got a way to go before their tax burden reaches that of the poor. Of course, even if their tax burden were equal, their tax pain would be miniscule next to that of people below the poverty line.
When Connecticut's state income tax was implemented in 1991, the threshold at which a family of four started paying the tax was $24,100 or 73 percent above the federal poverty line at that time. It was the highest threshold in the nation for a state income tax.
Today, that threshold stands just 17 percent above the poverty line, a drop of 56 percentage points and the largest percentage decline in the nation, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities based in Washington, D.C.
Although most of the 42 states with income taxes have adjusted for inflation and increased their tax thresholds relative to the poverty level, only Connecticut and Alabama have not increased their thresholds since 1991, the report said. Alabama recently passed legislation that will begin to raise its threshold later this year.
There's no excuse for this, nor is there an excuse for this, which is even worse:
Under Connecticut's current tax system, wealthy residents pay a far smaller share of their income in state and local taxes (4.4%) than do lower-income residents (10%) and middle-income residents (9.5%), according to Connecticut Voices for Children, a nonprofit family advocacy group in New Haven.
This argues for a more progressive income tax, balanced by a reduction in the sales tax, the tax that hits the poor the hardest. Time to make use of that veto proof majority, Dems (not that they will). If that 4.4% figure is correct, it puts the lie to the notion that the rich will leave in droves if we raise their taxes a bit. They've got a way to go before their tax burden reaches that of the poor. Of course, even if their tax burden were equal, their tax pain would be miniscule next to that of people below the poverty line.
Thursday - March 29, 2007
Jodi Rell, a true Republican
Jodi Rell is a true mediocrity but she, or the
people pulling her strings, are masterful politicians in the classic Republican
mold. Her
proposal for "reforming" the property tax hits all the typical
Republican notes:
1. Reject all proposals for meaningful and effective reform.
2. Propose something simple, appealing and designed to fail. Extra points if one can prove almost mathematically that it won't work. After all, it's an article of faith with Republicans that government doesn't work. That's not a hard proposition to prove when you're in charge of the government.
3. Make sure that when it fails someone else takes the blame.
Limiting annual increases in property taxes might be a worthwhile idea, if it went hand in hand with an assured, alternate source of income, but this plan does nothing of the sort. Instead, it assumes the good faith of future governors and legislatures, who we are to believe will fund the educational system, at the levels Rell is currently proposing, for ever and ever. We are already into "fool me twice" territory here folks. After all, Rell is only proposing a level of funding pretty much equal to what it was always supposed to be.
But that's okay with Rell, because when that future (or even present) governor and/or legislature welches on the towns, it won't be Rell that will have to cut basic services or deprive our kids of a decent education. It won't be Rell that has to take the heat from taxpayers who have grown used to being told by Republicans that they can have their low-tax cake and eat it too. It will be the town officials, who will have gotten a legally binding limitation in exchange for a politician's promise.
What a deal.
And don't be fooled by the talk in the Courant's article about the number of states that have property tax caps. How many of those states restrict their towns to that one form of taxation or do not otherwise guarantee some other source of income?
1. Reject all proposals for meaningful and effective reform.
2. Propose something simple, appealing and designed to fail. Extra points if one can prove almost mathematically that it won't work. After all, it's an article of faith with Republicans that government doesn't work. That's not a hard proposition to prove when you're in charge of the government.
3. Make sure that when it fails someone else takes the blame.
Limiting annual increases in property taxes might be a worthwhile idea, if it went hand in hand with an assured, alternate source of income, but this plan does nothing of the sort. Instead, it assumes the good faith of future governors and legislatures, who we are to believe will fund the educational system, at the levels Rell is currently proposing, for ever and ever. We are already into "fool me twice" territory here folks. After all, Rell is only proposing a level of funding pretty much equal to what it was always supposed to be.
But that's okay with Rell, because when that future (or even present) governor and/or legislature welches on the towns, it won't be Rell that will have to cut basic services or deprive our kids of a decent education. It won't be Rell that has to take the heat from taxpayers who have grown used to being told by Republicans that they can have their low-tax cake and eat it too. It will be the town officials, who will have gotten a legally binding limitation in exchange for a politician's promise.
What a deal.
And don't be fooled by the talk in the Courant's article about the number of states that have property tax caps. How many of those states restrict their towns to that one form of taxation or do not otherwise guarantee some other source of income?
Saturday - March 10, 2007
Groton Dems salute Ted Hurlock and Allen Palmer
Ted Hurlock and Allen Palmer were honored by the
City Democrats tonight for their many years of service to the Party. A few
pictures:
Karen Buffkin presents certificates from Nancy Wyman to Ted and Allen.
As for Ted and Allen, they worked for years for the Democrats and all they got was these lousy T-shirts:
Karen Buffkin presents certificates from Nancy Wyman to Ted and Allen.
As for Ted and Allen, they worked for years for the Democrats and all they got was these lousy T-shirts:
Wednesday - March 07, 2007
SLAPP or no-SLAPP? There's no way to tell
My Left Nutmeg links to Channel 3's story on a lawsuit brought by the
Wal-Mart developer against some Groton residents who oppose the new Super
Wal-Mart.
The story is frustratingly low on details. It's hard to tell whether this is a real SLAPP suit, or whether this is just part of the process of appealing from the Planning Commission's decision. One the one hand the story provides this vague description of the lawsuit:
Peggy Burdo said she was awakened Saturday by a sheriff serving her with a lawsuit. Burdo said the lawsuit claims that she and five other neighbors near Route 184 are interfering with the development of Wal-Mart's proposed store.
That's it, so far as any description of the actual cause of action pleaded against these people, except for this statement from Konover , the developer:
Developer Knoover told Eyewitness News that the petition is a legal formality, allowing them to appeal their case to the town.
