5/31/07
It’s not an airport expansion, and Stratford would be smart to let it happen.
Sikorsky Memorial Airport, owned by Bridgeport but within the bounds of Stratford, was finally approved this week for a "safety zone" at the end of its main runway. The work, approved by the state Department of Transportation and long recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, requires moving Main Street a short distance toward the water. It will put more space between the end of the runway and the road running past it; the runway would not be even a foot longer.
It’s a good idea, and one that is long overdue. A 1994 plane crash at that spot killed eight people, and safety changes should have immediately followed that tragedy. Instead, there’s been nothing but obstruction from Stratford, especially the nearby Lordship neighborhood. Carefully examined, though, it’s clear this plan benefits everyone.
Main Street floods frequently in that area, and with only two roads reaching that far south, it can be a major inconvenience. But experts say the realigned road would be less prone to washouts.
Also, the spot where Main Street runs into Stratford Road has poor sightlines; it’s a regular scene of traffic accidents. The revamped roadway would soften the turns, and improve driver safety.
Throw in the fact that the federal government will pay for 90 percent of the work, with most of the rest paid for by the state, and there’s little reason to put up any roadblocks.
Stratford Rep. Terry Backer says he will push for legislation that would require the town’s approval before work starts, but he should back off. This plan is a winner for everyone, and safety should come first.
The runways are in need of repair, but the FAA won’t help defray that cost unless its safety recommendations are enacted. Stratford may have been gambling that by fighting the safety work they could keep airport traffic limited, but that’s a poor strategy. The airport is not going away, and it’s improper to use safety improvements as leverage in this kind of dispute.
Stratford is justifiably worried about an actual airport expansion, which could mean more planes, more traffic and more noise. But this isn’t the expansion they’ve been fearing.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Online protection deserves approval
5/30/07
If there's one item on the political agenda that all parties agree on, it's protecting children. A bill passed in Hartford last week by the House of Representatives and now up for approval in the Senate is another step toward that goal.
In another move to target sexual predators operating on the Internet, the bill would require convicted offenders to register all e-mail addresses with local authorities. They're already required to register physical addresses, so this is just another step in an ongoing process.
The move comes in the midst of an effort to protect users of popular online networking sites like MySpace.com. Parents and authorities worry that unsupervised users are in danger from adult offenders lurking on the site, often using false identities. In conjunction with a nationwide effort for states to force such sites to turn over information on registered offenders, this latest push will help cross-identify potential criminals.
Last week, MySpace officials said they had identified more than 5,000 registered sex offenders nationally who had created personal profiles on the network, including about 100 people from Connecticut. MySpace released the names to law enforcement officials after receiving subpoenas from a number of states including Connecticut, where authorities are reviewing the data to see whether any of the offenders, by creating the profiles, violated the conditions of their probation and parole.
The bill stipulates that the e-mail addresses would be kept by police but would not be part of the state's sex offender registry accessible to the public on the Internet. That's a good idea; police need the knowledge for investigations, but putting the addresses online would be an invitation for harassment. State officials are also looking for ways to force the networking sites to verify the ages of all users before they are allowed access, but that is a longer-term process.
It's always a good idea to protect children whenever possible, and the online realm is a vast, poorly understood new frontier, where parents and authorities are still learning their ways around. Guardians and law enforcement personnel have a long way to go before the mere act of unsupervised Internet surfing by a child doesn't bring a few shivers.
And while this bill deserves passage, nothing can substitute for parenting and one-on-one guidance. The best we can hope for is that if a child comes across a suspect individual, in person or online, the child will know how to react and how to protect himself. Not all dangers can be legislated away, but we can encourage common sense, awareness of potential trouble and knowledge. And we can do our best to keep those situations as rare as possible.
If there's one item on the political agenda that all parties agree on, it's protecting children. A bill passed in Hartford last week by the House of Representatives and now up for approval in the Senate is another step toward that goal.
In another move to target sexual predators operating on the Internet, the bill would require convicted offenders to register all e-mail addresses with local authorities. They're already required to register physical addresses, so this is just another step in an ongoing process.
