The ADL exists solely to find instances of anti-semitism. Don't believe their statistics. Like most special interest groups, right and left, they have an interest in sensationalism.

To believe that there have been more anti-semitic acts in 2022 than in the 1980s nationally (per the article 2022 was the 'worst year' since they began tracking) is comical. People just report them more because if increased overall sensitivity to racism/bigotry/etc.

So funny....liberals and democrats only think anti-semitism exists from white christians. Muslim or black anti-semitism doesn't raise an eyebrow.

Because in reality, they don't care about anti-semitism, they just care about politics and trying to make themselves feel superior to the other side.

"Those who do not move out of their chair in their parents' basement, do not notice how much better they have it than all who live under communism"

That's a long time to save up to buy a book. But congrats I guess. For your second book just go to the library! Books are free there.

The federal aid from our ridiculous stimulus spending doesn't need to be spent, right? Can we just use this $20m to reduce our own debt? Basically offsetting federal irresponsibility with some state responsibility?

We will never have better cities, at least enough to compete with NY and Boston. There is no scenario where Hartford becomes as attractive as NY or Boston to young people.

Sure, we can improve Hartford and New Haven, but the cost involved would be better spent on tax cuts, at least as far as attracting businesses and jobs and high income individuals (who pay taxes).

In the last century, Fairfield county became a hub for financial services such as hedge funds because of the low tax rate, not because Greenwich and Stamford were cooler for young people than Manhattan. We still have a legacy benefit of that, but have since squandered that advantage to a great extent by implementing and raising the income tax.

If we want to attract businesses and workers in an increasingly remote work environment, the best value for the buck is lower taxes.

/although that said, paying down our fiscal obligations is the best thing to do with any temporary windfall, which is what Lamont is prudently doing.

??? Is that a real question?

All else equal, where would you rather have your business? In a place where you get to keep more of your businesses earnings or less of your businesses earnings.

Lower taxes make places more attractive to businesses. In this particular case, Boston has something that appeals to a business (although this seems to be more of a consolidation move than anything else). To compete with places that have other attractions that CT doesn't, we need other ways to make our state appealing. One of the easiest and best ways to make a state appealing to business is to lower the tax burden on those businesses.

If Lamont is going to use our recent windfall preserve business, he should lower taxes and make the state more business friendly. Not piss it away on pie in the sky hyperexpensive public transit that will never help any place like Enfield.

Okay

"It's one of the best places in the country to live".

Whatever.

You have an opinion, they have an opinion.

Taxes are very high here, cost of living is very high, the weather isn't terrible but it isn't great. The beaches are the worst in the country. We have no mountains to speak of. We have among the worst fiscal positions of any state in the country (or did until covid helped us).

One of the most common bragging points of CT is how close it is to NY and Boston. But it isn't NY or Boston and doesn't have the stuff that those places do.

There are good points as well. Lots of hiking, people are pretty reasonable (neither our left wing nuts nor our right wing nuts are as nutty as those in other places). Not too crowded, not too empty. Taxes actually could be worse. Crime, outside of a few crummy cities, is quite low.

But all in all, if I could go back in time before I became entrenched here work and family wise, I wish I had gone somewhere else.

That's the new WWE building that used to be UBS or RBS or something before the financial crisis.

The old one was near exit 9 and was there for decades.

Because they are morons. A quarter of them still think wrestling is real and half of them thought it was real until they reached their 20s.

No, I think we need more people who were fed up enough to leave CT around to offset the people who won't admit it's problems.

If you don't pay your debt the lenders (or funders in your parlance) seize the company. They are given that right in the original loan agreement, and without that protection they wouldn't have lent the money in the first place. They aren't "stealing" anything.

But as to your original point I don't know what this means, other than proving once again that the more convoluted you make a law and the more regulation you try to introduce, the more unintended consequences can result.

Where are the vacant commercial buildings in Wilton?

More dense housing brings more traffic and clutter and incremental expenses that are disproportionate to the tax revenue generated from dense housing.

And our schools (I have kids in Wilton public schools) may have excess physical capacity (or not I'm not exactly sure which schools you are referring to), but more kids would require more teachers and other expenses. Wilton schools are the way they are because of the wishes of the people of Wilton... we vote for taxes and budgets and cramming more kids with the same number of teachers and aides, or hiring more teachers and aides, are not what Wilton voters want otherwise we wouldn't have the current teacher to student ratio etc.

And the type of people who move to places like Wilton would have school children... the schools are the primary draw. Empty nesters tend to sell to move to cheaper places with lower taxes, and young workers without kids would tend to want to live in more exciting places like Norwalk or Stamford.

But other communities wouldn't survive if not for the massive taxes that rich communities like Greenwich pay.

You (and others who argue for 'regionalization) are arguing that rich communities should support poorer communities. But the fact is they already do tremendously.