It's my recollection (I'm no land use expert) that people who get intervenor status in one of these proceedings are entitled to notice if the applicant appeals. They get that notice by being named in the appeal. It's impossible to tell, from this frustratingly idiotic article, exactly what this case is all about. Is it asking too much of the reporter to try to maybe read the complaint (instead of just taking a close up of the summons) and explain precisely what claims Konover is making? If it is a real SLAPP suit then it's outrageous. If it's simply part of the appeal, as the developer seems to be saying, then it's just part of the process. This is one of the by-products of the he said-she said type of reporting that passes for journalism (especially on television) these days. We know what Burdo says, and we know what Konover says, and we are free to reflexively believe whichever we are politically inclined to believe, since we are blessedly bereft of any solid data from which we can draw any solid conclusions. God forbid that Channel 3 should make a serious attempt to give us that data.
The folks at the Day might think about doing a piece on this, and maybe go into the details a bit.
The story is frustratingly low on details. It's hard to tell whether this is a real SLAPP suit, or whether this is just part of the process of appealing from the Planning Commission's decision. One the one hand the story provides this vague description of the lawsuit:
Peggy Burdo said she was awakened Saturday by a sheriff serving her with a lawsuit. Burdo said the lawsuit claims that she and five other neighbors near Route 184 are interfering with the development of Wal-Mart's proposed store.
That's it, so far as any description of the actual cause of action pleaded against these people, except for this statement from Konover , the developer:
Developer Knoover told Eyewitness News that the petition is a legal formality, allowing them to appeal their case to the town.
It's my recollection (I'm no land use expert) that people who get intervenor status in one of these proceedings are entitled to notice if the applicant appeals. They get that notice by being named in the appeal. It's impossible to tell, from this frustratingly idiotic article, exactly what this case is all about. Is it asking too much of the reporter to try to maybe read the complaint (instead of just taking a close up of the summons) and explain precisely what claims Konover is making? If it is a real SLAPP suit then it's outrageous. If it's simply part of the appeal, as the developer seems to be saying, then it's just part of the process. This is one of the by-products of the he said-she said type of reporting that passes for journalism (especially on television) these days. We know what Burdo says, and we know what Konover says, and we are free to reflexively believe whichever we are politically inclined to believe, since we are blessedly bereft of any solid data from which we can draw any solid conclusions. God forbid that Channel 3 should make a serious attempt to give us that data.
The folks at the Day might think about doing a piece on this, and maybe go into the details a bit.
Saturday - March 03, 2007
The extortion continues in New London
If there is anyone out there who still believes
that the Eminent Domain fight in New London was about principles, this morning's
Day should disabuse them.
First, we read about Michael Cristafaro, who has already been handsomely paid for his former property, moaning about some bushes that can't be transplanted, for which he is about to pick up an extra $10,000.00. Then we learn that one of the former homeowners has filed a discrimination complaint against the city, claiming age discrimination because she feels the settlement she extorted last summer wasn't quite as good as those that other homeowners extorted. But wait, it's not really her, it's her son, who also inked the deal, who actually filed the complaint:
Byron Athenian is alleging that his mother was “discriminated against and taken advantage of” in her settlement with the city last year over possession of her former Fort Trumbull property.
New London Development Corp. President Michael Joplin said Friday that the complaint, made to the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, was “specious” and could delay work on roads and development that require timely completion.
...
“I've been informed that this complaint will go away, they will settle this, for an additional $25,000 to $30,000. This is extortion. It really shows that from day one this has been about money,” Joplin said. “We're not going to be blackmailed. We're not going to be extorted.”
The article does not say so specifically, but it appears they had legal counsel when they settled. So they are attempting to re-litigate a deal they (or should I say he, there's no indication she's aware of what's being done in her name) made on the advice of counsel, because they think other people did better. I'd say specious is a good word for it.
The on-line version of the article doesn't mention one fact that's in the article in the paper (why does the Day butcher it's on-line articles?) includes. Poor oppressed Mr. Athenian, has not bothered to fulfill his commitment to vacate the property. which he promised to do by September 1st. No, not September 1, 2007. He was supposed to leave by September 1, 2006, though we're now closer to the former than the latter. The city has been trying to help him find a house, which they have now done, but he apparently prefers to interfere with that process by filing a complaint that is, besides being baseless, untimely. It's past time that the City stopped giving in to blackmail. These folks got twice what their property was worth, some icing on the cake above that, free rent for years with no property tax during the free rent period. As Al Gore said in quite another context, "It's time for them to go".
First, we read about Michael Cristafaro, who has already been handsomely paid for his former property, moaning about some bushes that can't be transplanted, for which he is about to pick up an extra $10,000.00. Then we learn that one of the former homeowners has filed a discrimination complaint against the city, claiming age discrimination because she feels the settlement she extorted last summer wasn't quite as good as those that other homeowners extorted. But wait, it's not really her, it's her son, who also inked the deal, who actually filed the complaint:
Byron Athenian is alleging that his mother was “discriminated against and taken advantage of” in her settlement with the city last year over possession of her former Fort Trumbull property.
New London Development Corp. President Michael Joplin said Friday that the complaint, made to the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, was “specious” and could delay work on roads and development that require timely completion.
...
“I've been informed that this complaint will go away, they will settle this, for an additional $25,000 to $30,000. This is extortion. It really shows that from day one this has been about money,” Joplin said. “We're not going to be blackmailed. We're not going to be extorted.”
The article does not say so specifically, but it appears they had legal counsel when they settled. So they are attempting to re-litigate a deal they (or should I say he, there's no indication she's aware of what's being done in her name) made on the advice of counsel, because they think other people did better. I'd say specious is a good word for it.
