“Right now we have to set our public policy on public safety first, and that’s what I thought this hearing and this process was about in light of the Cheshire murders. And unfortunately, I’m getting the feeling that it is shifting and I don’t think that is healthy.”
-House Minority Leader Larry Cafero (R), on the criminal justice reform hearings being held today.
Advertisement
Do you know whats happen:
For the first time ever Democrats are concerned about spending money on new state programs. Rep. Gerogosian tried to get Sen. McKinney to commit to raising taxes if need be.
The Democrats will never sacrifice any revenue for their social programs for the protection of the state residents. Rep. Morris and Walker love to talk about racial and economic disparities but didn’t we just spend $100 million on Rep. Walker’s raise the age bill.
I guess we could have prison quotas. Not enough whites, time to target them or too many hispanics let them out!
Rep. Walker gets my vote for most condesending legislature. She seems to talk down to evry person she talks to.
If a man rapes women 3 separate times the third one should merit life in prison at mininum.
Genghis,
Good catch, and I think Cafero is right on point. I obvliously did not see all of the hearing, but from what I saw, Lawlor and McDonald seemed to want this dog and pony show to be about capital punishment, prison space, judicial discretion, etc. Basically anything but 3 strikes and the Cheshire incident. Might that be because Lawlor and Co. are on the wrong side of this issue politically, they didn’t want to give any points to the GOP for leading the charge on three strikes after the Cheshire tragedy? I would hope not, but I’m afraid my hunch is correct. Kudos to Cafero for trying to get the hearing back on task.
What is the point of “universal health care” if citizens aren’t protected from serious violent offenders? Does the Pettit family care about thier health care right now?
A story to my point:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/nov/23/citys-diversity-training-video-labeled-racist-agai/
Being white is now considered evil.
Centrist,
I caught most of it from the beginning until about 5 and the whole thing was about Three Strikes. Caliguri, who wrote the GOP proposal even admitted that his three strikes plan would not have prevented Cheshire.
[quote post="1223"]Caliguri, who wrote the GOP proposal even admitted that his three strikes plan would not have prevented Cheshire.[/quote]
I was listening to Ray and Diane this morning in the car and Larry Cafero acknowledged the same thing…
Do any of our CT bloggers have any coverage of this yet? I saw only the first hour or so, so anything I post will be based on news reports and I want to get a better read on what happened than the generic nonsense that the Courant will spew.
There is no law, three strikes or other, that can prevent tragedies like Cheshire. It is my hope, however, that the law can be changed to make sure that those who commit these heinous crimes, or have shown a proclivity to do so, are dealt with accordingly to minimize the chances of such crimes being committed. If the legislature can and should do anything, it is to make sure known violent offenders are kept from harming the general public. I hope we can all agree on that.
[quote comment="23170"]There is no law, three strikes or other, that can prevent tragedies like Cheshire. It is my hope, however, that the law can be changed to make sure that those who commit these heinous crimes, or have shown a proclivity to do so, are dealt with accordingly to minimize the chances of such crimes being committed. If the legislature can and should do anything, it is to make sure known violent offenders are kept from harming the general public. I hope we can all agree on that.[/quote]
What do you mean by those that have “show a proclivity” to do so? Are you referring to people who have not yet committed a violent offense, but that we can somehow predict will?
[quote post="1223"]What do you mean by those that have “show a proclivity” to do so? Are you referring to people who have not yet committed a violent offense, but that we can somehow predict will? [/quote]
I mean previously convicted violent offenders. We obviously can not predict who will commit crimes in the future.
Three Strikes = 3 separate rape, murder, kidnap, Robbery convictions.
A third offense I think constitutes a proclivity! And derserves LIFE!
A bit of posturing on the part of Cafero. As a veteran of the House he should be well aware of the fact that the Connecticut legislature is probably the most hostile -to-law-enforcement legislature in the country.
“Unfortunately, I was naïve to think that I could expose the truth about the systemic problems within the state police and be protected,” he said Tuesday.
