Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Rotary Club Offers Christmas Wreaths
Rotary Club of New Britain-Berlin (I'm a member) is again selling their famous long lasting decorative Christmas wreaths. The cost is $20. This year a portion of the proceeds will go to local food pantries / shelters to feed the hungry. If interested please send me a check, made out to Rotary Club and include your phone number or email, at Sir Speedy Printing Center 200 Main St New Britain CT 06051. The wreaths should be arriving around Thanksgiving. Thank you.
Mark Bernack
Mark Bernack
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Socialism Vs. Freedom
Amazingly Senator Gerratana is running to continue her social agenda with her pushing along with Governor Malloy the Jackson laboratory coating a large sum of money but only providing some two hundred jobs. She claims to be boosting Connecticut's economy, as she stated in a recent Courant article, " I supported expansion of U-Conn Health center." "This means thousands of new jobs over the next twenty years." She concluded.
Yes she along with Governor Malloy are supporting more jobs for the Connecticut Taxpayers to support when is all this liberal spending going to end?
Could all this planned construction work, U-Conn, be some sort of pay back by Governor Malloy to the unions for their election support?
In contrast as an attempt to create relief from all this liberal activity a Candidate surfaces. Dwight Blint, and rises to the occasion to end the liberal strong hold they hold on the state's taxpayers with his stating he will not any tax increases or fees alluding the present landlord licensing fees being proposed by the City of New Britain.
After Listening to debates where our state representatives along with their oppositions promised to funding to Education Blint cited, if elected one of his priorities would be changing many of the state's educational policies.
fs
Yes she along with Governor Malloy are supporting more jobs for the Connecticut Taxpayers to support when is all this liberal spending going to end?
Could all this planned construction work, U-Conn, be some sort of pay back by Governor Malloy to the unions for their election support?
In contrast as an attempt to create relief from all this liberal activity a Candidate surfaces. Dwight Blint, and rises to the occasion to end the liberal strong hold they hold on the state's taxpayers with his stating he will not any tax increases or fees alluding the present landlord licensing fees being proposed by the City of New Britain.
After Listening to debates where our state representatives along with their oppositions promised to funding to Education Blint cited, if elected one of his priorities would be changing many of the state's educational policies.
fs
Board Of Education Member Speaks out on Issues
The Consolidated School District of New Britain has many problems that the Board of Education is working on and that need its immediate attention. Low Test Scores, Poor Attendance and the never ending lack of sufficient dollars in the budget. We now have to face the moral problem of distributing condoms In the High School. This is a proposal of the Policy Committee chaired by Carlos Pina and supported by Aram Ayalon of CCSU. There has been a refusal to share any supporting documentation for handing out condoms.
The limited documentation presented to support this proposal for handing out condoms in High School has all been dated 2008 and earlier. There are several agencies in New Britain that hand out condoms to whomever asks for FREE. There have been outrageous claims that 95% of the students of NBHS are sexually active. This is completely not true. Estimates are that10 % might be sexually active. It has been stated that there are at least 50 young women attending the High School that are pregnant. Checking with employees at the school there are currently 6 or 7 young women that attend the “Young Mothers Program”
In order for a student to receive the services of the Health Clinic at the High School a parent must enroll the student. What is NOT told the parents is that once this is done they have NO say, and are NOT privileged to know what the type of service their students receive. (Government Law) Whether they receive counseling on abortion or tested for any STDS (sexually transmitted decease) the parents sign away all rights to access information on their student.
The School District has had a curriculum called Human Growth and Development that has been in place for approximately 15 years in grades K thru12. In that program it promotes abstinence is the only practice that can prevent STDS and early pregnancy. The program teaches age appropriate information.
The handing out of condoms will increase sexual behavior.
On November 5 the Board of Education will vote on whether to adopt this new Policy of handing out condoms. Everyone that is concerned for the direction that Arom Ayalon and Carlos Pina want this district to take should come and voice their opinion against handing out condoms.
James E. Sanders Sr. Board of Education Member
The limited documentation presented to support this proposal for handing out condoms in High School has all been dated 2008 and earlier. There are several agencies in New Britain that hand out condoms to whomever asks for FREE. There have been outrageous claims that 95% of the students of NBHS are sexually active. This is completely not true. Estimates are that10 % might be sexually active. It has been stated that there are at least 50 young women attending the High School that are pregnant. Checking with employees at the school there are currently 6 or 7 young women that attend the “Young Mothers Program”
In order for a student to receive the services of the Health Clinic at the High School a parent must enroll the student. What is NOT told the parents is that once this is done they have NO say, and are NOT privileged to know what the type of service their students receive. (Government Law) Whether they receive counseling on abortion or tested for any STDS (sexually transmitted decease) the parents sign away all rights to access information on their student.
The School District has had a curriculum called Human Growth and Development that has been in place for approximately 15 years in grades K thru12. In that program it promotes abstinence is the only practice that can prevent STDS and early pregnancy. The program teaches age appropriate information.
The handing out of condoms will increase sexual behavior.
On November 5 the Board of Education will vote on whether to adopt this new Policy of handing out condoms. Everyone that is concerned for the direction that Arom Ayalon and Carlos Pina want this district to take should come and voice their opinion against handing out condoms.
James E. Sanders Sr. Board of Education Member
Monday, October 29, 2012
Mayor O'Brien attacks all Landlords as being Slum-Lords with Lic Fee
The O'Brien administration has neglected to totally explain what it really means for a landlord to execute the required licensing fee agreement which forcing the him to agree to submit to the fair rent commission's control over his ability to raise his tenant's rental rate. A recent newspaper add, paid for by the city, advises the tenants that if your landlord attempts to raise you rent call the Fair Rent Commission at 860-826-3410.
The mayor and City is doing this under the guise of the city's anti-blight program and insinuating that all landlords are slum lords.
fs
The mayor and City is doing this under the guise of the city's anti-blight program and insinuating that all landlords are slum lords.
fs
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
New Britain's Bond Rating Gets a Downgrade!
Due to Mayor O'Brian's solution to tax the Landlords and Tenants even after the City ended with a 105K Budget surplus.
Yes, I am referring to the $150 fee the landlords must pay for each of their units each years unless the rate should be increased next year to balance the holes in the new annual proposed budget.
We all can remember that the Mayor promised to not raise taxes while he was running for mayor so now he has decided to punish those so called rich landlords with apartment fees. He also decide to introduce his HOTSPOT for calls that are made by tenants but the fines will be directed to the landlord. FARE???
Now the Landlords together with many associations of realtors have engaged Lawyers in order to proceed with law suit injunction against our city which will cost our taxpayers an enormous amount of money to defend.
Now, I read in a local newspaper, that the mayor promises that rents should not go up and advises tenants in the event their landlord should raise your rent to call the newly formed fair rent commission to complain. Information has it that the licensing fee agreement requires the landlord to agree to the edicts of the fair rent commission. Is this forceful approach be deemed Lawful by demanding a landlord to obtain such a license? Therefore, this fair rent commission will or maybe instructed to denied any rental increase "because everyone has to live someplace" as stated by Alderman Emanuel Sanchez when he was proposing his resolution which in essence forcing our city landlords to eat the higher cost to operate because the fair rent is instructed to deny any increases.
Needless to say mayor O'Brien, by his aforementioned actions, has declared himself a one term mayor.
fs
Yes, I am referring to the $150 fee the landlords must pay for each of their units each years unless the rate should be increased next year to balance the holes in the new annual proposed budget.
We all can remember that the Mayor promised to not raise taxes while he was running for mayor so now he has decided to punish those so called rich landlords with apartment fees. He also decide to introduce his HOTSPOT for calls that are made by tenants but the fines will be directed to the landlord. FARE???
Now the Landlords together with many associations of realtors have engaged Lawyers in order to proceed with law suit injunction against our city which will cost our taxpayers an enormous amount of money to defend.
Now, I read in a local newspaper, that the mayor promises that rents should not go up and advises tenants in the event their landlord should raise your rent to call the newly formed fair rent commission to complain. Information has it that the licensing fee agreement requires the landlord to agree to the edicts of the fair rent commission. Is this forceful approach be deemed Lawful by demanding a landlord to obtain such a license? Therefore, this fair rent commission will or maybe instructed to denied any rental increase "because everyone has to live someplace" as stated by Alderman Emanuel Sanchez when he was proposing his resolution which in essence forcing our city landlords to eat the higher cost to operate because the fair rent is instructed to deny any increases.
Needless to say mayor O'Brien, by his aforementioned actions, has declared himself a one term mayor.
fs
House and Senate Debate More of The Same!
Most candidates called for more jobs and education with some alluding to crime and objecting to the early release program and yet many calling for spending cuts but, adding more funds for Education.
In the Twenty Fourth district you have Representative Rick lopes indicating his support to Governor Malloy's labor agreement with state employees. He however, presented his view of blaming the past administration for leaving a 587 Million dollar deficit as an attempt to his protecting the Governor's overspending budgets. His opponent, Peter Steele, did answer the problem that former mayor Lucian Pawlak had for a solution, that he disagreed with at the time, for the shortage in New Britain's retirement pension funding by bonding it. He stated it turned out a stroke of genius because of the gains realized from interest rates rising. But Steele continued by tying jobs as a federal issue with the need of vocational technical education and stating that he also serves as the Chairman of the New Britain's Housing Authority where they are getting a federal and DCS grant to fund the building of a four million dollar building in cooperation with HRA for the training of the poor in our community in obtaining the necessary skills in getting work and becoming self reliant.
Rep Sanchez mentioned the need for jobs and vocational training. While Rep. Peter Tercyak pointing out of our having three hospitals in our community requiring additional future medical health care personnel in providing these future services.
All in attendance presented varied views but all seemed to be calling for more jobs as being our states real need.
One candidate that missed this venue was Dwight Blint candidate for the 26th District.
fs
In the Twenty Fourth district you have Representative Rick lopes indicating his support to Governor Malloy's labor agreement with state employees. He however, presented his view of blaming the past administration for leaving a 587 Million dollar deficit as an attempt to his protecting the Governor's overspending budgets. His opponent, Peter Steele, did answer the problem that former mayor Lucian Pawlak had for a solution, that he disagreed with at the time, for the shortage in New Britain's retirement pension funding by bonding it. He stated it turned out a stroke of genius because of the gains realized from interest rates rising. But Steele continued by tying jobs as a federal issue with the need of vocational technical education and stating that he also serves as the Chairman of the New Britain's Housing Authority where they are getting a federal and DCS grant to fund the building of a four million dollar building in cooperation with HRA for the training of the poor in our community in obtaining the necessary skills in getting work and becoming self reliant.
Rep Sanchez mentioned the need for jobs and vocational training. While Rep. Peter Tercyak pointing out of our having three hospitals in our community requiring additional future medical health care personnel in providing these future services.
All in attendance presented varied views but all seemed to be calling for more jobs as being our states real need.
One candidate that missed this venue was Dwight Blint candidate for the 26th District.
fs
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The New Britain Council Urged to impeach The Mayor and His staff
It is a few weeks short of a year since Tim O’Brien took over the reins as Mayor of New Britain. In that time the citizens of New Britain, especially the taxpayers have been given the equivalent of what in medical terms would be a report of multiple myeloma, a virulent, body-destroying cancer eating away at its very existence. Two Herald articles this week exemplify the problem: Monday, 10/22/12, “Life After School” and, Tuesday, 10/23/12, “City Downgraded.”
In this case, the culprit is not a true malignant cancer but a malignancy nonetheless, to wit, a hopelessly unqualified and inept City administration operating with majority support from an equally inept, rubber stamp Common Council.
O’Brien promised the citizens of New Britain a caring and totally transparent administration, free from any hint of graft and corruption. What did we get? We have a budget not supported by line item requests; we have a reorganization effort not supported by publicized plan nor a required public hearing; we had an announced employment hiring freeze but we have a plan to hire 30 (?) new police; we have an acting chief of every important department with concomitant raises to the point where nobody knows who reports to whom. We have a high salaried Chief of Staff who says nothing, we have a de facto Mayor who started off as a Director of Communications and is now a Deputy Chief of Staff and apparently, the determiner of what flows to the “press” and we have a Common Council that doesn’t even know what a Charter is or more important, what day it is.
And, as for our administration, they never run out of people to blame; the latest?, blame Nick Mercier, a non-elected individual who served as Finance Board Chair. Problem is that Mercier is probably ten times more informed and competent on budget matters than any member of O’Brien’s administration.
As for Phil Sherwood, New Britain is finding out why Hartford and a state Citizens’ group didn’t want him, Sherwood is a loose grenade with a missing pin; O’Brien himself ? It’s time for the Common Council to think about impeachment of O’Brien - and his immediate staff - for cause (s), i.e., malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance or any other “feasance” available.
Lou Salvio
In this case, the culprit is not a true malignant cancer but a malignancy nonetheless, to wit, a hopelessly unqualified and inept City administration operating with majority support from an equally inept, rubber stamp Common Council.
O’Brien promised the citizens of New Britain a caring and totally transparent administration, free from any hint of graft and corruption. What did we get? We have a budget not supported by line item requests; we have a reorganization effort not supported by publicized plan nor a required public hearing; we had an announced employment hiring freeze but we have a plan to hire 30 (?) new police; we have an acting chief of every important department with concomitant raises to the point where nobody knows who reports to whom. We have a high salaried Chief of Staff who says nothing, we have a de facto Mayor who started off as a Director of Communications and is now a Deputy Chief of Staff and apparently, the determiner of what flows to the “press” and we have a Common Council that doesn’t even know what a Charter is or more important, what day it is.
And, as for our administration, they never run out of people to blame; the latest?, blame Nick Mercier, a non-elected individual who served as Finance Board Chair. Problem is that Mercier is probably ten times more informed and competent on budget matters than any member of O’Brien’s administration.
As for Phil Sherwood, New Britain is finding out why Hartford and a state Citizens’ group didn’t want him, Sherwood is a loose grenade with a missing pin; O’Brien himself ? It’s time for the Common Council to think about impeachment of O’Brien - and his immediate staff - for cause (s), i.e., malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance or any other “feasance” available.
Lou Salvio
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Mayor O'Brien's balance budget mystery!
The transfer of the water bureau of funds of $10.6 million dollars and raiding of the retirement funds with a transfer in order to make the balance closure of the fiscal year look good for the administration and possibly not paying the bonding commitment, assumed by the city when taking the water bureau monies, until the day after the closure of the fiscal year. Since Mayor O'Brien had promised to not raise taxes with Alderman W. Pabon, [R] had recommended the mil rate be raised but, was ignored by the Democratic control council membership.
I am quite certain that the city auditors, hired by the city, will not approve and disallow the manipulations' of our city budget in this manner.
Could it be that the administration is counting on their receiving income from their new sources called the Hotspot calls fines, the slum violations of unkempt properties, and last but not least the adverse landlord fees of $150 per unit per year?
This last action, by the common council, has been the major factor of devaluating all properties of the City of New Britain such as multi-families, single homes, and including the business properties.
The Mayor should thank the Landlords' for the fees the city expects to collect.
fs
Too Have Become Disillusioned by The President
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
* * * * * * *
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
* * * * * * *
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Roraback Vs. Esty 5th. District Debate at the Trinity On Main, New Britain ,CT. 10-20-12
Andrew Roraback defending his 18 years of service in our Connecticut public sector but Democratic Elizabeth Esty fired verbal shots attempting to connect Roraback to U.S Speaker John Boehner with her trying to claim that they will jeopardize benefits for our seniors with their social security. Roraback pointed out that Governor Malloy imposed the largest tax on businesses creating the wrong path for Ct. creating fewer jobs in our state.
With one of the major questions that was asked of the candidates was to speak of the lower poverty level, social security and affordable health care with Ms. Esty indicating that Rep. Ryan cut 2,000 jobs for head start and tax credits for the middle class. Andrew Roraback responded indicating that he served all the people in his district and our President however, four years later more children are in poverty due to the failed policies of the Obama administration.
A question regarding the marriage act was asked with Esty responding that she supports sex dignity for all with protections. Roraback stated he didn't bow to the party pressure saying he voted against it and promised that he will vote to appeal it.
The question of environmental issue and independency was asked of the candidates Mr. Esty response was we need more sources of energy; clean energy with Roraback citing that we must focus on making the USA energy independent and we must become less reliant on Europe for our oil supplies.
Ms. Esty mentioned to keep the affordable care act in place with Roraback firing back that the Democrats took over 700 Billion Dollars from the Medicare fund making it much harder for our hospitals in providing the needed care due to the lower rates they are receiving from Medicare payments.
A question regarding the government's role on health issues.
Roraback's response stating that women have a right to chose that is her reproductive right. And the Feds should not be directing people's lives. Esty response was that Rep. Ryan debunk plan parenthood funding denying health opportunities. She continued with her stating that she lost her seat in the legislature with her vote on the death penalty issue with Roraback responding with I do wonder on how many people will be killed due to the early release program Life without parole means without parole but, Gov. Malloy releasing people that killed people.
All in all this debate was very respectful by the candidates towards each other and the League of Women Voters must be commended for handling this debate in a respectful manor.
Now it will up to the voters to chose who will represent them in the fifth district.
fs
With one of the major questions that was asked of the candidates was to speak of the lower poverty level, social security and affordable health care with Ms. Esty indicating that Rep. Ryan cut 2,000 jobs for head start and tax credits for the middle class. Andrew Roraback responded indicating that he served all the people in his district and our President however, four years later more children are in poverty due to the failed policies of the Obama administration.
A question regarding the marriage act was asked with Esty responding that she supports sex dignity for all with protections. Roraback stated he didn't bow to the party pressure saying he voted against it and promised that he will vote to appeal it.
The question of environmental issue and independency was asked of the candidates Mr. Esty response was we need more sources of energy; clean energy with Roraback citing that we must focus on making the USA energy independent and we must become less reliant on Europe for our oil supplies.
Ms. Esty mentioned to keep the affordable care act in place with Roraback firing back that the Democrats took over 700 Billion Dollars from the Medicare fund making it much harder for our hospitals in providing the needed care due to the lower rates they are receiving from Medicare payments.
A question regarding the government's role on health issues.
Roraback's response stating that women have a right to chose that is her reproductive right. And the Feds should not be directing people's lives. Esty response was that Rep. Ryan debunk plan parenthood funding denying health opportunities. She continued with her stating that she lost her seat in the legislature with her vote on the death penalty issue with Roraback responding with I do wonder on how many people will be killed due to the early release program Life without parole means without parole but, Gov. Malloy releasing people that killed people.
All in all this debate was very respectful by the candidates towards each other and the League of Women Voters must be commended for handling this debate in a respectful manor.
Now it will up to the voters to chose who will represent them in the fifth district.
fs
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING OVER $150 APARTMENT FEE
PROPERTY OWNERS! JOIN US TO HELP SAVE NEW BRITAIN AND YOUR PROPERTY VALUES!
WHEN: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER24 AT 5:30 PM
WHERE: WHINSTONE TAVERN, 245 HARTFORD ROAD, NEW BRITAIN, CT.
WHEN: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER24 AT 5:30 PM
WHERE: WHINSTONE TAVERN, 245 HARTFORD ROAD, NEW BRITAIN, CT.
Rep. Chris Murphy Wants Voters to Promote Him
The Tax collectors office reports as of 10-11-12 this delinquent tax is still outstanding with his campaign owing the city a sum of $62.46 in delinquent property taxes including interest accrued for the month of October.
fs
The CIA wants to get additional Drones.
The CIA director, David Petraeus, wants to the expand agency's ability wage lethal strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and wherever else that the Al-Qaeda threats may arise such as North Africa and any other trouble spots.
fs
Thursday, October 18, 2012
New Britain Police Detain Man Who Reportedly Abducted His Estranged Wife - Courant.com
By CHRISTINE DEMPSEY and ANTHONY DILORENZO
Daniel Davis Qualifies for Campaign Grant
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Daniel Davis for the 26th
NEW BRITAIN – Yesterday, the State Elections Enforcement Commission approved Daniel Davis’s application for a public grant from the Citizen’s Election Program for the election in New Britain’s 26th Assembly District.
The CEP required Davis to raise $5,000 in small contributions and have at last 140 donors that reside within New Britain. The approval of the application means that Davis’s campaign will receive a grant of $26, 850.
“I’m truly overwhelmed by the support I’ve received and I’m encouraged that so many people want me to run for the seat,” Davis said. “As I meet with the district residents and listen to their concerns, it’s clear that they are not happy with the way state government is operating and they believe I would serve as an effective, new agent of change. Our residents worry everyday that they will be hit with another tax increase from Hartford that they cannot afford. They need someone who will represent the people of the 26th district advocating on their behalf. I am that person.”
“Residents need a principled and compassionate elected official who will do what it takes to help bring jobs back to Connecticut and get our state working again. I will bring common sense and balance back to the Connecticut Legislature,” Davis added.
Davis is a 26 year old resident of New Britain.
Election Day is Tuesday November 6th. Please remember that polling locations have changed this year. To find out where vote please visit: http://www.dir.ct.gov/sots/LookUp.aspx
###
Daniel Davis for the 26th
NEW BRITAIN – Yesterday, the State Elections Enforcement Commission approved Daniel Davis’s application for a public grant from the Citizen’s Election Program for the election in New Britain’s 26th Assembly District.
The CEP required Davis to raise $5,000 in small contributions and have at last 140 donors that reside within New Britain. The approval of the application means that Davis’s campaign will receive a grant of $26, 850.
“I’m truly overwhelmed by the support I’ve received and I’m encouraged that so many people want me to run for the seat,” Davis said. “As I meet with the district residents and listen to their concerns, it’s clear that they are not happy with the way state government is operating and they believe I would serve as an effective, new agent of change. Our residents worry everyday that they will be hit with another tax increase from Hartford that they cannot afford. They need someone who will represent the people of the 26th district advocating on their behalf. I am that person.”
“Residents need a principled and compassionate elected official who will do what it takes to help bring jobs back to Connecticut and get our state working again. I will bring common sense and balance back to the Connecticut Legislature,” Davis added.
Davis is a 26 year old resident of New Britain.
Election Day is Tuesday November 6th. Please remember that polling locations have changed this year. To find out where vote please visit: http://www.dir.ct.gov/sots/LookUp.aspx
###
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Board Of Education proposes Condoms Again
FRANKSMITHSAYSNB EDITORIAL:
After reading local news accounts regarding our New Britain Board of Education's intent of obtaining parental permission to enroll their children to the student's health clinic to receive condoms.
Once this permission is granted by the parents they lose control over whatever service the students may receive in the future like "Abortions."
Parents be aware you are losing your right to inquiry of any subsequent treatments you child may receive from this program.
After reading local news accounts regarding our New Britain Board of Education's intent of obtaining parental permission to enroll their children to the student's health clinic to receive condoms.
Once this permission is granted by the parents they lose control over whatever service the students may receive in the future like "Abortions."
Parents be aware you are losing your right to inquiry of any subsequent treatments you child may receive from this program.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS
A List of Republican Budget Cuts Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list. These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts
--$9million annual
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15billionannualsavings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S. Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT THE HELL IS THISABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs-- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts
--$9million annual
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15billionannualsavings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S. Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT THE HELL IS THISABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs-- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?
Friday, October 12, 2012
SEIU Hit with RICO Suit
Same Union Sued by Yankee on Forced Unionization
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was accused of using threats, sabotage, and intimidation to coerce a business to accept union demands.
The suit, filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, also alleges that, "CT Gov. Dan Malloy's office attempted to orchestrate the sale of HealthBridge's Connecticut nursing homes by asking the company to contact an attorneyrepresenting a prospective buyer."
HealthBridge also said “defendants were able to persuade Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and the Connecticut Attorney General’s office to threaten to take the assets of the Connecticut facilities managed by plaintiff HealthBridge under receivership. Read the full story at Raising Hale.
If all this sounds familiar, it should. The Yankee Institute sued SEIU alleging similar tactics in their forced unionization campaign in alliance with Gov. Malloy.
Class Action Suit Promised Against New Britain by Landlords
New Britain Landlords, after two meetings at a local Restaurant, decided to Pony Up Legal Funds.
A Class Action Suit will soon be filed against the city with most landlords promising to charge additional rents to their tenants hurting not only the elderly but many of their student tenants.
The hotspot fees being charged against the landlords for the actions of their tenants is unconscionable that will also addressed within their action.