The on-line version of the article doesn't mention one fact that's in the article in the paper (why does the Day butcher it's on-line articles?) includes. Poor oppressed Mr. Athenian, has not bothered to fulfill his commitment to vacate the property. which he promised to do by September 1st. No, not September 1, 2007. He was supposed to leave by September 1, 2006, though we're now closer to the former than the latter. The city has been trying to help him find a house, which they have now done, but he apparently prefers to interfere with that process by filing a complaint that is, besides being baseless, untimely. It's past time that the City stopped giving in to blackmail. These folks got twice what their property was worth, some icing on the cake above that, free rent for years with no property tax during the free rent period. As Al Gore said in quite another context, "It's time for them to go".
Thursday - March 01, 2007
The check is in the mail
From Today's
Day:
December turned into January and then February and now March, and Otis Library still has received no check for the $500,000 gift that Joe Gentile and Cathy Moriarty Gentile pledged for the new children's library that was to bear their daughter's name.
The pledge was announced June 29 at a press conference that packed City Council Chambers. Five-year-old Catherine Patricia Gentile sat on the floor and played with flowers and fluffed her long, white dress as the grownups cheered and praised her father, the man intent on developing the former Norwich Hospital property as well as downtown Norwich.
...
Otis Executive Director Bob Farwell said Wednesday he hasn't heard from the Gentiles. But nothing about the pledge has been in writing. Farwell said the library was told to expect the first $100,000 installment by the end of 2006, and then “by the end of January or February.”
Farwell will call a meeting of the library's executive committee within the next week to discuss how to respond to the lack of response from the Long Island developer.
The Committee Responds:
Dear Mr. Gentile:
Please excuse us for writing you at your home address, but it appears that you are being poorly served by your clerical staff. We have been writing and leaving telephone messages, but haven't heard from you in ever so long. For a long time we were puzzled that we hadn't heard from you, until what now seems like the obvious solution occurred to us. We're all sure that you have done your best to hire efficient people, but if our experience is any indication, you need to hire new staff. None of our messages appear to have gotten through.
Well, we don't want to dwell on that. Hopefully, this letter will find its way into your hands. No doubt when it does, we'll hear from you in a flash.
We know that a man of vision like you can sometimes lose track of mundane things, like that time you slipped up making that payment to Preston. We here in Norwich aren't like the folks in Preston. We don't hold it against a guy if he's a little late with a payment. There's no way we'll let little Catherine Patricia down. We're going to name the children's room in the library after her no matter what.
But we would appreciate it if you could send the check right soon. You just wouldn't believe those bankers that lent us the money on the strength of your pledge. We've tried to explain to them that you're a busy guy and that you'll get around to making the payment soon, but they just don't want to listen. Matter of fact, some of them have said some things that don't bear repeating about you. And believe us, we wouldn't repeat them. Folks here in River City have not lost faith in you, no sir. At least, not all of us.
We think you ought to know that while we on the committee still have faith, some of the other folks in town are beginning to say some nasty things. Some of the merchants downtown have taken down the window signs that you made for them. They say those signs are the only things you ever gave Norwich, and they're the only thing you ever will give Norwich. Some people just cut and run at the first sign of trouble.
So you can see that it's as important to you as to us that you send your check soon. A guy like you depends on his reputation for integrity-we all know that. If you lose that, what do you have left? We know you won't let us down.
You can send the check in the stamped pre-addressed envelope we have provided. We also accept Visa or Mastercard. We are looking forward to hearing from you.
PS: For an extra $100,000.00 we will name the Men's Room after you.
December turned into January and then February and now March, and Otis Library still has received no check for the $500,000 gift that Joe Gentile and Cathy Moriarty Gentile pledged for the new children's library that was to bear their daughter's name.
The pledge was announced June 29 at a press conference that packed City Council Chambers. Five-year-old Catherine Patricia Gentile sat on the floor and played with flowers and fluffed her long, white dress as the grownups cheered and praised her father, the man intent on developing the former Norwich Hospital property as well as downtown Norwich.
...
Otis Executive Director Bob Farwell said Wednesday he hasn't heard from the Gentiles. But nothing about the pledge has been in writing. Farwell said the library was told to expect the first $100,000 installment by the end of 2006, and then “by the end of January or February.”
Farwell will call a meeting of the library's executive committee within the next week to discuss how to respond to the lack of response from the Long Island developer.
The Committee Responds:
Dear Mr. Gentile:
Please excuse us for writing you at your home address, but it appears that you are being poorly served by your clerical staff. We have been writing and leaving telephone messages, but haven't heard from you in ever so long. For a long time we were puzzled that we hadn't heard from you, until what now seems like the obvious solution occurred to us. We're all sure that you have done your best to hire efficient people, but if our experience is any indication, you need to hire new staff. None of our messages appear to have gotten through.
Well, we don't want to dwell on that. Hopefully, this letter will find its way into your hands. No doubt when it does, we'll hear from you in a flash.
We know that a man of vision like you can sometimes lose track of mundane things, like that time you slipped up making that payment to Preston. We here in Norwich aren't like the folks in Preston. We don't hold it against a guy if he's a little late with a payment. There's no way we'll let little Catherine Patricia down. We're going to name the children's room in the library after her no matter what.
But we would appreciate it if you could send the check right soon. You just wouldn't believe those bankers that lent us the money on the strength of your pledge. We've tried to explain to them that you're a busy guy and that you'll get around to making the payment soon, but they just don't want to listen. Matter of fact, some of them have said some things that don't bear repeating about you. And believe us, we wouldn't repeat them. Folks here in River City have not lost faith in you, no sir. At least, not all of us.
We think you ought to know that while we on the committee still have faith, some of the other folks in town are beginning to say some nasty things. Some of the merchants downtown have taken down the window signs that you made for them. They say those signs are the only things you ever gave Norwich, and they're the only thing you ever will give Norwich. Some people just cut and run at the first sign of trouble.
