You mean "everyday working people who risk the lives of construction workers by speeding in construction zones"

I'd love to see the use of these cameras expanded - would make the state much safer for drivers, pedestrians, construction workers, and cyclists.

I've also seen fewer than normal.

Excellent idea.

You say that like being in the middle of nowwhere is a negative.

The bottom five towns make no sense at all. I can't imagine any way that living in Bridgeport or Hartford would somehow be better than being in Canaan.

Local jobs, employees and visitors frequenting local hotels/restaurants/businesses, prestige, access to medical care, less empty/barren space, encouragement for people in live in hartford

Hartford is lucky to have an institution like CCMC in the city that is interested in expanding in the city, rather than expanding in a place like Farmington.

If CCMC wants a parking garage for its growing workforce, then I don't see any concern with it. Hartford is incredibly lucky to have CCMC invest in the city and the city should be encouraging as much development as possible.

The NIMBY problem in CT is far more extensive than merely concern about poor people - even developments for well-off people are routinely attacked and blocked in CT.

A solution I would like to see implemented in CT is a law preventing people from suing to stop or hold-up town-approved or supported developments.

Unless there is an event, Hartford has tons of parking (nearly 1/2 of the downtown seems to be parking lots) and the place is usually quite empty.

Great to see. CT needs lots more of this in urban centers.

The actual data is far more mixed (and similar) than the headline would suggest when looked at by race. The CT Mirror seems to be trying to create friction and tension where none exists.

His lack of grace and gratitude is so disappointing.

Fresh Market is not cheaper but has much better quality meat and seafood.

I'm commented on this before, but I am disappointed that Lamont is look at tax cuts. Doing so is short-sighted and the state would be better off long-term if surpluses were used to pay down debt or improve transportation.

We had to do that - we sat for month after month with zero communication from our worker at one point (immediately prior to approval) and had to complain. Another time, we were approved but our worker forgot to book us "in the book" and thus we sat for nearly 6 months without a single call about a placement.

I have years of experience as foster parent/foster-to-adopt parents with CT DCF. If you are dealing with DCF in the same capacity, just know that patient is necessarily. The agency is very dysfunctional and extremely slow and exceptionally frustrating to deal with. Our impression over the years is that the agency simply does not care about placing children. I could go on for days about this....

I think your problem will be too many options, not whether such a place exists.

My top choice would be Greenwich, particularly Old Greenwich - very family friendly, easy train to the city (driving wouldn't be easy though, from anywhere), progressive, very safe, and beautiful.

For something less expensive, I'd opt for Fairfield or Milford, both of which are great towns and more diverse as well. Ridgefield is also great but not as convenient. Guilford and Madison too.

Farther afield, places like West Harford, Simsbury and Avon are excellent as well.

Good schools, easy access to the airport and 91 (if you like to go to VT), charming setting, lots of good hiking opportunities.

The only negative I've heard about the town is that it covers a big area - so while parts of granby are reasonably accessible to Hartford/Springfield, others are more distant and remote. That may be a good thing or a bad thing depending upon your perspective.

Speaking as a LGBT person in the area, I think very few people will care. There are few parts of the country more LGBT tolerant/accepting than Connecticut.

yes, that's a fascinating discovery and speaks directly to my point. Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps that is how they are using the term. But if the term "indigenous" is being used solely to convey the inhabitants of land prior to being conquered then Europe, Asia, and the Middle East would have an almost unlimited number of indigenous peoples.

I'm not sure I understand any distinction though regarding spending "a lot of time conquering and killing each other" as I wouldn't assume the Americans were any different.

Thank you very much for sharing the link. A few things I noticed on the website that I found interesting:

1. Europe, Asia, and the Middle East are more or less empty of indigenous peoples. I found that particularly odd because those are the parts of the world historians know the most about due to extensive records and archeological finds.
2. From a quick review of CT tribes, it does appear that this is a map not of the "original" peoples of Connecticut but rather the people who the European settlers found. I consider "original" misleading because, for example, while the Tunxis were found living along the Farmington River by Europeans in the early 1600s, there is no basis to believe (and seems quite far-fetched to suggest) that the Tunxis were in fact the "original" people of that land. Simply put, the idea that the land did not change hands over thousands of years is hard to believe.

True; and I would suspect that there were countless tribes inhabiting Connecticut before the tribes listed on this map even came into existence.