Matthews, who is studying for his law degree, said he was misled by the state attorney general’s office when he was promised protection, and is questioning just how much authority Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has in protecting a whistle-blower from an employer, if any.
“The legislature needs to modify the existing whistle-blower statute in order to provide real protection,” Matthews said.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctcspwhistle1128.artnov28,0,6707973.story
BTW, had existing laws been followed there is agood chance the opportunity for the Cheshire tragedy to happen never would have occurred. The lone survivor asked yesterday that politics be removed from the solution process. Too bad some chose not to heed his request
Among the attendees were members of the state’s judiciary, who for the first time opposed any law that would end their sentencing flexibility by calling for mandatory minimum prison terms.
—–
The state’s current laws punishing repeat offenders – rarely used by prosecutors – give judges the option of sentencing such offenders for any period, including up to life in prison.
Speakers yesterday asked whether Connecticut could afford such a proposal, while officials, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell, pushed for more halfway house beds, GPS monitors and assistance for prisoners re-entering society.
—–
The state’s top judges yesterday said mandatory minimum sentences, including those in the three-strikes proposals, limit their ability to treat each case independently.
“Every case is different,” said Patrick Clifford, the state’s chief administrative judge for criminal matters.
—-
The leading Democratic proposal also would toughen burglary penalties by broadening the definitions of first- and second-degree burglary.
http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-nor.judicial4nov28,0,6798763.story?coll=nor-news-local-headlines
Those who testified before the Sentencing and Parole Review Task Force expressed a need for a stronger supervision of parolees and discussed problems – such as lack of education and employment – those offenders face when released into society.
The panel, formed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell shortly after the July 23 slayings of a Cheshire woman and her two daughters in their home by two repeat burglary offenders, is scheduled to report to Rell by Dec. 15.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19060748&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
—-
Speedy Criminal-Justice Reform Urged
McKinney, GOP say act now, face fiscal consequences later
shoot, ready, aim!!!!!!
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=62dd6f41-e7ad-4463-8223-38629e0fdda3
Susan O. Storey, the state’s chief public defender, said laws that send repeat offenders back to prison for long periods of time are often biased against minorities.
“They may not have a history of violence that is an actual threat to society,” Storey said, adding that in recent years, Connecticut has had one of the top five incarceration rates in the nation.
She also warned of the need for more funding for public defenders, prosecutors and inmate re-entry services, if a three-strikes law is written. She warned that Connecticut incarcerates a higher percentage of people of color, including the juvenile system, than almost any other state.
“National research shows that those states that have three-strikes legislation and increased mandatory minimums, that sort of structure increases the likelihood that minorities will be targeted and incarcerated more than non-minorities,” she said. “One in six of Hartford’s children have an incarcerated parent or parents.”
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_7575383
Wow – Maybe more minorities are impacted by three strikes laws because more minorities commit multiple violent crimes? It is a chicken-egg problem, where lack of inner city parents, poverty, societal woes, lack of jobs combine to create an environment where crime is more pervasive. Do you let the violent criminals in hopes that they reconnect with their children out and try to reduce future crime by social engineering, or do you protect societ NOW and lock up multiple violent offenders for a long time so they can’t harm innocent people again? Me, I’ll take the decreased risk of violence for myself and my family now.
And the three strikes proposal would have kept those Cheshire animals in jail – Komisarjevsky had many more than three burglaries, and Hayes had at least three convictions of theft of a handgun and burglary combined. Cafero is wrong on that regard. While you can never accurately predict future violence and lock up potential criminals, you can reduce the risk posed by career violent offenders by putting them away from law abiding citizens. rea
In his plea, Dr. Petit was not specific about how the legislature should address deficiencies in the system. But Representative Adinolfi said Dr. Petit wanted to “help prevent this from happening to anyone else.”
—–
In the aftermath of the slayings, Gov. M. Jodi Rell appointed a task force to review the Connecticut criminal justice system from arrest to release, and the Judiciary Committee vowed to work with the panel to push through measures including changing sentencing guidelines, appointing a full-time board on pardons and parole and increasing electronic monitoring of parolees. The committee’s deadline for recommendations is January.