The $150 annual fee per apartment is additional to the high taxes the landlords must endure with owning their properties.
The Connecticut Property Owners Alliance of Waterbury, Ct. is heading this organized effort for our city's landlords.
fs
A Class Action Suit will soon be filed against the city with most landlords promising to charge additional rents to their tenants hurting not only the elderly but many of their student tenants.
The hotspot fees being charged against the landlords for the actions of their tenants is unconscionable that will also addressed within their action.
The $150 annual fee per apartment is additional to the high taxes the landlords must endure with owning their properties.
The Connecticut Property Owners Alliance of Waterbury, Ct. is heading this organized effort for our city's landlords.
fs
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Yemen News Alert:
A masked gunman has assassinated the Yemeni chief of security at the US Embassy in Sanaa.
The fifty year old, and a twenty year worker at the embassy, was shot on his was to work this AM.
Has President Obama lost all credibility with our citizens and voters?
I cannot wait for the phony stories to come out of Washington and the UN's US ambassador regarding this issue.
fs
The fifty year old, and a twenty year worker at the embassy, was shot on his was to work this AM.
Has President Obama lost all credibility with our citizens and voters?
I cannot wait for the phony stories to come out of Washington and the UN's US ambassador regarding this issue.
fs
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Businessman Scolds the Common Council
Mr.James Sanders Jr. in addressing the Common Council members, during Public Participation, by referring to the Special Council meeting that was held last week and calling it outrages as a back door method of legislating new fees.
Also referring to the hotspot legislation with his asking how do you expect the landlords to pay for the actions of their tenants?
Ending his comment by stating that the bottom line is that council is hurting the elderly and students as tenants with your new $150 fee for each apartment unit.
Also referring to the hotspot legislation with his asking how do you expect the landlords to pay for the actions of their tenants?
Ending his comment by stating that the bottom line is that council is hurting the elderly and students as tenants with your new $150 fee for each apartment unit.
NEW BRITAIN ACTING POLICE CHIEF JAMES WARDWELL AND ACTING CAPTAIN THOMAS STECK RECEIVE PROMOTIONS.
Both gentlemen have been acting captains with officer Steck being placed in that capacity since last July of this year. With Wardwell having been a Lt. and promoted to acting Captain about a year ago by the common council.
Acting chief Wardwell accepted his temporary demotion to Captain with his usual smile.
fs
Acting chief Wardwell accepted his temporary demotion to Captain with his usual smile.
fs
Candidate Asks: Whose Side Are you on?
To the Editor:
Before I begin, I ask you to please set aside the common and popular misconceptions about Republicans, that we are all rich, racist, rude, and radical Tea-Partiers. I’m by no means rich, I’m black, I am far from rude because my mother raised me better than that and I am against radicals of either party.
Now that I’ve got your attention, I must deplore what the Common Council did at a special meeting last Tuesday. They voted for a tax increase (disguised as a fee) for most rental property owners of the city of New Britain. This was unnecessary and unjust.
First, there were a host of alternatives. If you do not believe me, feel free to call your respective aldermen/alderwomen.
Second, the meeting was moved up to an earlier date in an attempt to shove this down the throats of both the citizens of the city of New Britain and also those who might vote in the negative and would not have sufficient time to gather their thoughts and facts for the debate.
However, we made do, and by “we” I mean the Republicans on the Council along with two independent thinkers on the Democratic side. I commend you, though that is what you are elected to do.
To the others I’m simply appalled as to how you can have the Council Chambers filled beyond capacity with people showing their disapproval of this proposal and still vote in favor of it.
I can only question where your allegiances lie. Do they lie with the people you serve or to your party? Whatever the answer may be, the people of the city of New Britain and students of CCSU will now be additionally burdened. And what for?! While I await my answer, I will leave you with this thought: next year at election time the voters of New Britain will not forget how you have forsaken them.
Daniel Davis,
New Britain
[Published in New Britain Herald Tuesday, October 9, 2012]
Before I begin, I ask you to please set aside the common and popular misconceptions about Republicans, that we are all rich, racist, rude, and radical Tea-Partiers. I’m by no means rich, I’m black, I am far from rude because my mother raised me better than that and I am against radicals of either party.
Now that I’ve got your attention, I must deplore what the Common Council did at a special meeting last Tuesday. They voted for a tax increase (disguised as a fee) for most rental property owners of the city of New Britain. This was unnecessary and unjust.
First, there were a host of alternatives. If you do not believe me, feel free to call your respective aldermen/alderwomen.
Second, the meeting was moved up to an earlier date in an attempt to shove this down the throats of both the citizens of the city of New Britain and also those who might vote in the negative and would not have sufficient time to gather their thoughts and facts for the debate.
However, we made do, and by “we” I mean the Republicans on the Council along with two independent thinkers on the Democratic side. I commend you, though that is what you are elected to do.
To the others I’m simply appalled as to how you can have the Council Chambers filled beyond capacity with people showing their disapproval of this proposal and still vote in favor of it.
I can only question where your allegiances lie. Do they lie with the people you serve or to your party? Whatever the answer may be, the people of the city of New Britain and students of CCSU will now be additionally burdened. And what for?! While I await my answer, I will leave you with this thought: next year at election time the voters of New Britain will not forget how you have forsaken them.
Daniel Davis,
New Britain
[Published in New Britain Herald Tuesday, October 9, 2012]
Yankee Institue Give Malloy an F
You Can't Get Lower Than "F"
Cato Institute Gives Malloy a Failing Grade
The Cato Institute unveiled their annual Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors yesterday and the news was not good for Connecticut's Dan Malloy. He was one of just five governors to receive an "F" for his fiscal management over the past two years.
That wasn't the only bit of bad news for Connecticut. The Tax Foundation released their 2013 State Business Tax Climate Index. It rated our business climate as the 11th worst in the country.
Meanwhile, many of the state's politicians gathered last Friday to gloat about receiving $121 million in federal funds to fund the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Project. Just one problem with that: the money had already been counted.
No wonder Gov. Malloy got an "F" on his report card.
Cato Institute Gives Malloy a Failing Grade
The Cato Institute unveiled their annual Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors yesterday and the news was not good for Connecticut's Dan Malloy. He was one of just five governors to receive an "F" for his fiscal management over the past two years.
