This Thursday Senate Candidate Fred Wilms hosts a transportation round table.
Wilms said the discussion will begin with a review of positive steps taken by Hartford, and then turn to "new steps ... needed to continue unlocking the gridlock on Interstate 95." The roundtable discussion also will address ways to improve mass transportation, Wilms said.Wilms has developed a strong command of the many challenges facing regional transportation and is wise to continue holding round tables on these important issues with other regional leaders. The problems facing Norwalk’s gridlock will not be solved by insular thinking.
Invited to participate as panelists in the discussion: State Senate Minority Leader Louis C. DeLuca, R-32; state House Assistant Minority Leader Toni Boucher, R-143; and Eric Brown, associate counsel at The Connecticut Business & Industry Association. Brown is responsible for developing policy positions on environmental, transportation and land-use issues for the association. (source: The Hour)
Where Wilms misses the mark is his position on Super 7.
"While I support a new Super 7, unfortunately the prospects do not look realistic," Wilms said. "As such I support the further enhancements to the existing Route 7 plus support improvements to the Danbury train line. Improving the Danbury line would allow for faster and more frequent train service." (source: The Hour)Widening route 7, clear cutting trees that once lined the stretch of road leading through Wilton is so bad on so many fronts. State Senator Bob Duff is strongly in favor of Super 7.
Duff stands by the proposed expressway, which he said would alleviate "a bottleneck that stretches from Norwalk to Danbury and beyond." He calls the Route 7 widening now beginning as a "complete waste of taxpayers money."In other news state Sen. President Pro Tempore Donald E. Williams, Jr., D-29, appointed Duff to the Property Revaluation Work Group. The work group’s goal is to provide recommendations on streamlining municipal property revaluations.
"I believe that Super 7 is a critical road to be built for the economic prosperity of our area," Duff said. "The land is there to do it and I think the will is there. There's still a lot of fight." (source: The Hour)
Duff said the work group will create a master contract for municipalities to use when hiring revaluation vendors and develop a revaluation schedule and implementation procedures.Common Council President Michael W. Coffey, defacto leader of the Norwalk Democrats, made the front page with his endorsement of Senator Joe Lieberman.
The group will consider municipal assessment rules to ensure that procedures are clearly defined, that quality assurance is in place, and that inspection requirements clarified, and that phase-in provisions are "clear and workable" for those municipalities that choose to phase in a revaluation, Duff said. Source: The Hour)
"Joseph Lieberman is someone who does what he thinks is right for the residents of Norwalk, right for the state of Connecticut and what's right for our country," Coffey said. "I'd like to see him serve six more years as a U.S. senator for the state of Connecticut. He has done an excellent job."Coffey’s support was echoed by Councilman Herbert A. Grant.
"His experience as a Senator for this area gives him the seniority and the ability to be able to work in a bi-partisan manner to continue to help the state of Connecticut to get its equal share of federal funds, to advance the state as well as its largest municipalities," said Herbert A. Grant, who represents District A on the Common Council.Democratic Town Committee chairwoman Galen Wells was apparently unhappy.
Reiterating comments made following Lieberman's defeat in the Democratic primary in August, Norwalk Democratic Town Committee Chairwoman Galen Wells urged Democrats to support Lamont as the winner of that primary. She labeled Coffey's endorsement of Lieberman a "mistake for any Democrat." (Source: The Hour)Wells added that she was unaware of any Democrats other than Coffey supporting Lieberman. An unofficial poll of Norwalk Democratic leaders revealed quite a different result.
Lex Paulson met with The Hour review board to knock Lawrence Cafero’s votes against the against the school nutrition bill and against stem cell research. Cafero responded
Cafero said when it comes to stem cell research and school nutrition, "you have to go beyond the title of the bill."
He opposed a bill devoting $100 million over 10 years to stem cell research in Connecticut only because it did not enforce a ban on human cloning with penalties, Cafero said, adding that, at his urging, fines and prison terms for human cloning were later included in other legislation.
Embryonic stem cell research has been criticized by some social conservatives, who compare the practice to abortion.
And Cafero said the school nutrition bill was insufficient, because it took sugary sodas out of Connecticut high schools without educating students as to proper nutrition or exercise habits. (Source: The Hour)
The Norwalk Hour Wilms to host roundtable discussion on transportation By ROBERT KOCH 10/24/06
The Norwalk Hour, Duff to serve with group studying property revaluation By ROBERT KOCH, 10/24/06
The Norwalk Hour, Council chief bucks party; backs Joe By ROBERT KOCH 10/24/06
The Norwalk Hour Here to stay: Dem challenger discusses platformBy PATRICK R. LINSEY 10/25/06
19 comments:
If the debate gets too hot here like it did on TURFGRRL's Negative Campaigning Post will you cut off the comments too? This blog could use a little lesson in sunshime rules.
Turfgrrl: Please explain to me how Wilms' position on Super 7 "misses the mark." Please re-read Wilms' position that you yourself quoted. Wilms said that he is in favor of Super 7. It is the same position as Duff. Wilms has also said that the prospects of Super 7 becoming a reality "do not look realistic" and therefore has offered alternatives. What is wrong with that position?
It is a fact: there are no plans before DOT to go forward with Super 7. It has been stalled for decades. The legislature did not approve of it in its most recent transportation bills. Moreover, many groups have promised decades long lawsuits to try to stop it. There has been no movement toward Super 7 in decades and that is a fact. Isn't Wilms statement far more realistic and accurate than Duff's? Shouldn't we applaud Wilms for both supporting Super 7 but also offerining alternatives to help alleviate traffic now?
I really would appreciate a response?
Jodi said she'd only support Super 7 if all the towns got behind it. In other words she wasn't going to dirty her little skirt but would rather dumbly widen old 7 little by little. DeStefano would finish it I beleive.