Other proposals before the committee include a more stringent “three-strikes” law for violent repeat offenders, a new medium-security prison, a separate medical and mental health prison for inmates, mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of burglaries, a registry of parolees and psychiatric exams for some of them.
In his message to the legislators, Dr. Petit wrote: “Words cannot express how sad I am that nothing you will do can undo what happened to my family. I write this letter, because it is so urgently important, that you, as our legislative body, learn from these awful events and take full advantage of this opportunity to comprehensively change our laws to better protect other innocent members of society.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/nyregion/28cheshire.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin
“I think we have to build another prison,” said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, an East Haven Democrat and one of the judiciary committee’s chairmen. “I think we have to do it.”
But both Rell and legislative Republicans say prison expansion should be a last resort because the state has already sharply increased the prison population over the past two decades.
——
Superior Court Judge Patrick Clifford, the chief administrative judge for criminal matters, testified that mandatory sentences serve to stifle the judges. With 13 years as a prosecutor and 17 years as a criminal judge, Clifford said, he has seen enough cases in which mandatory sentences would not be appropriate
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hc-cheshire1128.artnov28,0,4707394.story?coll=hc_tab01_layout
The legislators need to remember the old adage, ‘If you want it bad, you will get it bad.’ Legislation written in haste will be hastely written and full on unintended consequences. I hope they can take the time to craft legislation that will help in solving the problem of habitual crime yet still help in solving the causes of that crime.
Why build more prisons? – just ship them out of state, or get the pot smokers and non-violent offenders out of jail sooner.
I listened to the hearings and just kept hearing that three strikes wasn’t necessarily three strikes, and that prosecutors will have the latitude to decide whether to let the third offense be one that puts you away for life – or not. So what is the point really? It doesn’t seem to me that any of this new reform would stop Cheshire from happening again. And maybe Rep. Green is more correct in saying that we ought to be doing much more on the prevention and rehabilitation side to get some real results in preventing these crimes to begin with. (Although, I’m not liking the mental health assessment stuff he talked about… because those tools have their own flaws and issues). We also ought to be working on prevention and rehabilitation without creating dependence on the state.
I think they need to stop pussy footing and either do it (put people away for good on serial violent crime) or don’t do it. It’s just like one of the Republicans (I think Heagney) was saying at the end , that our death sentencing is really a “false death sentence” because one could appeal ad nauseum, and they do. So this three strikes legislation could feasibly become four or five strikes, and when it comes to rape and arson and murder, perhaps those are one or two more times too many if prosecutors are too lenient. The Judiciary Committee really needs to think hard on this one and create some watered down legislation just to placate the public – they need to really make some meaningful reform to these laws regarding violent crime and repeat offenses. At this point it isn’t about deterrence, it’s about public safety and keeping these people locked up. There is no reason in this world that a woman home alone, while her spouse is away on a business trip should be in such fear for her life in her own home! If this is the case, then we ought to also allow her the means to be able to defend herself freely.
With that in mind – Glad to hear Rep. Klarides has a Louisville Slugger for protection – at least she doesn’t have to keep it locked away and unavailable if an intruder ever breaks in. (or are the Dems planning on making Louisville Slugger Control Laws as well at some point?)
Sorry – I meant
The Judiciary Committee really needs to think hard on this one and NOT create some watered down legislation just to placate the public – they need to really make some meaningful reform to these laws regarding violent crime and repeat offenses.
I think we have to build another prison,” said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, an East Haven Democrat and one of the judiciary committee’s chairmen. “I think we have to do it.
But both Rell and legislative Republicans say prison expansion should be a last resort because the state has already sharply increased the prison population over the past two decades.
Building another prison should be a last resort and I don’t think it’s the answer here. All it does is send the state’s costs rapidly upward. First we need to examine what people are in there for and weed through who can be effectively rehabilitated and released back into society. After, isn’t one of the purposes of the prison system, better known as CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, to rehab? Are we doing that effectively? Can we do it better? Can we do it differently? And why has our prison population gone up so sharply in recent years? Let’s look at the numbers before we decide to get into the brick and mortar of another prison.
Next, before I would want to see another prison built I would prefer to see us revert back to sending inmates to private facilities. I would reserve this for longer term inmates that are less likely to be rehabbed.
I guess what I’m getting at is that this is more than “more crimes, more prisoners, need more prisons”. We should be looking at this from the bottom up, not the top down. Crime prevention, rehabilitation for those who need it and are “rehabable” and so on… And this shouldn’t be a hasty partisan decision. Take the time to deliberate this properly, take all information and opinions into account, and then together craft a new, fair policy for the good of our fine state.
And finally, to Mr. Lawlor, I ask, where do you want to build this prison? I’m sure it won’t be East Haven but as an Elected official in the “host” community for the largest prison population in Connecticut, I certainly hope you won’t be considering Enfield either. I think it’s fair to say that we are carrying more than our fair share here.
Lawlor is the biggest opponent of increased inmate population. He and Bill Dyson spearheaded the prison overcrowding legislation whereby we are supposed to let the non-violent offenders out. He is an outspoken opponent of prison building and mandatory sentences. So when he tosses out the “build more prisons” nugget, he is trying to scare the public off the issue of being tougher on crime.
No one wants a prison in their back yard. That is what the liberal Democrats are counting on, and why they have changed the debate from one of public safety to one of prison overcrowding and costs. It will be used to expand the release of non-violent or drug offenders across the board to make room for the expected “boom” of hardened career violent offenders, that will more likely be an increase of a few hundred.
And when did the democrat majority EVER care about a fiscal impact for a program they passed? I will venture that the Judiciary Committee has never before seen a bill that included a specific mention of busting the spending cap and requiring a three/fifths vote to pass it. This is usually a motion made by the republicans on the floor at the time of a vote that is defeated by the majority. But here, Lawlor has included all manner of cap-busting costs in a single bill, thereby raising the bar to 60% in both houses on a vote for public safety measures like making home invasion a violent crime. Does anyone really think he supports it? Or is he just scrambling against the tide of public opinion?
Joe Sixpack
>>Wow – Maybe more minorities are impacted by three strikes laws because more minorities commit multiple violent crimes?
Seeing as every Black guy I know has been pulled over for DWB, I wonder a little about the whole system in that regard.
(I know I know, I sound like a (gasp!) liberal – even my more-conservative-than-thou friends say I do on race and other social issues.)
disgruntled_republican
>>Building another prison should be a last resort and I don’t think it’s the answer here. All it does is send the state’s costs rapidly upward. First we need to examine what people are in there for and weed through who can be effectively rehabilitated and released back into society
I know 4 corrections officers; all 4 of them would second that.
The prison system is backed up in regards to education too.
ACR -
I am not discounting the impact of a law enforcement system that may or may not profile based on race in arriving at the number of minorities arrested. There are plenty of societal and systematic reasons why minorities have a higher percentage of arrests and convictions. But a three strikes law is for convictions of violent, serious felonies. It is not locking someone away for “driving while black”. It punishes rapists, assaulters, arsonists, burglars, and other serious offenders with multiple instances of such crimes. To allude that persons of color thus convicted are solely the result of a system aimed at targeting them is a crock.
I laugh every time I see Jodi or someone in her administration talk about more GPS. The system that they employed right after Chesire is a passive GPS monitoring system, meaning that it logs where a person has been, doesn’t work indoors (most don’t), and the wearer must plug it in to a phone once a day to upload the days data as to where he/she has been. No real time monitoring. The lojack in your car is better. It’s the cheapest type available.