That wasn't the only bit of bad news for Connecticut. The Tax Foundation released their 2013 State Business Tax Climate Index. It rated our business climate as the 11th worst in the country.
Meanwhile, many of the state's politicians gathered last Friday to gloat about receiving $121 million in federal funds to fund the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Project. Just one problem with that: the money had already been counted.
No wonder Gov. Malloy got an "F" on his report card.
Former New Britain police chief William Galiardi Retirement Testimonial.
For his 41 Years of devoted service a retirement party will be held at the Tunxis Plantation, Farmington, Ct. on October 23.at six P M
Tickets are available through the office of Acting Police Chief James Wardwell at 860-826-3066.
fs
Tickets are available through the office of Acting Police Chief James Wardwell at 860-826-3066.
fs
Truck Accident Closes New Britain Avenue in Newington
Truck Crash Causes New Britain Avenue in Newington to Close this Morning.
Avoid this area for your morning travel.
fs
Avoid this area for your morning travel.
fs
New Britain Property Owners Plan Action
New Britain Property Owners Met at Rosa's Restaurant to Discuss the City's New $150 per rental fee licenses and the Hotspot Issue.
This meeting was held Tuesday evening and have agreed to correlate their efforts with the Connecticut Property Owners Alliance of Waterbury, ct.
The next meeting will be held Next Thursday morning to select a committee of the owners and to create funding from all New Britain owners for an up-coming legal battle.
fs
This meeting was held Tuesday evening and have agreed to correlate their efforts with the Connecticut Property Owners Alliance of Waterbury, ct.
The next meeting will be held Next Thursday morning to select a committee of the owners and to create funding from all New Britain owners for an up-coming legal battle.
fs
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
Landlord Licensing Fees
At Last Thursday's Special Common Council Meeting the Common Council members decided to Force Landlords to Obtain Licenses for Their Rental Properties.
What was amazing to note, was the large number of property owners in attendance, at this meeting, with these Aldermen paying no attention as to who they were provoking.
Instead of sitting down with these owners to work out a compromise the Aldermen passed a licensing fee of $150 per unit per year.
As I understand the comments made by some of the owners is that they will ignore the city by not filing for the licenses and or paying the per unit fee but, they prefer to go to court.
fs
What was amazing to note, was the large number of property owners in attendance, at this meeting, with these Aldermen paying no attention as to who they were provoking.
Instead of sitting down with these owners to work out a compromise the Aldermen passed a licensing fee of $150 per unit per year.
As I understand the comments made by some of the owners is that they will ignore the city by not filing for the licenses and or paying the per unit fee but, they prefer to go to court.
fs
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Saturday, October 6, 2012
LANDLORDS, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND DEVELOPERS:
Law Suit discussions, by all of the above interested parties, regarding the new unit licensing fee being imposed onto the city's landlords by the common council of the city of New Britain.
This meeting is scheduled to be held this coming Tuesday evening at Roma's restaurant at 6 P.M.
fs.
This meeting is scheduled to be held this coming Tuesday evening at Roma's restaurant at 6 P.M.
fs.
Friday, October 5, 2012
The vote on the landlord ordinance - YouTube
Remember those that voted for this hardship on landlords and hopefully they also be personally included with the promised law suits against the city.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
TONIGHT'S SPECIAL SESSION COUNCIL MEETING ON FLAT FEE PLAN FOR LANDLORDS:
In spite of the fervent effort, on the part of Alderman Jamie Giantonio, warning his fellow councilors to not vote for this resolution before you tonight. Because the city will not see any benefit from an affirmative vote for years to come. "Because this is selective targeting of landlords and developers with many law suits that will result against our city." "You are being asked to approve a $150 per unit fee tonight but it opens the door to changing that fee, at a later date, to $250 and later on to $300 where does it stop?"
His hard fight fell apart with only three others voting with him and the infamous $150 licensing fee per unit resolution was passed by the common council. With the council chamber filled with an over capacity of attendees with standing room only that extending into the hallway.
The Hot Spot fee against landlords was also passed with some attendees indicating such a fee should be passed onto the "troblesome tenants".
fs
His hard fight fell apart with only three others voting with him and the infamous $150 licensing fee per unit resolution was passed by the common council. With the council chamber filled with an over capacity of attendees with standing room only that extending into the hallway.
The Hot Spot fee against landlords was also passed with some attendees indicating such a fee should be passed onto the "troblesome tenants".
fs
Turkey authorizes military action in Syria after mortar attack that killed civilians - The Washington Post
Middle East Crisis Continues
NEW BRITAIN PROPERTY OWNERS ALERT!
There will be only two item on the agenda:
1 A charge for all landlords of $150.00 per unit per year.
2. Hot spots fines against the property owners for excessive 911 calls receive.
fs
SPECIAL MEETING ANNOUCED BY NBRTC CHAIRMAN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Common Council to sneak through renters fee
New Britain, CT – October 3, 2012 – In a move that has local property owners and investors up and arms the Common Council of New Britain has called for a special meeting to discuss a highly controversial new fee on rental properties. “They don’t want to hear what the public has to say, and that is why they are doing this in a special meeting” said Republican Town Committee Chairman, Dwight Blint. The only difference between a regular meeting of the Common Council and a special meeting is that there is no public participation allowed at special meetings. Blint added, “There is no reason that this matter couldn’t wait until the next regular common council meeting to be addressed” pointing to the fact that the ordinance as written would not be enacted until February of 2013.
The ordinance in question is highly controversial and would call for a $150 per unit fee to be assessed on most rental properties within the city of New Britain. At last night’s meeting of the Planning Zoning and Housing subcommittee over 30 residents and property owners in New Britain spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinance and not one person spoke in favor of the ordinance. Alderman Jamie Giantonio was quick to point this fact out saying, “It seems like this administration is trying to enact this ordinance hastily and under the cover of darkness because they know there is a strong public opposition.” Other public officials were also disturbed by the way the Mayor’s office is handling this issue. Vice Chairman of the Republican Town Committee and Board of Education member Erin Stewart said, “I don’t know why any elected official would try to so blatantly avoid hearing what the public has to say.”