Bob Duff is the head of the Norwalk Party and supports Ned Lamont.
This question probably needs to be answered by a specialist at the Famliy Institute. But if a single person, say like Sam Caliguiri once wss when he worked for Governor John Rowland, goes out with a married woman is that consistent with defending marriage or should there be a law against that to protect traditional marriage? These issues of morality can get very complex you know.
Allowing a wife to have a boyfriend or a husband to have a mistress is often good for keeping a marriage together.
Anon 1253, you say, Jodi said she'd only support Super 7 if all the towns got behind it. In other words she wasn't going to dirty her little skirt but would rather dumbly widen old 7 little by little.
Oh how wrong you are...she is 100% right to do this. It is a local issue and she should support the option the community wants. Don;t we always complain when the state crams thing down our throat? She should be appluaded for not doing that here. She actually sounds like a Republican here...finally!
Bob Duff can't stand up to the leadership in the senate when it comes to protecting Norwalk's interests.
Yeah, President Eisenhower checked with each and every town along the Interstate Highway System before he authorized the funding. Good for Jodi fo following in the General's Republican footsteps!!
It is almost insane that Super 7 has not been built yet. Yet Wilton politicians, including Toni Boucher, repeatedly try to stop any discussion of the issue. Wilton is singlehandedly allowed to block a major artery that would allow economic growth across the region.
Wilton also doesn't allow dense housing. So it doesn't want many people to live there, and it doesn't want many people driving though. Pretty damned difficult to have much in the way of jobs growth with that type of attitude!
Without better roads to Danbury, commuting from that region down to Norwalk / Stamford is almost impossible, which increases the demand for housing down on the coastal towns, and consequently makes housing that much more expensive.
Our infrastructure is terrible, and we want it that way. We stop Super 7 even though we own the land. Geez, we can't even build an interchange between 7 and the Merritt without some environmentalist group stepping in and halting the project. Then we complain when there aren't many new jobs being added or when housing becomes so expensive in Fairfield County (because commuting into Fairfield county is almost impossible due to the state of the roads).
Turfgrrl doesn't like John DeStefano.
Turfgrrl said: "Duff at least is saying build Super 7 now. That's a refreshing change from the usual hand wringing and doing nothing."
Turfgrrl, Wilms is saying the same thing. He said - and you quoted him as saying - that he supports Super 7. How else can you interpret that statement? How is that different than Duff? Duff says "build it now" and Wilms agrees.
If you object to Wilms' othe suggestions, fine. It seems to me - and maybe I am missing something here - that Super 7 is not going to be built. Political leaders from Norwalk and Danbury have long been fighting to build Super 7. Duff is not the first Norwalk leader to fight for it nor will he be the last. At the same time, however, the political leaders (and environmental groups) in the towns in between, like State Rep. Toni Boucher and State Sen. Judi Freedman, have been fighting just as hard to stop Super 7 from being built. This has been going on for years. I agree with your comments on transportation. I'm sure Duff and Wilms would agree too. I guess where you and I disagree is that I appreciate Wilms' thinking outside the box and trying to find alternative solutions in lieu of the status quo. I do think your comments are a little unfair to Wilms on this issue.
Anon. 1:30 - I'll let you in on a little secret, according to every single poll conducted regarding the CT Governor's race, most people in CT agree with Turfgrrl and don't like JDS either.
Galen Wells is truly a terrible political leader. Not only does she lose Mayoral elections, council elections, hearings at the State Democratic Party level, but now she is trying to lose one of the remaining Democratic governmental leaders in Norwalk. What will she do next ? I dare not think of this horrible thought. Many in Norwalk wish that she would just resign and step down. If the Norwalk DTC had no one in place, it would be better than the harmful and inneffectual leadership that she provides.
Debating whether or not Duff is right or Wilms is right is a complete waste of time - The race for this Senate seat was over when top ranking Republican office holders stabbed Fred Wilms in the back - without his knowledge - back in April/May/June. Fred will find this out on Nov. 7.
Stop criticizing Galen. She's a nice lady, although, I agree in over her head. If people think they can do better they sure haven't shown up. Elections are lost by campaigns, not by the people who serve as town chairs.
public education and public funded healthcare like Medicare and medicaid aren't guaranteed by the Constitution either. nor is public financing of campaigns...
"turfgrrl said...mikect: sorry but I don't see marriage as a fundamental right granted by the constitution. "
LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
388 U.S. 1
June 12, 1967, Decided
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court: .... "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
wolcottboy: Here is Connecticut's law. I hope you arent a landlord! Sec. 46a-81e. Sexual orientation discrimination: Housing. (a) It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section:(1) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of sexual orientation. (2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of sexual orientation. The ONLY EXCEPTION: (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to (1) the rental of a room or rooms in a unit in a dwelling if the owner actually maintains and occupies part of such unit as his residence or (2) a unit in a dwelling containing not more than four units if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such other units as his residence.
And, in case you are an employer, read this too: Sec. 46a-81c. Sexual orientation discrimination: Employment. It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section: (1) For an employer, by himself or his agent, except in the case of a bona fide occupational qualification or need, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment any individual or to discriminate against him in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual's sexual orientation.
There is a Religious exception, but its pretty narrow: Sec. 46a-81p. Sexual orientation discrimination: Religious organizations. The provisions of sections 4a-60a and 46a-81a to 46a-81o, inclusive, shall not apply to a religious corporation, entity, association, educational institution or society with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, entity, association, educational institution or society of its activities, or with respect to matters of discipline, faith, internal organization or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law which are established by such corporation, entity, association, educational institution or society.
And Tuffgrrl, that is in the Constitution. The supreme court has spoken. They have [unanimously] interpreted the equal protection language of the 14th amendment to include marriage: 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Post a Comment