Doesn’t give me a warm and fuzzy…
[quote post="1223"]It doesn’t seem to me that any of this new reform would stop Cheshire from happening again. And maybe Rep. Green is more correct in saying that we ought to be doing much more on the prevention and rehabilitation side to get some real results in preventing these crimes to begin with. (Although, I’m not liking the mental health assessment stuff he talked about… because those tools have their own flaws and issues). We also ought to be working on prevention and rehabilitation without creating dependence on the state. [/quote]
One of the Cheshire perps was in a program but he got kicked out for non-compliance by the contractor. As far as I know the contractor didn’t notify the state of its actionas and had no responsibility to do so just as the contractor took no responsibility for suggesting maybe the perp had no business in their program in the first place. A lot of the systemic problems that led to Cheshire require no new laws just leadership from the popular guv.
Ruane considers blood samples to be “the gold standard” in intoxication testing: “Because if you want to know what’s in somebody’s blood, why would you test their breath when you can test their blood?” he asked.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-duitest1128.artnov28,0,1828259.story
Lots of folks are in jail for DUI when they should be in rehab too. I am not talking about repeat recalcitrant offenders who show no repentance ( and we all know of one high profile dude here) or those who broke no other laws either.
[quote post="1223"]And when did the democrat majority EVER care about a fiscal impact for a program they passed? [/quote]
As often as the GOP minority and the current and last governor to be exact.
[quote comment="23197"][quote post="1223"]And when did the democrat majority EVER care about a fiscal impact for a program they passed? [/quote]
As often as the GOP minority and the current and last governor to be exact.[/quote]
May want to count your little piggies again. If it weren’t for the “fightin 44″ our budget would have been much higher than it is, and that my friend, is a fact.
[quote post="1223"]If it weren’t for the “fightin 44″ our budget would have been much higher than it is, and that my friend, is a fact. [/quote]
I don’t beleive that for one minute just as I don’t forget that Rell wanted to raise the income tax…The House Republicans are irrelevant to the debate except in their own minds…Their little spin now is to have a local property tax commission when rowland and rell for years have never – NEVER – complied with the state spending cap – including last time around!!!!!
PS: thank the Q-Poll and not larry-the-bloviator for getting Rell – the top Republican in the state – to back down on raising taxes. And let’s ignore all those unfunded liablilities including the cadillac benefits Rowland gave away to the state employees…
I don’t care if you believe it or not, its still a fact.
As for the income tax, I don’t forget that either. Note that I didn’t mention Rell though. And I agree with you on the spending cap, and so do many of the Republican Reps & Senators. But don’t take my word for it – call them and ask for yourself. There aren’t that many so it shouldn’t take you long.
And finally, a serious question for you. Is it possible that people in politics can believe in something and fight for it not for the “spin” but because those people actually believe in that something? I happen to think it is possible, especially with that group. You are way to pessimistic for me.
[quote post="1223"]And I agree with you on the spending cap, and so do many of the Republican Reps & Senators[/quote]
publicly They are to a person a bunch of partisan chiken shits. They didn’t say a word against Rell – or her mentor John Rowland – when she wanted to raise taxes jsut months after she accused he opponent of wanting to do just that — and Healy even went around asking people to support her nonsense. And not one word from any of them about how the state hasn’t paid its bills (liabilities) for years. And their is incerdible waste in state government that gets pointed out by the press and the state auditors on a regular basis. Rell doesn’t do shit about it and the Republicans don’t say shit either.
and PS: see the quote at the top of this post where LARRY-THE-BLOVIATOR says money is no object as long as he gets his way. make no mistake about it he’s posturing for the upcoming election – and it won’t work, BTW.
PPS: Ask LTB how he got a job at BR after he was in the StateHouse; and ask him what interests they represent in the legislators faces even if all he does do for them is close mortgages and other realestate chepa stuff any clerk can do
http://www.brownrudnick.com/practice/
Did you get your Political Science degree from Cracker Jacks? I just don’t understand how you don’t get it with how much you follow. Or maybe that’s why. You follow too much.
As for Healy; first he is Party Chair and he was doing his job. Secondly he is, as am I, a believer in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment.
Toucan, you’re right, the Q-Poll changed everything. But had legislative Republicans not presented a credible no-tax increase proposal, the only two choices would have been Rell’s massive tax increase or the Democrats’ massive tax increase. Republicans changed the debate by offering that budget. The Q-Poll confirmed that the debate was changed, and Rell followed the polls. If not for the Republican’s budget, the poll would have shown a large preference for the Democrat’s proposal over Rell’s.
Anyone else think this is starting to look like “The Bonfire of the Vanities?”
>>As for Healy; first he is Party Chair and he was doing his job. Secondly he is, as am I, a believer in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment.
Chris is doing a superb job as chairman.
He’s attracted and kept a strong team; where on earth he finds some of the young people we have on staff is beyond me, as much as whatever he must be putting in their food – they work like they’re possessed.
[quote comment="23210"]Anyone else think this is starting to look like “The Bonfire of the Vanities?”[/quote]
If so, then who’s the latter day Savanarola?
[quote comment="23190"]
Building another prison should be a last resort and I don’t think it’s the answer here. All it does is send the state’s costs rapidly upward. First we need to examine what people are in there for and weed through who can be effectively rehabilitated and released back into society. After, isn’t one of the purposes of the prison system, better known as CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, to rehab? Are we doing that effectively? Can we do it better? Can we do it differently? And why has our prison population gone up so sharply in recent years? Let’s look at the numbers before we decide to get into the brick and mortar of another prison.
Next, before I would want to see another prison built I would prefer to see us revert back to sending inmates to private facilities. I would reserve this for longer term inmates that are less likely to be rehabbed.
I guess what I’m getting at is that this is more than “more crimes, more prisoners, need more prisons”. We should be looking at this from the bottom up, not the top down. Crime prevention, rehabilitation for those who need it and are “rehabable” and so on… And this shouldn’t be a hasty partisan decision. Take the time to deliberate this properly, take all information and opinions into account, and then together craft a new, fair policy for the good of our fine state.
And finally, to Mr. Lawlor, I ask, where do you want to build this prison? I’m sure it won’t be East Haven but as an Elected official in the “host” community for the largest prison population in Connecticut, I certainly hope you won’t be considering Enfield either. I think it’s fair to say that we are carrying more than our fair share here.[/quote]
I remember that during the Rowland administration, they would ship excess prisoners down to Virginia. Whatever happened to that?
Would it be possible for the state to build a prison out of state? In Wisconsin, land’s selling for $3000 an acre. For that kind of money, you can buy many, many acres of prison land, permanently eliminating this problem.
Honestly, I feel like Lawlor and MacDonald are exploiting the situation in Enfield for partisan purposes, with Kathy Tallarita and Karen Jarmoc as willing henchmen.
First I get a letter in the mail signed by Tallarita and Jarmoc saying that there’s going to be a public hearing on the situation at the prison. This letter comes in the mail, hours before the hearing.
The first thing that struck me was that Senator Kissel wasn’t in on it at all. Everyone in Enfield knows that crime and punishment is one of his signature issues. Of course the senator was present, but the hearing was convened for Kathy and Karen’s promotional purposes.
People who go tell me that the whole thing was little more than a sob-fest staged by Democrat Party apparatchiki that accomplished very little.
So last week, I’m sitting back reading a story in the JI about crowding in the prison. Smack dab in the middle of the story is a picture of Kathy Tallarita. And this just serves to illustrate my point. What does Kathy Tallarita have to do with a story on the prison when it isn’t even in her district?
Honestly, I find this kind of third-rate attention grab rather insulting. Do these gals think I’m stupid or what? CT voters are tired of being pushed around, talked down to, and inappropriately manipulated by power-seeking pols. Lawlor is a poster child for it, trying to rewrite his biography in Wikipedia.
We need a lion like Churchill or TR who will stand up and fight the good fight, not another politically correct wimps.
I used to live near a prison and I never feared for my life. One would argue you are safer than living further from one. If a prisoner escapes they aren’t likely to stay in town.
In fact unless to drve by it having a prison in town never entered into my mind. The State does give the town pilot money for the prison. Which is a nice bit of tax relief.