Blint echoed Stewart’s sentiments, saying, “This is coming from a Mayor who campaigned on the promise of a more open and transparent government. I don’t think any government that willfully tries to avoid public oversight can claim to be open.” Blint is urging all concerned property owners, landlords, and tenants to attend the special meeting at 8:00pm Thursday night in the Council Chamber of City Hall. “If they won’t hear our complaints they will certainly feel our presence.”
###
Contact:
Dwight Blint – Chairman, NBRTC
dwightblint@gmail.com
Ph: 860-899-4711
Common Council to sneak through renters fee
New Britain, CT – October 3, 2012 – In a move that has local property owners and investors up and arms the Common Council of New Britain has called for a special meeting to discuss a highly controversial new fee on rental properties. “They don’t want to hear what the public has to say, and that is why they are doing this in a special meeting” said Republican Town Committee Chairman, Dwight Blint. The only difference between a regular meeting of the Common Council and a special meeting is that there is no public participation allowed at special meetings. Blint added, “There is no reason that this matter couldn’t wait until the next regular common council meeting to be addressed” pointing to the fact that the ordinance as written would not be enacted until February of 2013.
The ordinance in question is highly controversial and would call for a $150 per unit fee to be assessed on most rental properties within the city of New Britain. At last night’s meeting of the Planning Zoning and Housing subcommittee over 30 residents and property owners in New Britain spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinance and not one person spoke in favor of the ordinance. Alderman Jamie Giantonio was quick to point this fact out saying, “It seems like this administration is trying to enact this ordinance hastily and under the cover of darkness because they know there is a strong public opposition.” Other public officials were also disturbed by the way the Mayor’s office is handling this issue. Vice Chairman of the Republican Town Committee and Board of Education member Erin Stewart said, “I don’t know why any elected official would try to so blatantly avoid hearing what the public has to say.”
Blint echoed Stewart’s sentiments, saying, “This is coming from a Mayor who campaigned on the promise of a more open and transparent government. I don’t think any government that willfully tries to avoid public oversight can claim to be open.” Blint is urging all concerned property owners, landlords, and tenants to attend the special meeting at 8:00pm Thursday night in the Council Chamber of City Hall. “If they won’t hear our complaints they will certainly feel our presence.”
###
Contact:
Dwight Blint – Chairman, NBRTC
dwightblint@gmail.com
Ph: 860-899-4711
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
NEW BRITAIN BOARD OF EDUCATION'S HEAT PROGRAM IS CREATING HEAT!
++nb+boe.jpg)
Really? Why are BOE meetings set for Oct with a final vote to occur on Nov. 5th.?
For the students to get condoms from the "heat program" the parents must sign their students into this program thus relinquishing the parental control thereafter. The parents lose any say in what subsequent services are afforded to the students.
This appears it to be a civil rights issue against the parents and their students therefore, the clergy, parents, and whatever other interested social groups should attend both up-coming proposed meetings at the board of Education.
fs
MAYOR'S TANSPARENCY AT CITY HALL IS QUESTIONABLE!
With that being said, the question arises, as to where are these reports. Why is the public being kept in the dark from the results of both audits since it was their tax dollars that paid for this information. What was the added cost to the city?
You promised transparency when you were running for office however, that all changed after your arrival at city hall.
fs
CPOA'S response to Monday's Sub-Committee of the Planning & Zoning Meeting
A Math Problem
October 3, 2012 / By: Nicholas Mercier
I outlined in this previous post how the new police hotspot fee was build on very fuzzy math. After hearing Alderman Trueworthy speak on the matter the math is even more unrealistic than my worse case scenario. We could see property owners being hit with over $10,000 in fines per year.
In this recent newspaper article the mayor states what Alderman Trueworthy repeated at the meeting, that “2% of the properties in New Britain are responsible for 33% of the calls.” Remember when I outlined how the fee is calculated? First you take the number of calls a “hotspot” receives in a month, and then you divide that by the total number of police calls in a month. Those addresses are then assessed a fine based on their share of the cost of the entire police or fire budget respectively.
Warning! Math Ahead!
(Feel free to skip ahead to the bottom line)
For simplicity sake lets just look at the police calls for now.
The annual police budget for 2013 is around $15.4 million. That means that the monthly budget is $1.3 million (approximately). According to the ordinance the properties that are responsible for the 33% of calls would pay for 33% of the monthly budget, or around $423,000. So what does 2% of the population mean?
Well based on the US Census figures New Britain has about 28,000 to 32,000 housing units. So 2% of the properties would be around 560 to 640 properties that are the “hotspots”.
The Bottom Line
So if these property owners had to split that $423,000 bill they would each be looking at $660 to $775… per month, or close to $10,000 per year.
And that is the best case scenario!
Assuming that some of these police calls aren’t being distributed evenly certain property owners could be hit with even higher fees.
Why it won’t work
After this resolution was sent back to the council by the subcommittee I spoke with several of the aldermen about why they thought this was a good idea. One Alderman said that the purpose was to discourage people from renting to problem tenants, but there is no way to know if a tenant could become a problem and while you wait 6 months for an eviction they are going to be expected to pay $5000 on top of lost rent and eviction fees?
This ordinance is supposedly designed to recoup expenses and discourage bad behavior. But it does nothing to address the behavior of those making the excessive calls.
A better solution
If you want to recoup expenses and discourage bad behavior then you need to target those who are making the calls, not the property owners. There are a couple ways we could specifically address this issue:
■Increase fines for the specific types of calls that result in these “hotspots.” If that means clarifying or attaching teeth to a noise ordinance or a public intoxication ordinance then do it.
■Target fines at the offenders, not the landlords. A person is not going to change their behavior because their landlord is being hit with excessive fines.
■Enforce the laws already on the books. Currently we have a $99 dollar fine for repeated calls to an address. This law has never been aggressively enforced by either the current or previous administration. We need to know why not, and if it is because of reasons such as bookkeeping or manpower, we need to consider if this change will be just as unmanageable.
The math on this is scary, and I invite any commentary or questions about these numbers below. Again, these are based off the information the public has been provided with, and from the comments at the meeting it does not appear that the Common Council has any privileged information that they not sharing. If anyone has additional information I would be glad to hear it.
