[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I listed those counties as examples of what happens when you just allow development to spread quickly. At one time Bergen County had tons of open land.

check farm qty link I added above

2017

NJ 9,100 farms

Ct 6,000 farms


PS: At one time, Stamford was full of open land, and Milford Connecticut Post Mall was a farm seed company. Times change.

http://milford-history.blogspot.com/...-joseph-b.html

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

As of 2017, NJ had 3,100 more farms than Ct.

Ranking Of States With The Most Farms - Beef2Live | Eat Beef * Live Better

Only 5 states had fewer than Connecticut.

All the more reason to not allow development to spread. We need to keep the farms we have. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

All the more reason to not allow development to spread. We need to keep the farms we have. Jay

We should seek to redevelop past used industrial land.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

check farm qty link I added above

2017

NJ 9,100 farms

Ct 6,000 farms


PS: At one time, Stamford was full of open land, and Milford Connecticut Post Mall was a farm seed company. Times change.

MILFORD CONNECTICUT HISTORY

And again, all the more reason to stop the spread of sprawl. Thanks for showing why we do not need rapid growth and more sprawl. . Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Huh? NJ has incredibly strict zoning, a ton of farms and the western side of the state is just as rural as eastern CT.

What I keep reading is NIMBY. This is precisely why businesses think twice about setting up shop in CT. People there don’t like change. Land of steady habits. Well in 2018, it’s really coming back to negatively affect the state. Among the lowest growth rate, most in debt per capita, highest overall tax burden and crumbling infrastructure because of both the NIMBY mindset and the regressive politicians.

Sadly, NIMBY is a great way to keep those not working down.

Our inner cities have extremely high unemployment rates in their worst neighborhoods. That would drop sharply if Bridgeport would ever get a casino. Even if it closes years later, we would then have thousands formerly unemployed for life with their first prior job experience, greatly helping them be marketable to future employers.

That is why I have always wanted a Bridgeport casino built. Its factories are gone, so these unemployable are the kids of those who worked there. I want something positive left for them, in the way of economic opportunity-even if I lose the view of a "sacred farm or two" along the way.

The view I have driving is not vital. Opportunity is vital.

I will not be selfish enough to value my view above their opportunity.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

That article is quoting The Tax Foundation which has been shown to not be the best source for analyzing economic data. In fact it has been shown they are very poor at it.

And look at the map, is it a surprise that you can buy more with $100 in Alabama than California??? Their “analysis” shows nothing really. Jay

How has the tax foundation shown to be non-credible? If I remember correctly, the last time they were called out for not listing a methodology, a closer look showed they did, in fact, post one and certain posters just disagreed with what their statistics showed.

But getting back to the discussion at hand - CT’s buying power is far lower than most states so it’s no surprise the incomes would be higher.

Anyway, as requested earlier, maybe we can agree to disagree instead of going back and fourth.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Sadly, NIMBY is a great way to keep those not working down.

Our inner cities have extremely high unemployment rates in their worst neighborhoods. That would drop sharply if Bridgeport would ever get a casino. Even if it closes years later, we would then have thousands formerly unemployed for life with their first prior job experience, greatly helping them be marketable to future employers.

That is why I have always wanted a Bridgeport casino built. Its factories are gone, so these unemployable are the kids of those who worked there. I want something positive left for them, in the way of economic opportunity-even if I lose the view of a "sacred farm or two" along the way.

The view I have driving is not vital. Opportunity is vital.

I will not be selfish enough to value my view above their opportunity.

I remember when CPV was trying to put a power plant in Oxford. The residents freaked out and made comments like it belongs in Waterbury or Bridgeport. They unsuccessfully fought like crazy against CPV, who has plants all over the world, by spreading faulty information to townspeople. I remember the upper management of the company releasing a statement saying something along the lines of “in the hundreds of communities we serve, we have never seen such blatant misinformation be spread in an attempt to push us out, for no reason at all”. It was great and they were correct. Glad they won.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Our inner cities have extremely high unemployment rates in their worst neighborhoods. That would drop sharply if Bridgeport would ever get a casino. Even if it closes years later, we would then have thousands formerly unemployed for life with their first prior job experience, greatly helping them be marketable to future employers.

That is why I have always wanted a Bridgeport casino built. Its factories are gone, so these unemployable are the kids of those who worked there. I want something positive left for them, in the way of economic opportunity-even if I lose the view of a "sacred farm or two" along the way.

You might want to walk around the new casino in Springfield. At least for the public-facing jobs, it doesn't look like they're hiring the Springfield unemployed.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

You might want to walk around the new casino in Springfield. At least for the public-facing jobs, it doesn't look like they're hiring the Springfield unemployed.

Public facing is never representative. Its also just a tiny % of the workforce.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

How has the tax foundation shown to be non-credible? If I remember correctly, the last time they were called out for not listing a methodology, a closer look showed they did, in fact, post one and certain posters just disagreed with what their statistics showed.

But getting back to the discussion at hand - CT’s buying power is far lower than most states so it’s no surprise the incomes would be higher.

Anyway, as requested earlier, maybe we can agree to disagree instead of going back and fourth.

The Tax Foundation is a pro-business, anti-tax organization. They generally oppose anything that raises taxes of any sort. They are heavily funded by the Koch brothers who are generally known to have an agenda in EVERYTHING they do and support. That makes anything they say or do highly suspect. Jay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation