I probably don’t agree with any of her positions, but this old war horse (in the nicest sense) of the Democrat Party raises some good points. My objection to her column is that pretty much the same arguments were raised back in the early 80s, when we first tried to rein in spending. We were defeated, and we’re in the sorry mess we are in now. I never met a Demmerkrat who couldn’t find a good reason to spend more, rather than less. But that said, Ms. Rutgers is an articulate, intelligent woman and her arguments are valid – just depends on whether you agree with her goals. Good column.
Advertisement
CF, off topic…what is up with this proposed language change? I didnt know we have 400ft buffer rules…
http://greenwichct.virtualtownhall.net/Public_Documents/GreenwichCT_PZAgendas/F-10-26-10.pdf
7. Fareri Associates, LP; application PLPZ 2010 00089 for a text amendment to amend Section 6-194(c) of the Town of Greenwich Building Zone Regulations as follows: TEXT IN BOLD TO BE ADDED. [TEXT IN BRACKETS TO BE DELETED] (Page Number:203)
(c) In the CGBR zone, the distance shall be at least four hundred (400) feet distant from any other location of such use in a building where alcoholic beverages are consumed on the premises under any class of permit except for restaurants with wine and beer permits, package store or grocery/beer permits. The exception for restaurants with wine and beer permits shall only apply if customers are served only while seated at tables and food service is the primary purpose of the restaurant. Restaurants with wine and beer permits are subject to site plan approval. Public areas of a tavern or restaurant selling alcoholic beverages under any permit as defined by the Liquor Control Act in the CGBR and CGIO zones are restricted to the ground floor of the building. (See Sec. 6-103.1 (B)) (Staff: DF) (Must close by 10/30/2010) (Maximum extension granted) (Continued from the 7/27/2010 and 9/14/2010 meetings) (Seated: Heller, Farricker, Maitland, Marchese, and Alban)
Darned if I know, CC – no doubt Fudrucker’s up to something nefarious – I’ll ask him.
Re: the idea I proposed last week, cutting our State Senate and having only one legislative body…the WSJ writes it up today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575565822588590464.html
I like the idea JRH.
The downside to unicameral legislatures is that they’ll find it much easier to pass legislation, which means they’ll spend more and create a more instrusive, bigger government.
On the other hand, if one of the branches of the legislature were, in effect, replaced by frequent plebiscites (on-line referenda, voting via social security number and password, like many people file their state income taxes) that would be a huge advance.
What sorry mess?? You are joking?? A $35BILLION grand list an the lowest taxes in the state, if not the entire northeast and your bitchin that you pay too much. Get over yourself fountain.
Towny, my mother lives on a (limited) fixed income. If her taxes go up, say, $3,000this year, an entirely reasonable prediction, where is she supposed to come up with it? And it’s irellevant that other towns spend far more than us – if, adusted for inflation, we’ve doubled our spending in the past 40 years, don’t you think it makes sense to at least look at that spending? A $35 billion grand list sounds impressive- someone living in Byram or Cos Cob or even (gasp!) Riverside may not feel so sanguine.
Where is she supposed to come up with it?
Maybe by raising the rent?
Liquor licenses have been restricted since the 1970′s. There is a 400 foot distance requrement on Greenwich Avenue, and 1000 feet everywhere else (with a few limited exceptions for beer and wine in the GB zone, and pre-existing licenses on the Avenue).
downsize, reverse mortgage, or god forbid get some help from those ingrate kids. I hear you though fountain….my poor fixed income ma was paying 12k to the town. Because she chose none of the above.
Jimbo — the flipside of what you’re saying is true, too. You say it’ll be easier for a unicameral legislature to get stuff done, and so they’ll spend more. But more conservative priorities also require legislative action — you want to close some state departments and bureaus, lower taxes, take an ax to burdensome regulations? You need legislative action to get it done.
The bottom line is, we have 187 legislators in this state. That’s one legislator for roughly every 18,000 people. If the U.S. Congress was that size, it would have more than 17,000 members. Does that sound crazy to you? It does to me.
Cos Cobber, glad to have you on board. We ought to have a 50 to 100 member legislature, with districts drawn by a tripartisan (Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated) commission so that legislators can’t draw themselves safe but undemocratic districts.
Towny…you forgot to add to the list…ask Town leaders to Stop Spending so taxes don’t rise. Inflations is at practically zero (SS had no COLA increases 2 years in a row!) yet, spending just climbs up.
I find it interesting that when you ask government to live within its means—its considered a cut and one is labeled a “fiscal conservative.” Yet, every American today is trying to do just that….cut the leverage and debt and pay as you go…its simply unsustainable to live off a credit card.
Why the double standard with government? Why are there automatic salary step increases and “inflation adjustments” when there is no inflation. Oh, that’s right…..Labor Unions who are out of touch with reality.
The election with many state level positions in play are quite impt to address this disconnect…..as I’ve said before, November 2nd cannot come soon enough.
I’ve heard our First Selectman and others say that few residents or groups ever approach our local government to ask for less taxes. Rather, individuals and neighborhood groups focus on what they want and ask for more.
So how do we balance wants with our financial needs? What are residents willing to give up? Every single neighborhood association apparently has requests for improvements or additions to their community. No one is willing to say “nothing this year, we’d rather have our taxes decrease” because everyone believes taxes will go up a set amount and the fight is to get a piece of the pie otherwise some other neighborhood will get extra.
We need a little status quo. Unless its a direct, immediate need for reasons of public safety, some things should wait. Maintain what we have and limit what we add. That is the first step!
Closely look at what services could be reduced or cut to further reduce the budget. We don’t need leaf pick-up. I think the library could shave a half hour off each day or close at 8 instead of 9 a few days per week without a huge impact and open at 10am on Saturday instead of 9. Cut the Bruce Museum down by $50,000, make our Beach Cards good for 2 years instead of one –we could pay double every 2 years and the town saves on personnel costs because every resident isn’t renewing it every year. Cut another police officer from the ave. The intersection by Starbucks and the Post office is the only one that really needs traffic control. I’m sure there are other ideas out there.
Have any of you know it alls, ever stopped your jaws from jacking, long enough to question why the town real estate taxes are so fucking LOW?
Perhaps spending half a million bucks to truck our leaves to PA and landfill them there for fees is not the best solution.