So you can see that it's as important to you as to us that you send your check soon. A guy like you depends on his reputation for integrity-we all know that. If you lose that, what do you have left? We know you won't let us down.
You can send the check in the stamped pre-addressed envelope we have provided. We also accept Visa or Mastercard. We are looking forward to hearing from you.
PS: For an extra $100,000.00 we will name the Men's Room after you.
Tuesday - February 27, 2007
We don't need no courtroom cameras
Aldon Hynes, at Orient Lodge, is hanging out at
the Prettyman courthouse waiting for the verdict in the Libby case. Since
there's nothing to actually write about Libby at the moment he was on to other
subjects, and had this to
say:
I am sitting in the Federal Courthouse in Washington DC, waiting for a verdict in the Libby trial. I’ve just gotten back from lunch where I sat with a few people from CourtTV. I told them the story about Ken Krayeske’s arrest, hoping to stir up a little interest in the case. One person, however, mentioned that Connecticut doesn’t allow cameras in its courtrooms.
It seems like this is another topic that folks at MyLeftNutmeg might want to start talking about with their State Representatives and State Senators. Does anyone here know what the rules are about cameras in the courts in Connecticut and how to go about opening up the Connecticut courts to cameras?
It is difficult for me to see how putting cameras in the Connecticut courts would enhance the cause of justice in Mr. Krayeske's case, nor can I see any real possibility that it would enhance the quality of the product delivered in our courts generally. It is, of course, marginally possible that some of our ruder judges would tone down their behavior were they in front of a camera, but it's unlikely the quality of their judging would improve. It's far more likely that we would see behavior like that skewered by Keith Olbermann last week: that of the Florida Judge in the earthshaking litigation involving the rotting body of a very sad excuse for a human being. The judge made a mockery of his courtroom in an apparent attempt to use that courtroom as an audition studio for his very own Judge Judy show.
Television cameras are more likely to have a toxic effect than a salutary one in a courtroom. At first blush it seems like a good idea to open the courtroom to the viewing public, but like many ideas that seem good in theory, it is not that great in practice. After all, it is generally not the case that the cameras show up to televise the cases that involve novel legal issues or even outrageous miscarriages of justice like the Krayeske case. They show up for celebrity deaths and divorces, and a host of other tawdry episodes that already bring out the worst in the people involved. Giving such people a larger stage only makes it worse.
I am sitting in the Federal Courthouse in Washington DC, waiting for a verdict in the Libby trial. I’ve just gotten back from lunch where I sat with a few people from CourtTV. I told them the story about Ken Krayeske’s arrest, hoping to stir up a little interest in the case. One person, however, mentioned that Connecticut doesn’t allow cameras in its courtrooms.
It seems like this is another topic that folks at MyLeftNutmeg might want to start talking about with their State Representatives and State Senators. Does anyone here know what the rules are about cameras in the courts in Connecticut and how to go about opening up the Connecticut courts to cameras?
It is difficult for me to see how putting cameras in the Connecticut courts would enhance the cause of justice in Mr. Krayeske's case, nor can I see any real possibility that it would enhance the quality of the product delivered in our courts generally. It is, of course, marginally possible that some of our ruder judges would tone down their behavior were they in front of a camera, but it's unlikely the quality of their judging would improve. It's far more likely that we would see behavior like that skewered by Keith Olbermann last week: that of the Florida Judge in the earthshaking litigation involving the rotting body of a very sad excuse for a human being. The judge made a mockery of his courtroom in an apparent attempt to use that courtroom as an audition studio for his very own Judge Judy show.
Television cameras are more likely to have a toxic effect than a salutary one in a courtroom. At first blush it seems like a good idea to open the courtroom to the viewing public, but like many ideas that seem good in theory, it is not that great in practice. After all, it is generally not the case that the cameras show up to televise the cases that involve novel legal issues or even outrageous miscarriages of justice like the Krayeske case. They show up for celebrity deaths and divorces, and a host of other tawdry episodes that already bring out the worst in the people involved. Giving such people a larger stage only makes it worse.
Monday - February 26, 2007
Simmons bows out
According
to
Politico:
Former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) has accepted a job as Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell’s Business Advocate, making it highly unlikely that he will run for his old seat.
“Serving in this capacity allows me to continue what I have done for the past 16 years - advocate for better jobs, a stronger economy and a more business friendly climate here in Connecticut,” Simmons wrote in a letter to supporters. “If the General Assembly agrees and confirms Governor Rell's nomination, I plan to devote all of my time and energy to this task.”
Not Shermanesque enough for me. If his appointment must be confirmed, as it appears it must, Democrats should extract a promise that he will serve through the '08 election.
Despite the fact that I smell wiggle room, it does appear that Simmons is reasonably adept at reading the tea leaves, and realizes that he would have little chance of unseating a far better financed Courtney in what promises to be a big year for Congressional Democrats.
The Republican bench in the second is very thin. Anyone interested in mounting a serious challenge is going to have to start work in the next few months, so we should know soon whether Joe will have more than token opposition.
UPDATE: The AP article on this story includes the following paragraph:
Simmons, who has not ruled out running again for the 2nd congressional district seat in 2008, will be responsible for informing businesses about various public and private assistance programs, technical help, job training, state services and financial assistance that are available in the state.
All the more reason for the Democrats to insist that he make a clear pledge about the future. Why should we pay him a salary if he's going to use his time campaigning for Congress?
Former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) has accepted a job as Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell’s Business Advocate, making it highly unlikely that he will run for his old seat.
“Serving in this capacity allows me to continue what I have done for the past 16 years - advocate for better jobs, a stronger economy and a more business friendly climate here in Connecticut,” Simmons wrote in a letter to supporters. “If the General Assembly agrees and confirms Governor Rell's nomination, I plan to devote all of my time and energy to this task.”
Not Shermanesque enough for me. If his appointment must be confirmed, as it appears it must, Democrats should extract a promise that he will serve through the '08 election.
Despite the fact that I smell wiggle room, it does appear that Simmons is reasonably adept at reading the tea leaves, and realizes that he would have little chance of unseating a far better financed Courtney in what promises to be a big year for Congressional Democrats.
The Republican bench in the second is very thin. Anyone interested in mounting a serious challenge is going to have to start work in the next few months, so we should know soon whether Joe will have more than token opposition.
UPDATE: The AP article on this story includes the following paragraph:
Simmons, who has not ruled out running again for the 2nd congressional district seat in 2008, will be responsible for informing businesses about various public and private assistance programs, technical help, job training, state services and financial assistance that are available in the state.
All the more reason for the Democrats to insist that he make a clear pledge about the future. Why should we pay him a salary if he's going to use his time campaigning for Congress?
Monday - February 19, 2007
Move over New London, Moscow is stealing your issue
Somewhere in Moscow there is a Ms. Kelo waiting
for her moment in the sun. According
to the Moscow
Times:
If Mayor Yury Luzhkov gets his way, Muscovites will soon have little legal recourse when the city decides to kick them out of their homes to make way for new buildings, roads or anything else deemed to be in the public interest.
"City officials just want to simplify the procedure for seizing land and taking possession of it," said Sergei Mitrokhin, a member of the City Duma's Urban Development Commission and a senior member of the opposition Yabloko party.
City Hall wants to expand its power of eminent domain to allow for the construction of apartment buildings on land taken from private owners.
Viktor Damurchiyev, head of the city's Land Resources Department, said the need for the change was obvious. "Moscow is growing and there is not enough available land within the city limits," he said
The problem, critics say, is that vague language in current laws allows land to be taken not for the public good, but for private gain.
The law on relocation and eviction of homeowners, for example, allows the city to take private property for "construction."
...
The City Duma is currently considering a bill on land use and development that sets out new criteria for the taking of private property within the city. The bill allows the city to invoke eminent domain in order to fulfill major government programs and city contracts and simply for development, said Sergei Belyakov, a lawyer who advises [opposition party leader] Novitsky.
Unsatisfied with these new categories, City Hall wants to amend the bill to allow for the construction of apartment buildings and infrastructure in accordance with the city's General Plan.
...
City Hall also wants to formalize the process of "reserving" land in advance for future use.
"When building something, we won't be able to identify immediately all of the owners and developers whose interests could be affected," Alexander Kuzmin, head of the city's Architecture Committee, told Vechernyaya Moskva newspaper recently. "This is why we need to begin by reserving plots of land."
Critics counter that the city is simply trying to warn off developers and potential buyers.
"Reserving plots indicates to developers that they shouldn't bid for the [reserved] land because it belongs to the city," said Alexei Navalny, a lawyer with the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites, an organization that represents landowners in legal disputes with the city government.
Yabloko's Mitrokhin said the city's plan for reserving land was excessively vague, and that its only goal was to scare off competitors for choice parcels of real estate.
No matter what side of the Kelo debate you took, you would have to admit the Moscow system makes New London's look positively benign. The "reserve" powers are particularly pernicious. The affected owners are hampered in their ability to sell, and have no ability to force the City to pay compensation until the City makes the final decision to take title.
If Mayor Yury Luzhkov gets his way, Muscovites will soon have little legal recourse when the city decides to kick them out of their homes to make way for new buildings, roads or anything else deemed to be in the public interest.
"City officials just want to simplify the procedure for seizing land and taking possession of it," said Sergei Mitrokhin, a member of the City Duma's Urban Development Commission and a senior member of the opposition Yabloko party.
City Hall wants to expand its power of eminent domain to allow for the construction of apartment buildings on land taken from private owners.
Viktor Damurchiyev, head of the city's Land Resources Department, said the need for the change was obvious. "Moscow is growing and there is not enough available land within the city limits," he said
The problem, critics say, is that vague language in current laws allows land to be taken not for the public good, but for private gain.
The law on relocation and eviction of homeowners, for example, allows the city to take private property for "construction."
...
The City Duma is currently considering a bill on land use and development that sets out new criteria for the taking of private property within the city. The bill allows the city to invoke eminent domain in order to fulfill major government programs and city contracts and simply for development, said Sergei Belyakov, a lawyer who advises [opposition party leader] Novitsky.
Unsatisfied with these new categories, City Hall wants to amend the bill to allow for the construction of apartment buildings and infrastructure in accordance with the city's General Plan.
...
City Hall also wants to formalize the process of "reserving" land in advance for future use.
"When building something, we won't be able to identify immediately all of the owners and developers whose interests could be affected," Alexander Kuzmin, head of the city's Architecture Committee, told Vechernyaya Moskva newspaper recently. "This is why we need to begin by reserving plots of land."
Critics counter that the city is simply trying to warn off developers and potential buyers.
"Reserving plots indicates to developers that they shouldn't bid for the [reserved] land because it belongs to the city," said Alexei Navalny, a lawyer with the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites, an organization that represents landowners in legal disputes with the city government.
Yabloko's Mitrokhin said the city's plan for reserving land was excessively vague, and that its only goal was to scare off competitors for choice parcels of real estate.
No matter what side of the Kelo debate you took, you would have to admit the Moscow system makes New London's look positively benign. The "reserve" powers are particularly pernicious. The affected owners are hampered in their ability to sell, and have no ability to force the City to pay compensation until the City makes the final decision to take title.
Saturday - February 17, 2007
Elissa Wright moves to protect Connecticut Open Spaces
Our new state representative, Elissa
Wright, has joined with other legislators to propose legislation designed to
ward off excessive development, preserve Open Space, and clean up
brownfields.
Calling its campaign the “Face of Connecticut,” the coalition calls on the state to establish a regular funding stream from a mix of yearly appropriations, bonding and surplus funds that could support $100 million per year in investments to protect the state's farmland, watershed lands, forests, wildlife habitats, historic neighborhoods and urban centers. Legislation for the campaign will be introduced this session.
“I ask any of you doubters, if New Jersey can do it, why can't Connecticut?” said state Sen. Bill Finch, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the Environment Committee, referring to a similar initiative in the Garden State. He added that he didn't want Connecticut to turn into a state of “Wal-Marts and Costcos” and that his city of Bridgeport has as much to gain from the campaign's plan to invest in cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields as rural communities do from the preservation of farmland.
“We are now sprawling past our brownfields to develop your greenfields,” Finch said. “This definitely would benefit urban, suburban and rural areas.”
...
Legislators who attended the announcement included Finch and his co-chairman on the Environment Committee, Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, and several other members of the committee, including two representatives from southeastern Connecticut, Democrats James Spallone, of Essex, and Elissa Wright, of Groton.
Both Spallone and Wright said that if the fund is created, they would put The Preserve, a 1,000-acre forest in Old Saybrook, Westbrook and Essex, high on the priority list for open-space acquisition, if the state has not been able to purchase it by then. Spallone said property near the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant in Haddam Neck and some smaller farms in his district would also be prime candidates for protection.
Wright's priority list included a 160-acre parcel known as the Watrous Property, near Route 1 and Noank-Ledyard Road. The land is slated for development, she said, but includes some productive vernal pools that are considered critical wildlife habitat.
Oswegatchie Hills in Niantic and three parcels in North Stonington and Voluntown that would enlarge the Pachaug State Forest would also be on her list.
This is an investment well worth making, and it looks like a smart mix of programs that benefit both urban and rural areas.
Calling its campaign the “Face of Connecticut,” the coalition calls on the state to establish a regular funding stream from a mix of yearly appropriations, bonding and surplus funds that could support $100 million per year in investments to protect the state's farmland, watershed lands, forests, wildlife habitats, historic neighborhoods and urban centers. Legislation for the campaign will be introduced this session.
“I ask any of you doubters, if New Jersey can do it, why can't Connecticut?” said state Sen. Bill Finch, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the Environment Committee, referring to a similar initiative in the Garden State. He added that he didn't want Connecticut to turn into a state of “Wal-Marts and Costcos” and that his city of Bridgeport has as much to gain from the campaign's plan to invest in cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields as rural communities do from the preservation of farmland.
“We are now sprawling past our brownfields to develop your greenfields,” Finch said. “This definitely would benefit urban, suburban and rural areas.”
...
Legislators who attended the announcement included Finch and his co-chairman on the Environment Committee, Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, and several other members of the committee, including two representatives from southeastern Connecticut, Democrats James Spallone, of Essex, and Elissa Wright, of Groton.
Both Spallone and Wright said that if the fund is created, they would put The Preserve, a 1,000-acre forest in Old Saybrook, Westbrook and Essex, high on the priority list for open-space acquisition, if the state has not been able to purchase it by then. Spallone said property near the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant in Haddam Neck and some smaller farms in his district would also be prime candidates for protection.
Wright's priority list included a 160-acre parcel known as the Watrous Property, near Route 1 and Noank-Ledyard Road. The land is slated for development, she said, but includes some productive vernal pools that are considered critical wildlife habitat.
Oswegatchie Hills in Niantic and three parcels in North Stonington and Voluntown that would enlarge the Pachaug State Forest would also be on her list.
This is an investment well worth making, and it looks like a smart mix of programs that benefit both urban and rural areas.
Saturday - February 17, 2007
Wal-Marts down temporarily
The Groton
Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to reject Wal-Mart's "Supercenter",
so at least for the moment Groton is spared an environmental, esthetic, and
economic disaster. No doubt we have not heard the last of them.
A Wal-Mart spokesman said:
“I'm very, very disappointed,” she said, to have town staff believe the application “merited approval, and have the commission not pay attention to that.”
I doubt very much that the Commission did not pay attention to the town staff; it merely disagreed with them. If the function of the Planning Commission is to rubber stamp the staff's conclusions, then there seems little point in having a Commission at all.
This brings us to a question about the proper relationship between town staff and potential developers. A smart developer will contact the town staff early in the project and get their input long prior to seeking any formal approvals. There are certainly advantages for both sides in that sort of approach. However, there are risks for the town that don't apply to the developer. There's the risk that staff, having spent so much time working with a developer, and on his or her plans, will become emotionally invested in the success of the project. (I AM NOT suggesting any kind of corruption here, just human nature at work). There's another unfortunate fact of life lurking in the background as well. Due to our dysfunctional system of taxation, the towns will tend to embrace big box development, which yields large amounts of tax dollars with little short term fiscal downside for the town. It all comes back to the ridiculously large role the property tax plays in Connecticut. Get rid of that, and we would see far more resistance to projects like Wal-Mart's.
A Wal-Mart spokesman said:
“I'm very, very disappointed,” she said, to have town staff believe the application “merited approval, and have the commission not pay attention to that.”
I doubt very much that the Commission did not pay attention to the town staff; it merely disagreed with them. If the function of the Planning Commission is to rubber stamp the staff's conclusions, then there seems little point in having a Commission at all.
This brings us to a question about the proper relationship between town staff and potential developers. A smart developer will contact the town staff early in the project and get their input long prior to seeking any formal approvals. There are certainly advantages for both sides in that sort of approach. However, there are risks for the town that don't apply to the developer. There's the risk that staff, having spent so much time working with a developer, and on his or her plans, will become emotionally invested in the success of the project. (I AM NOT suggesting any kind of corruption here, just human nature at work). There's another unfortunate fact of life lurking in the background as well. Due to our dysfunctional system of taxation, the towns will tend to embrace big box development, which yields large amounts of tax dollars with little short term fiscal downside for the town. It all comes back to the ridiculously large role the property tax plays in Connecticut. Get rid of that, and we would see far more resistance to projects like Wal-Mart's.