The move comes in the midst of an effort to protect users of popular online networking sites like MySpace.com. Parents and authorities worry that unsupervised users are in danger from adult offenders lurking on the site, often using false identities. In conjunction with a nationwide effort for states to force such sites to turn over information on registered offenders, this latest push will help cross-identify potential criminals.
Last week, MySpace officials said they had identified more than 5,000 registered sex offenders nationally who had created personal profiles on the network, including about 100 people from Connecticut. MySpace released the names to law enforcement officials after receiving subpoenas from a number of states including Connecticut, where authorities are reviewing the data to see whether any of the offenders, by creating the profiles, violated the conditions of their probation and parole.
The bill stipulates that the e-mail addresses would be kept by police but would not be part of the state's sex offender registry accessible to the public on the Internet. That's a good idea; police need the knowledge for investigations, but putting the addresses online would be an invitation for harassment. State officials are also looking for ways to force the networking sites to verify the ages of all users before they are allowed access, but that is a longer-term process.
It's always a good idea to protect children whenever possible, and the online realm is a vast, poorly understood new frontier, where parents and authorities are still learning their ways around. Guardians and law enforcement personnel have a long way to go before the mere act of unsupervised Internet surfing by a child doesn't bring a few shivers.
And while this bill deserves passage, nothing can substitute for parenting and one-on-one guidance. The best we can hope for is that if a child comes across a suspect individual, in person or online, the child will know how to react and how to protect himself. Not all dangers can be legislated away, but we can encourage common sense, awareness of potential trouble and knowledge. And we can do our best to keep those situations as rare as possible.
Soccer smoking ban a good idea
5/29/07
Most of the country is accustomed to smoking bans at this point. At work, out to eat, in the bar — there are fewer places than ever to light up these days. If a proposed municipal ordinance passes in Shelton, you can add the soccer field to that list.
The Shelton Youth Soccer Organization has requested that the Parks and Recreation Department make the community’s soccer fields smoke-free. It’s a reasonable request, and the town should take action to make it happen.
In a setting where children are physically exerting themselves and learning good health habits, it makes sense not to send them mixed messages. Youth sports are a great way to get kids exercising while having fun, and there’s nothing unreasonable about asking a spectator to wait to light up until the game’s over.
And it’s also not out of line for parents and friends to want a smoke-free environment for cheering on the players. We’ve grown accustomed to it in restaurants and in government and private offices — why should soccer fields be any different?
The town or parks department could just put up signs telling people not to smoke, but to be enforceable with a fine, the town would have to pass an ordinance. It would go above and beyond the state law banning smoking in public places, which doesn’t include outdoor activities.
There’s something known informally as a smokers-rights movement that says society’s laws are too onerous on private behavior, and that one person’s right to enjoy a cigarette shouldn’t be up to a town politician. There might be an argument there, but not over soccer fields. When Little Jimmy scores a goal and runs over to give Mom a high-five, he shouldn’t have to navigate a cloud of smoke.
Most of the country is accustomed to smoking bans at this point. At work, out to eat, in the bar — there are fewer places than ever to light up these days. If a proposed municipal ordinance passes in Shelton, you can add the soccer field to that list.
The Shelton Youth Soccer Organization has requested that the Parks and Recreation Department make the community’s soccer fields smoke-free. It’s a reasonable request, and the town should take action to make it happen.
In a setting where children are physically exerting themselves and learning good health habits, it makes sense not to send them mixed messages. Youth sports are a great way to get kids exercising while having fun, and there’s nothing unreasonable about asking a spectator to wait to light up until the game’s over.
And it’s also not out of line for parents and friends to want a smoke-free environment for cheering on the players. We’ve grown accustomed to it in restaurants and in government and private offices — why should soccer fields be any different?
The town or parks department could just put up signs telling people not to smoke, but to be enforceable with a fine, the town would have to pass an ordinance. It would go above and beyond the state law banning smoking in public places, which doesn’t include outdoor activities.
There’s something known informally as a smokers-rights movement that says society’s laws are too onerous on private behavior, and that one person’s right to enjoy a cigarette shouldn’t be up to a town politician. There might be an argument there, but not over soccer fields. When Little Jimmy scores a goal and runs over to give Mom a high-five, he shouldn’t have to navigate a cloud of smoke.
Senate is right on juvenile justice law
5/29/07
The state Senate took an important stance on juvenile justice last week, passing legislation that would take 16- and 17-year-olds out of the adult justice system for nonviolent crimes. It’s a good move, and deserves approval by the House of Representatives.
Connecticut is one of only three states, with New York and North Carolina, to treat such defendants as adults, and it makes sense to change that. A criminal record can haunt a person for life, and efforts should be made to keep people without better judgment out of the system in most cases.
The change would not affect violent offenders; teens as young as 14 could be charged in Superior Court under specific circumstances. But nonviolent offenders — accomplices, bystanders or otherwise — would be spared the harshest punishments.
It would be a major change in Connecticut law, and a welcome one. The current system sees up to 12,000 young people per year arrested, and most of them would now be handled by the juvenile justice system. It doesn’t benefit the state or the accused to see them begin a lifetime of recidivism, which is often the outcome once someone enters the adult system.
Lawmakers made important points about the gains from keeping young people out of adult courts. Criminal records follow people around for years, and close off doors that the accused may not even know about. And because it has been proven that many young people do not possess the reasoning skills and mental capacity that they will develop later in life, it makes sense to treat them differently before the law.
This change does not involve going easy on criminals, or giving prisoners a break. One of our society’s greatest problems is a culture where young people spend their lives in and out of jail, in and out of the court system. Heading that off before it starts is our best prevention method.
A brush with the juvenile detention service can also serve to send a message to young people about where their behavior could lead them if they don’t turn around. But let that lesson be one that they can recover from, not one that will haunt them the rest of their days. As Sen. Edwin A. Gomes, D-Bridgeport, said, "When you put a 16- and 17-year-old into jail, you put them in there with hardened criminals. And guess who’s doing the teaching in jail? The only people who are doing the teaching in jail are the criminals."
It’s a lesson that the House and Gov. M. Jodi Rell should listen to, and they should pass and sign this bill into law. It’s better for our young people and better for society as a whole.
The state Senate took an important stance on juvenile justice last week, passing legislation that would take 16- and 17-year-olds out of the adult justice system for nonviolent crimes. It’s a good move, and deserves approval by the House of Representatives.
Connecticut is one of only three states, with New York and North Carolina, to treat such defendants as adults, and it makes sense to change that. A criminal record can haunt a person for life, and efforts should be made to keep people without better judgment out of the system in most cases.
The change would not affect violent offenders; teens as young as 14 could be charged in Superior Court under specific circumstances. But nonviolent offenders — accomplices, bystanders or otherwise — would be spared the harshest punishments.
It would be a major change in Connecticut law, and a welcome one. The current system sees up to 12,000 young people per year arrested, and most of them would now be handled by the juvenile justice system. It doesn’t benefit the state or the accused to see them begin a lifetime of recidivism, which is often the outcome once someone enters the adult system.
Lawmakers made important points about the gains from keeping young people out of adult courts. Criminal records follow people around for years, and close off doors that the accused may not even know about. And because it has been proven that many young people do not possess the reasoning skills and mental capacity that they will develop later in life, it makes sense to treat them differently before the law.
This change does not involve going easy on criminals, or giving prisoners a break. One of our society’s greatest problems is a culture where young people spend their lives in and out of jail, in and out of the court system. Heading that off before it starts is our best prevention method.
A brush with the juvenile detention service can also serve to send a message to young people about where their behavior could lead them if they don’t turn around. But let that lesson be one that they can recover from, not one that will haunt them the rest of their days. As Sen. Edwin A. Gomes, D-Bridgeport, said, "When you put a 16- and 17-year-old into jail, you put them in there with hardened criminals. And guess who’s doing the teaching in jail? The only people who are doing the teaching in jail are the criminals."
It’s a lesson that the House and Gov. M. Jodi Rell should listen to, and they should pass and sign this bill into law. It’s better for our young people and better for society as a whole.
Remember today those we have lost
5/28/07
The list of names keeps getting longer.
At least 3,400 American troops have died in Iraq since that war started in 2003. Regardless of anyone’s opinion of the war — how we got there, why we went in, how long we’ll be there — Americans can’t help but mourn the lives lost. The men and women, many of them young people, are lost forever; they join the long list of our nation’s war dead, and we remember them today.
Memorial Day dates back to our own Civil War, when many communities set aside a day to remember soldiers lost in that epic conflict. Originally known as Decoration Day, the final Monday in May was acknowledged as a time to honor fallen Union soldiers; it was later expanded to remember all men and women who died in military service to their country.
The event takes on special poignancy during a time of war, when new names are added every day to the ranks of dead service members. A person need not favor continuing the war in Iraq to wish the best for our citizens in that country, and a person who wants to see an end to the death and violence doesn’t necessarily favor ending the war. We all support the troops, we all wish them well, we all want them home as soon as possible.
These facts are too easily forgotten. Just last week, at a celebration honoring the graduating class at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, certain groups of protesters took disagreement over the war to new levels of ugliness. Even in matters of war and peace, there is a common humanity, and a value to each opinion. Even when emotions run highest, we must resist the temptation to demonize people with opposing viewpoints.
The truth is that no one knows the future of our war effort in Iraq, and hardly anyone even knows the present. When we reduce our support or opposition to name-calling or worse, when reasoned argument is replaced by calls of "hippie" or "warmonger" or "commie," no one gains, least of all the people actually fighting the war. Today, at least, put away the jingoism and oversimplification and remember what we’ve lost.
Put away the idea that anti-war people don’t support the troops. "Support the troops" has been used as a bludgeon to accuse anyone parting from the official Washington line of being unpatriotic. It’s not true, it’s unfair and it’s out of line.
Put away the notion that anyone in favor of the war has been brainwashed by the media, or is too dumb to know any better. There is room for legitimate disagreement on both sides, from every perspective, and no one gains by belittling the political opposition, least of all the people in harm’s way.
But setting aside the pettiness of war-related fistfights is not the same as foregoing dissent. It is the right and duty of Americans to question what their country is doing, to take their officials to task when they get their facts wrong or spin lies to get their message out. It says nothing about a person’s concern for troops in the field, or memory of those who have died, for that person to demand answers, and demand a change of course. An active, questioning citizenry has been essential to our nation’s history and will forever be necessary to keep our country strong.
The people who have died are never coming back. They have lost their ability to speak for themselves, to question the country’s goals and motivations. When we speak out in matters of war, no matter our opinion, we speak in no small part for the people who no longer can.
It has been argued that politics has no place on Memorial Day, and those who violate that unwritten rule can pay a serious price. It would be nice if such a rule also applied to our increasingly commercialized, advertising-saturated society. Remembering dead troops has nothing to do with mattress sales, and the day means more than a good excuse for a barbecue. We would do well as citizens to keep that in mind, even for a few moments.
Today is for those we have lost, present and past, in military service to this country. It’s not too much to ask to take a day and honor their memories.
The list of names keeps getting longer.
At least 3,400 American troops have died in Iraq since that war started in 2003. Regardless of anyone’s opinion of the war — how we got there, why we went in, how long we’ll be there — Americans can’t help but mourn the lives lost. The men and women, many of them young people, are lost forever; they join the long list of our nation’s war dead, and we remember them today.
Memorial Day dates back to our own Civil War, when many communities set aside a day to remember soldiers lost in that epic conflict. Originally known as Decoration Day, the final Monday in May was acknowledged as a time to honor fallen Union soldiers; it was later expanded to remember all men and women who died in military service to their country.
The event takes on special poignancy during a time of war, when new names are added every day to the ranks of dead service members. A person need not favor continuing the war in Iraq to wish the best for our citizens in that country, and a person who wants to see an end to the death and violence doesn’t necessarily favor ending the war. We all support the troops, we all wish them well, we all want them home as soon as possible.
These facts are too easily forgotten. Just last week, at a celebration honoring the graduating class at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, certain groups of protesters took disagreement over the war to new levels of ugliness. Even in matters of war and peace, there is a common humanity, and a value to each opinion. Even when emotions run highest, we must resist the temptation to demonize people with opposing viewpoints.
The truth is that no one knows the future of our war effort in Iraq, and hardly anyone even knows the present. When we reduce our support or opposition to name-calling or worse, when reasoned argument is replaced by calls of "hippie" or "warmonger" or "commie," no one gains, least of all the people actually fighting the war. Today, at least, put away the jingoism and oversimplification and remember what we’ve lost.
