State bonding
Today's Courant has an editorial worth reading:
Connecticut ranks near the top of the list of all 50 states when it comes to the burden of per-capita bonded indebtedness. Why? One major reason is the hunger for overspending by the Democratic majority in the legislature.Tim White
This year, for example, agreement on a two-year bond package has been delayed because legislative Democrats want to set aside a lot more money - about $200 million a year - for local pork barrel spending than does Gov. M. Jodi Rell....
The state must get its borrowing under control. Ten years ago, Connecticut had $8.9 billion in bonded debt. Now, the total is $13.9 billion. Debt service has gone from 7.9 percent of the total budget in 1997 to 9.2 percent now. The state shells out well more than $1 billion a year from the general fund for borrowing costs. That's money that could be used for better purposes.
35 comments:
and we are going in hock not for safe bridges or needed prison cells, but for skateboard parks and streetscapes
And how about that turf field the dems were pushing for.
What a great idea, the turf, are we getting it?
When it comes to pork it's better to eat the at the barbecue than to be the pig. The worst thing for us is that Cheshire taxpayers are providing a lot more in funds to the state than we get back.
This is not to say that pork is ok as long as we are the ones getting it.
There isn't a lot we can do about state spending with a Democratic super majority. Hopefully the voters will get fed up with this much liberal spending when the time comes to vote them out.
In the mean time all we can do is to try our best to keep on top of our local borrowing and spending.
When you voted for the W/S mall, you voted to increase the state debt for the millions that the state will have to spend on 691 ramps and widening of rt 10. Also, all the other costs to the state for this project, like the cost of the tunnel bypass, all the additional school children, the new fire station, expansion of the sewage treatment facility and on and on.
You can't complain about the costs and additional bonding if you vote for these things that that aren't needed and are done to benefit our local developers.
The northend Pandora's box has been opened and now we have to pay the costs.
Nice to see that David Schrumm is still blogging here.
I knew someone named Pandora!
Leave the guy alone. He is not even running. Who are you going to pick on now?
Speaking of W/S, does anyone know if, going forward, we are relying only on their own environmental impact assessment (i.e. the intern that noticed the turtles, no offense) or insisting that they contract a 3rd party (i.e. close friend) prior to approval? The minutes from the recent inland wetland meeting are sporadically sparse.
To 6:52:00 PM:
He is running, just changed his name to Slocum, or Ruocco...
at least the R's don't post stupid poems insulting everyone
9:08
Thanks for the compliment and on my birthday no less.
Well, happy birthday!
-csh
Cheshire Town Post
What about the turf has it been bonded?
No I think that it was not included so no turf.
Matt Altieri might know if the turf has been bonded.
Anon 9:08 Do you know these men? If you watch council meetings you will find that Mr. Ruocco does vote differently than Mr. Schrumm on certain issues. Do some research.
Happy birthday Tim. Hopefully they will be able to start picking on us soon.
10:24 might?
His BFF Mary Fritz controls everything right?
The deer and chipmunks and turtles are the losers in this scheme. MF spends $1,000,000 on turf, but ignores the open space in the north end.
Altriei and Fritz are anit-environment.
So the progessives view the north end of town as open space? Someone should have told the land owners or maybe the town should have bought the land many years ago?
Hall, Estey, Altieri, Viscounti, Ecke are all anti-environment. Not one word of what Cheshire will lose in the Northend. They are just for the developers and The Pave Cheshire Over Group. They are short sighted people with no concern for the long term future of Cheshire.
They definitely are anti-environment.
3 million for 100 acres was a good deal but it's water trough the culvert. Why was the town not on top of this and how did the developers get their hands on it first???? 3 million is a steal.
when did it change hands? did the town know it was for sale?
$3,000,000 may be good today, but maybe not 25 yrs ago.
3 million for 100 acres was a good deal but it's water through the culvert. Why was the town not on top of this and how did the developers get their hands on it first???? 3 million is a steal.
It sold about 10 years ago for $1 million dollars and Schrumm and the boys said it was too much and did not want it.
$1,000,000?
$3,000,000?
or was it $2,000,000?
And was it 10 years ago? I thought it was not that long ago.
5 years ago?
Does anyone know the details?
Was it offered to the Town? Did "Schrumm and the boys" vote against buying the land?
Are you serious? Real estate changes hands all the time. Why would the town entertain the purchase of prime land in the IC zone anyway...so it can built a conference center...we can't even handle the pool.
The town knows there are areas of concern, i.e rivers, wetlands, etc. in the ICZ but this is zoned for development. And from where I sit development is better left, albeit as a regulated activity, in the hands of private developers willing to take the risk. Some of you are beginning to sound like socialists here and you know I was no fan of this zone text change.
Contemplating this as an open space purchase would be irresponsible. Regulating within its development to protect areas of special concern is another matter all together.
seeing all the folks in Cheshire who seem to think prime land along an interstate ought to be: 1)a nature preserve or 2) low income housing; I suggest the entire town government take a crash course in the real estate concept known as "highest and best use"
from wikipedia
"the highest and best use is the reasonably probable use that produces the highest property value"
so, is it always true that the highest property value = the highest good for the townspeople?
Who owns the property the towns people? It is not their property is it? I am confused by your post.
ask the question of 10:08, who's advocating decisions based upon the highest and best use.
I would argue "highest and best use" is the use which will generate the greatest net revenue to the town and the greatest postive economic impact.
Using prime property for bird nests or affordable housing does not pass this test
Shopping does? We jumped on this with no impact study. Shame on us. We should require an impact study(independent) not the developers or our P&Z members opionions on a proposal of this magnitude period. I don't care what is built there as long as it's a net positive to the town.
At least we know that 9 West or Pottery Barn won't inundate the school system like low rise apartments will
Post a Comment