Friday - February 16, 2007
Ted Moukawsher signs anti-escalation letter
Recently I noted that Elissa Wright had signed a letter
being circulated at the State Capitol urging the Congress to oppose the Iraq
escalation. I asked Ted Moukawsher if he had signed it to, and he wrote to say
that he had. I don't think he'll mind if I share his
thoughts:
Although this issue is in certain respects beyond our purview I felt the language in the letter that emphasized the role Congress should play in any decision to escalate the war was most important. The decision the Congress initially made in leaving to the President to decide whether we should attack Iraq was shameful. It is important that Congress reassert its constitutional responsibility in declaring and prosecuting a war.
I wonder if Jim Amann is going to sign it.
Although this issue is in certain respects beyond our purview I felt the language in the letter that emphasized the role Congress should play in any decision to escalate the war was most important. The decision the Congress initially made in leaving to the President to decide whether we should attack Iraq was shameful. It is important that Congress reassert its constitutional responsibility in declaring and prosecuting a war.
I wonder if Jim Amann is going to sign it.
Thursday - February 15, 2007
Choices
Mattw at My Left Nutmeg wonders where one can
feel comfortable shopping if if the workers at Stop and Shop go on
strike.
The only other big supermarket in Groton is Big Y, which is notoriously anti-union. At least Stop and Shop has a union. We have a couple of small groceries (Central IGA and Universal in Noank), but for a number of reasons it's not feasible to use them exclusively. That leaves McQuade's in Stonington and Shop-Rite in New London. Does anyone know what their policy is on unions?
The only other big supermarket in Groton is Big Y, which is notoriously anti-union. At least Stop and Shop has a union. We have a couple of small groceries (Central IGA and Universal in Noank), but for a number of reasons it's not feasible to use them exclusively. That leaves McQuade's in Stonington and Shop-Rite in New London. Does anyone know what their policy is on unions?
Thursday - February 08, 2007
No more coin flips
Those of us from Groton remember well that our
candidate for State Representative was chosen by a coin flip. At some point I
spoke with Susan Bysiewicz about that method of breaking a tie, which is only
used in primary elections. I suggested to her that it would make more sense to
give the win to the endorsed candidate, since the party nomination should mean
something.
Imagine my surprise when I got a phone call today from her aide (I can't remember her exact title), Michelle Gilman, to bring me up to date on legislative efforts to get rid of the coin toss. Now, that's a good politician. I only dimly remember raising the issue, but Bysiewicz apparently made a note of it.
Right now, the chosen solution appears to be run off between the candidates. In Groton's case there would have been one less candidate, so it would be real run off. In the more typical case, it would really be a do over. The cost would be borne one half by the state and one half by the affected locality. I didn't ask what would happen if the district straddled two towns.
I wasn't wedded to my own idea, so I find this solution perfectly satisfactory. The coin flip left a bad taste in a lot of mouths, and probably would have no matter how it landed.
Imagine my surprise when I got a phone call today from her aide (I can't remember her exact title), Michelle Gilman, to bring me up to date on legislative efforts to get rid of the coin toss. Now, that's a good politician. I only dimly remember raising the issue, but Bysiewicz apparently made a note of it.
Right now, the chosen solution appears to be run off between the candidates. In Groton's case there would have been one less candidate, so it would be real run off. In the more typical case, it would really be a do over. The cost would be borne one half by the state and one half by the affected locality. I didn't ask what would happen if the district straddled two towns.
I wasn't wedded to my own idea, so I find this solution perfectly satisfactory. The coin flip left a bad taste in a lot of mouths, and probably would have no matter how it landed.
Wednesday - February 07, 2007
Elissa Wright signs anti-escalation letter
State legislators around the country are
circulating and signing letters opposing the escalation of the Iraq War. (The
word "war" doesn't describe it really. Is there a short form word for the act of
refereeing a civil war?)
My wife wrote to our State Representative, Elissa Wright, who said she signed the letter being circulated in our state legislature by John Geragosian.
Every bit of pressure that can be exerted on Congress is worth exerting. Elissa and the other representatives who have signed the letter deserve our thanks. A quick Google search ("John Geragosian Iraq") failed to turn up anything (at least on the top hits) with a complete list of signers. I'm sure our other local reps will sign and when and if I hear about them, I'll try to mention them.
My wife wrote to our State Representative, Elissa Wright, who said she signed the letter being circulated in our state legislature by John Geragosian.
Every bit of pressure that can be exerted on Congress is worth exerting. Elissa and the other representatives who have signed the letter deserve our thanks. A quick Google search ("John Geragosian Iraq") failed to turn up anything (at least on the top hits) with a complete list of signers. I'm sure our other local reps will sign and when and if I hear about them, I'll try to mention them.
Wednesday - February 07, 2007
Jodi Rell proposes education funding
Somewhat bad timing for yesterday's post in which
I criticized Rell for lacking imagination. Today she announced her plan to have
the state bear its promised share of the cost of education, and she actually
comes close to proposing something useful. Her plan requires a tax increase,
which the Courant duly headlines (Rell
Proposes Increasing Income, Cigarette Taxes)
instead of putting the very necessary
education funding front and center. How much of a net tax increase this
represents is unclear, since the increased revenues to the towns would enable
them to lower their taxes.
Rell presumably believes she can get this plan through because she'll get all the votes she needs from the Democrats. They should probably pass something like it, but they should take this opportunity, since the governor will be in the tax increase boat with them, of making our income tax more progressive, instead of merely raising the tax rates. Right now there are only two tax brackets in Connecticut. Why not create a couple of new brackets, and put a bit more of a squeeze on the folks at the top. This might even enable the legislature to reduce the bottom rate a bit.