Put away the idea that anti-war people don’t support the troops. "Support the troops" has been used as a bludgeon to accuse anyone parting from the official Washington line of being unpatriotic. It’s not true, it’s unfair and it’s out of line.
Put away the notion that anyone in favor of the war has been brainwashed by the media, or is too dumb to know any better. There is room for legitimate disagreement on both sides, from every perspective, and no one gains by belittling the political opposition, least of all the people in harm’s way.
But setting aside the pettiness of war-related fistfights is not the same as foregoing dissent. It is the right and duty of Americans to question what their country is doing, to take their officials to task when they get their facts wrong or spin lies to get their message out. It says nothing about a person’s concern for troops in the field, or memory of those who have died, for that person to demand answers, and demand a change of course. An active, questioning citizenry has been essential to our nation’s history and will forever be necessary to keep our country strong.
The people who have died are never coming back. They have lost their ability to speak for themselves, to question the country’s goals and motivations. When we speak out in matters of war, no matter our opinion, we speak in no small part for the people who no longer can.
It has been argued that politics has no place on Memorial Day, and those who violate that unwritten rule can pay a serious price. It would be nice if such a rule also applied to our increasingly commercialized, advertising-saturated society. Remembering dead troops has nothing to do with mattress sales, and the day means more than a good excuse for a barbecue. We would do well as citizens to keep that in mind, even for a few moments.
Today is for those we have lost, present and past, in military service to this country. It’s not too much to ask to take a day and honor their memories.
Arbitration is best arts center choice
5/27/07
After months upon months of talks, the fate of the Black Rock Arts Center remains up in the air. City officials promised continually that a solution was in the offing, but the two sides have yet to come together. At this point, arbitration is the best option for both sides.
The city owns the center’s Fairfield Avenue location, and rents it out for $1 a year. Mayor John M. Fabrizi and other city officials, though, thought they could attract a more profitable tenant to the site, and explored ways to move the arts center or otherwise satisfy all parties. Despite all the talks, they haven’t gotten anywhere.
Arts center officials say the city’s demands are unreasonable, and are asking for arbitration. It’s the right idea; more talks are pointless. Both sides have made offers and a few concessions, and it appears that no more time should be spent on the endeavor.
Arts center backers say the city should offer a rent deal similar to the one offered the Downtown Cabaret Theater, for $300 per month. The city is also negotiating space in City Hall Annex for another arts program; it’s not unreasonable for the Black Rock group to seek similar terms.
The city’s counteroffer was clearly unacceptable. It wanted the arts group to relocate to the fifth floor of the Eisenhower Center on Golden Hill Street, but that was never going to work in terms of space or facilities. It was an offer in good faith, but more should be expected from the city.
BRAC officials say the group’s last lease with the city requires the two parties to enter into arbitration if a new agreement cannot be reached. All indications are that the group is ready to invoke that clause, even if it means going to court.
A vibrant and expansive arts community is necessary for any growing city. Bridgeport must find a home for the Black Rock Arts Center, and encourage artists of all kinds to make the city their home.
For Bridgeport to reach its full potential, it must be a diverse, dynamic community, and the arts must take a priority. Although it could surely earn much more in rent from another restaurant or bar, officials must not overlook what it is that gives the city so much promise.
After months upon months of talks, the fate of the Black Rock Arts Center remains up in the air. City officials promised continually that a solution was in the offing, but the two sides have yet to come together. At this point, arbitration is the best option for both sides.
The city owns the center’s Fairfield Avenue location, and rents it out for $1 a year. Mayor John M. Fabrizi and other city officials, though, thought they could attract a more profitable tenant to the site, and explored ways to move the arts center or otherwise satisfy all parties. Despite all the talks, they haven’t gotten anywhere.
Arts center officials say the city’s demands are unreasonable, and are asking for arbitration. It’s the right idea; more talks are pointless. Both sides have made offers and a few concessions, and it appears that no more time should be spent on the endeavor.