October 3, 2012 / By: Nicholas Mercier
I outlined in this previous post how the new police hotspot fee was build on very fuzzy math. After hearing Alderman Trueworthy speak on the matter the math is even more unrealistic than my worse case scenario. We could see property owners being hit with over $10,000 in fines per year.
In this recent newspaper article the mayor states what Alderman Trueworthy repeated at the meeting, that “2% of the properties in New Britain are responsible for 33% of the calls.” Remember when I outlined how the fee is calculated? First you take the number of calls a “hotspot” receives in a month, and then you divide that by the total number of police calls in a month. Those addresses are then assessed a fine based on their share of the cost of the entire police or fire budget respectively.
Warning! Math Ahead!
(Feel free to skip ahead to the bottom line)
For simplicity sake lets just look at the police calls for now.
The annual police budget for 2013 is around $15.4 million. That means that the monthly budget is $1.3 million (approximately). According to the ordinance the properties that are responsible for the 33% of calls would pay for 33% of the monthly budget, or around $423,000. So what does 2% of the population mean?
Well based on the US Census figures New Britain has about 28,000 to 32,000 housing units. So 2% of the properties would be around 560 to 640 properties that are the “hotspots”.
The Bottom Line
So if these property owners had to split that $423,000 bill they would each be looking at $660 to $775… per month, or close to $10,000 per year.
And that is the best case scenario!
Assuming that some of these police calls aren’t being distributed evenly certain property owners could be hit with even higher fees.
Why it won’t work
After this resolution was sent back to the council by the subcommittee I spoke with several of the aldermen about why they thought this was a good idea. One Alderman said that the purpose was to discourage people from renting to problem tenants, but there is no way to know if a tenant could become a problem and while you wait 6 months for an eviction they are going to be expected to pay $5000 on top of lost rent and eviction fees?
This ordinance is supposedly designed to recoup expenses and discourage bad behavior. But it does nothing to address the behavior of those making the excessive calls.
A better solution
If you want to recoup expenses and discourage bad behavior then you need to target those who are making the calls, not the property owners. There are a couple ways we could specifically address this issue:
■Increase fines for the specific types of calls that result in these “hotspots.” If that means clarifying or attaching teeth to a noise ordinance or a public intoxication ordinance then do it.
■Target fines at the offenders, not the landlords. A person is not going to change their behavior because their landlord is being hit with excessive fines.
■Enforce the laws already on the books. Currently we have a $99 dollar fine for repeated calls to an address. This law has never been aggressively enforced by either the current or previous administration. We need to know why not, and if it is because of reasons such as bookkeeping or manpower, we need to consider if this change will be just as unmanageable.
The math on this is scary, and I invite any commentary or questions about these numbers below. Again, these are based off the information the public has been provided with, and from the comments at the meeting it does not appear that the Common Council has any privileged information that they not sharing. If anyone has additional information I would be glad to hear it.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
O'Brien Administration Looking to Punish New Britain Landlords.
.jpg)
Is this administration that inept?
fs
Current City Officials Absent for the Library Fund Rasier
This past Saturday evening (9/29/12) there was a fundraiser for the NB Public Library, at the Library. My wife and I are members as our many of our friends. While there were not many people there, I understand that there were hundreds of tickets sold. That was nice to hear.
My point in writing this letter is this; Mayor O'Brien and his administration have an official voice in determining the amount of funding the NB Public Library and its affiliate receive. Already, there was an attempt by the Mayor to decrease funding for these entities during the budget sessions. Now that threat is rearing its ugly head again.
The Library is a very important service to the citizens of NB as can be attested to by the thousands of citizens that use it every year. I did not see any current Council members, the Mayor or any of his Staff at this fundraiser, nor were there any Directors or Department Heads present. Not one State Representative nor our current State Senator. That is very sad and I consider it an affront to this fine Public Institution and their staff, many of whom are volunteers. Also, I did not notice any member of the local media at this event. This event was advertised for over a month and while I realize that people may have had other long standing plans, seeing no current city officials there was a disgusting example of lack of support.
Some former NB politicos were present such as, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and husband Ted, former Alderwoman Barbara Canzonetti, former Alderman Mark Bernacki and his wife Maria, I and my wife Dottie and Diedre Ierardi.
It was a very nice event with good food and entertainment.
On Oct 2, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Louis Salvio wrote:
My point in writing this letter is this; Mayor O'Brien and his administration have an official voice in determining the amount of funding the NB Public Library and its affiliate receive. Already, there was an attempt by the Mayor to decrease funding for these entities during the budget sessions. Now that threat is rearing its ugly head again.
The Library is a very important service to the citizens of NB as can be attested to by the thousands of citizens that use it every year. I did not see any current Council members, the Mayor or any of his Staff at this fundraiser, nor were there any Directors or Department Heads present. Not one State Representative nor our current State Senator. That is very sad and I consider it an affront to this fine Public Institution and their staff, many of whom are volunteers. Also, I did not notice any member of the local media at this event. This event was advertised for over a month and while I realize that people may have had other long standing plans, seeing no current city officials there was a disgusting example of lack of support.
Some former NB politicos were present such as, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and husband Ted, former Alderwoman Barbara Canzonetti, former Alderman Mark Bernacki and his wife Maria, I and my wife Dottie and Diedre Ierardi.
It was a very nice event with good food and entertainment.
On Oct 2, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Louis Salvio wrote:
Monday, October 1, 2012
Howard Dean Democrat said...
Frank Smith you are a fake democrat and a disgrace to the party. If there were a way to forcibly remove you from the party, I would volunteer 20 hours a week to do so. You're just a puppet for the Republican Party in town -- it's disgusting. If I were on the city council I would laugh in your face if you ever approached me for an interview for your garbage blog.
You're nothing but a megaphone for frauds like Lou Salvio. Absolutely disgraceful that you link to these awful news stories that always slam heroic individuals like Obama and Murphy. My 5 year old daughter is more politically savvy than you are. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. You are nothing but the propaganda arm for the Republican Party and this ridiculous website that you pass on as a news outlet has as much fact in it as the national enquirer.
You don't even have the guts to allow comments like these through because you censor comments like Big Brother in 1984 -- the exact type of system that you and your hysterical band of ignorant yahoos preach against each day.
October 1, 2012 5:05 PM
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