I couldn't find anything in the articles I read, or on the Governor's website (though I admit I haven't read everything) about how the governor proposes to guarantee that the new revenues will actually be paid to the towns. I remember those dim and distant days in which the State Lottery revenues were supposed to fund education. That's how it was sold when it was first proposed. Basically, it goes into the general fund. Education doesn't even get the lions share of the profits. So would the proceeds of a tax increase. The legislature simply can't effectively bind future legislatures. Our state legislators are prone to solving their own budget problems by pushing the problem down to the towns, where the buck stops, and there's no indication that Rell has a plan to effectively foreclose that possibility.
So one cheer for the governor.
Rell presumably believes she can get this plan through because she'll get all the votes she needs from the Democrats. They should probably pass something like it, but they should take this opportunity, since the governor will be in the tax increase boat with them, of making our income tax more progressive, instead of merely raising the tax rates. Right now there are only two tax brackets in Connecticut. Why not create a couple of new brackets, and put a bit more of a squeeze on the folks at the top. This might even enable the legislature to reduce the bottom rate a bit.
I couldn't find anything in the articles I read, or on the Governor's website (though I admit I haven't read everything) about how the governor proposes to guarantee that the new revenues will actually be paid to the towns. I remember those dim and distant days in which the State Lottery revenues were supposed to fund education. That's how it was sold when it was first proposed. Basically, it goes into the general fund. Education doesn't even get the lions share of the profits. So would the proceeds of a tax increase. The legislature simply can't effectively bind future legislatures. Our state legislators are prone to solving their own budget problems by pushing the problem down to the towns, where the buck stops, and there's no indication that Rell has a plan to effectively foreclose that possibility.
So one cheer for the governor.
Tuesday - February 06, 2007
The car tax
Jodi Rell is once again proposing to phase out
the property tax on cars. (New
Attempt To Cut Car Tax, Hartford,
Courant, February 3rd)
First, the obligatory disclaimer. The property tax in Connecticut is a bad tax because our local towns must rely too much on it as a revenue source. That being said, Rell's proposal is still a bad idea.
I can't quite understand why Rell seeks to deal with the hated property tax by picking on the tax on cars. No one likes to pay taxes, but people get especially incensed when they think they are being unfairly taxed. There are lots of complaints about the property tax on homes, because everyone is convinced that their own home is being unfairly assessed. Sometimes, those complaints are even true. By comparison, few people claim their cars are unfairly valued.
When I was on the Town Council in Groton we heard a lot of gripes about the property tax and unfair assessments, but never relative to cars. That's because automobiles are, (putting aside collectible cars like those owned by Tommy Hilfiger) basically commodities. There are reliable price guides from which a value for any given car can be gleaned. They may or may not be more reliable than real property appraisals, but people seem to perceive them to be more reliable, because very few people seem to complain about the assessments on their cars. That may be partly due to the smaller amount of the overall tax, but I don't think that's the complete explanation. In any event, eliminating the tax on cars is not going to eliminate any of the frustration with the tax itself. If someone is beating me on the head with a hammer, I'm not going to be grateful if he stops pricking me with a pin at the same time.
First, the obligatory disclaimer. The property tax in Connecticut is a bad tax because our local towns must rely too much on it as a revenue source. That being said, Rell's proposal is still a bad idea.
I can't quite understand why Rell seeks to deal with the hated property tax by picking on the tax on cars. No one likes to pay taxes, but people get especially incensed when they think they are being unfairly taxed. There are lots of complaints about the property tax on homes, because everyone is convinced that their own home is being unfairly assessed. Sometimes, those complaints are even true. By comparison, few people claim their cars are unfairly valued.
When I was on the Town Council in Groton we heard a lot of gripes about the property tax and unfair assessments, but never relative to cars. That's because automobiles are, (putting aside collectible cars like those owned by Tommy Hilfiger) basically commodities. There are reliable price guides from which a value for any given car can be gleaned. They may or may not be more reliable than real property appraisals, but people seem to perceive them to be more reliable, because very few people seem to complain about the assessments on their cars. That may be partly due to the smaller amount of the overall tax, but I don't think that's the complete explanation. In any event, eliminating the tax on cars is not going to eliminate any of the frustration with the tax itself. If someone is beating me on the head with a hammer, I'm not going to be grateful if he stops pricking me with a pin at the same time.
Sunday - February 04, 2007
Humble pie-not for the last time I'm sure.
I received an email today from a reader taking me
to task for a recent post in which I said (among other things) that the Day had
failed to notify its readers of the Gentile scam until it was too late. The
reader said that part of the post was "idiotic" because the Day's reporters were
working hard to uncover Gentile's background, but just couldn't get the goods on
him until Paul Chioniere uncovered the New York
lawsuits.
Since this particular reader knows of what he speaks, I want to humbly beg his pardon and admit that what I wrote was wrong, in that I wrote with too broad a brush. My gripe should have been restricted solely to the editorial page. Their position on the man should have been more aggressively negative. That being said, the subject didn't belong in that post, because I was writing about both news coverage and editorial coverage. So, it was an unfair statement and I apologize.
Since this particular reader knows of what he speaks, I want to humbly beg his pardon and admit that what I wrote was wrong, in that I wrote with too broad a brush. My gripe should have been restricted solely to the editorial page. Their position on the man should have been more aggressively negative. That being said, the subject didn't belong in that post, because I was writing about both news coverage and editorial coverage. So, it was an unfair statement and I apologize.
State v. Amero
Wal-Mart pollutes my mail
Lanny Davis suggests the next Democratic president hand over power to the Republicans
Don't start raising money for your 2010 Senatorial campaign
Dodd jumps in
Joe Courtney gets a coveted committee assignment
The Planning Commission draws a crowd
Victory at last
Jennifer Media pens a paean to Jodi Rell