Arts center backers say the city should offer a rent deal similar to the one offered the Downtown Cabaret Theater, for $300 per month. The city is also negotiating space in City Hall Annex for another arts program; it’s not unreasonable for the Black Rock group to seek similar terms.
The city’s counteroffer was clearly unacceptable. It wanted the arts group to relocate to the fifth floor of the Eisenhower Center on Golden Hill Street, but that was never going to work in terms of space or facilities. It was an offer in good faith, but more should be expected from the city.
BRAC officials say the group’s last lease with the city requires the two parties to enter into arbitration if a new agreement cannot be reached. All indications are that the group is ready to invoke that clause, even if it means going to court.
A vibrant and expansive arts community is necessary for any growing city. Bridgeport must find a home for the Black Rock Arts Center, and encourage artists of all kinds to make the city their home.
For Bridgeport to reach its full potential, it must be a diverse, dynamic community, and the arts must take a priority. Although it could surely earn much more in rent from another restaurant or bar, officials must not overlook what it is that gives the city so much promise.
School programs offer opportunities
5/24/07
When education budgets are slashed, it leads to more than larger classes and fewer textbooks. It can also take away opportunities.
Vocational-agricultural programs present an appealing option for some students. They offer a chance to learn a skill and develop abilities they may not learn elsewhere. They can also expose young people to different lifestyles and different groups of people than they are likely to meet in traditional classroom settings.
But, like everything worth having at school, they cost money. And as recent local budget fights have demonstrated, nothing is off-limits when it comes to saving a few dollars and pleasing the no-taxes-at-any-costs constituency. In the end, it’s the children who suffer for it.
Milford’s proposed budget would cut the option of the Trumbull regional vocational-agricultural program for its students. It would save about $100,000 from the education budget, or the cost of tuition and transportation for the 12 students currently enrolled. That’s not a small amount of money, but it represents one more lost opportunity, one less choice for Milford students.
The state mandates schools to fund only one vo-ag program per district, and because Milford is already linked with the Bridgeport aquaculture school, it has no obligation to continue working with the Agri-Science School at Trumbull High School. But education is about more than mandates and obligations. It’s about offering choices that students may not have known even existed. The Trumbull connection will be missed.
These programs are supposed to be regional in nature, and students meet people outside their typical circles. Opportunities to learn about aquaculture and agricultural science are hard to come by in most public schools, and though they may appeal to only a small subset of the student body, it’s hard to justify taking away a valuable learning tool.
Of course, textbooks and buildings and teachers cost money. And people are feeling the pinch of higher costs everywhere they turn, from the gas pump to the electric bill. But in one of the richest states in the country, we should do better. Schools should be opening doors, not closing them.
When education budgets are slashed, it leads to more than larger classes and fewer textbooks. It can also take away opportunities.
Vocational-agricultural programs present an appealing option for some students. They offer a chance to learn a skill and develop abilities they may not learn elsewhere. They can also expose young people to different lifestyles and different groups of people than they are likely to meet in traditional classroom settings.
But, like everything worth having at school, they cost money. And as recent local budget fights have demonstrated, nothing is off-limits when it comes to saving a few dollars and pleasing the no-taxes-at-any-costs constituency. In the end, it’s the children who suffer for it.
Milford’s proposed budget would cut the option of the Trumbull regional vocational-agricultural program for its students. It would save about $100,000 from the education budget, or the cost of tuition and transportation for the 12 students currently enrolled. That’s not a small amount of money, but it represents one more lost opportunity, one less choice for Milford students.
The state mandates schools to fund only one vo-ag program per district, and because Milford is already linked with the Bridgeport aquaculture school, it has no obligation to continue working with the Agri-Science School at Trumbull High School. But education is about more than mandates and obligations. It’s about offering choices that students may not have known even existed. The Trumbull connection will be missed.
These programs are supposed to be regional in nature, and students meet people outside their typical circles. Opportunities to learn about aquaculture and agricultural science are hard to come by in most public schools, and though they may appeal to only a small subset of the student body, it’s hard to justify taking away a valuable learning tool.
Of course, textbooks and buildings and teachers cost money. And people are feeling the pinch of higher costs everywhere they turn, from the gas pump to the electric bill. But in one of the richest states in the country, we should do better. Schools should be opening doors, not closing them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)