Way to go Bailey. Just one itsy bitsy little bone to pick: Savonorola has gotten a bad rap in the 20th 21st centuries. Actually, he was an early Martin Luther protesting against the excesses of the Church of the time; and he really was holier than the pope of the day, not a difficult task. He was burnt at the stake for aggatating Florintines against it s rich power broakers. When Emerson wanted to praise Thoreau, he called him “Our Savonorola.”
I lived within sight and walking distance of one of the toughest prisons in the US. I never feared for anything because if there was an escape the escapees would head for the hills not the prison backyard. No escapes while i lived there anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scared_Straight!
P.S. Healy has done nothing to build the party. He has taken it way to the right. And the budget that passed last time around hardly belonged to Cafero et. al.
PPS: Reagn had some good qualities but his suggestion that a Republican should never speak ill of another was pure crap. For a good look at why that rule is wrong just look at Iraq. At least McCain had – and still has – the cajones to citicize the conduct of Bush’s war efforts.
[quote post="1223"]If not for the Republican’s budget, the poll would have shown a large preference for the Democrat’s proposal over Rell’s. [/quote]
The Dems had no final proposal on the table at the time of the Q-poll but nice spin BTW UT.
[quote comment="23251"][quote post="1223"]If not for the Republican’s budget, the poll would have shown a large preference for the Democrat’s proposal over Rell’s. [/quote]
The Dems had no final proposal on the table at the time of the Q-poll but nice spin BTW UT.[/quote]
Wasn’t the Appropriations Committee budget a Dem proposal? As I recall it, the poll was for which of the three budget “proposals” was preferred.
[quote comment="23241"]I used to live near a prison and I never feared for my life. One would argue you are safer than living further from one. If a prisoner escapes they aren’t likely to stay in town.
In fact unless to drive by it having a prison in town never entered into my mind. The State does give the town pilot money for the prison. Which is a nice bit of tax relief.[/quote]
I still live near 5, count them 5 prisons including a super-max facility and CT’s death row. I feel I should clarrify my feelings at this point.
As of right now, I feel safe in my community, even living just over 1 mile from the prisons. I am on a cul-de-sac in a largely wooded area and you would never know that a prison is just around the corner. The wardens do a good job keeping the community in the loop about the going ons and our police department does an excellent job protecting the public’s safety in our community.
My concerns in regards to any expansion to the campus of prisons that we host is much different than the safety of our community. First, is the infrastructure of our community. The prisons currently discharge all of there wastewater into our treatment facility. While we are paid by the state for that use, we have been screwed by them once when they went over their contracted usage. Our current facility has the capacity for increased usage but we intend to use that for potential increase in our commercial and industrial properties, not the increase in beds at the prison campus. Our roads are also affected. More inmates equals more traffic. No bones about it.
Next, the prisons are smack dab in the middle of prime commercial/industrial real estate. It’s flat, its dry, and it has easy access to the highways. To be clear, why we do get PILOT funds, there is now way that those funds outweigh what the community would get out of that property if it was used for commercial or industrial use between the tax dollars to Enfield AND more importantly, the private sector jobs that that use would create.
Finally is the social impact that the host community experiences. While there is study to date, it is undeniable that the host community faces social impacts as family of inmates move into the host community. This in turn hypothetically increases the community’s budget from, at the very least, an educational perspective if the family has children, and thus taxes, as PILOT figures does not consider the social impact the prisons have.
As host to the largest prison population in Connecticut, we are carrying our fair share and then some. Flashing PILOT money in our faces isn’t going to change that. If we are going to expand prisons in Connecticut, and I don’t think we should, it should be somewhere else.
The appropriations committee budget was hardly a “Dem propolsal” since there was still to be the Finance Committtee for taxation, etc., etc unless you think the Approps represent the whole Donkey caucus. The Q-Poll did offer up three apples to orange alternatives in their ususual push poll fashion of late. And all three as incomplete as they were ignored the fact that the state doesn’t pay its bills or use honest accounting methods – so what’s your point?
My point is that the Dem proposal – the Approps budget, led by majority D’s, passed on a party line vote, coupled with their Finance plan to cut taxes for all by actually raising taxes, – was “on the table” since both committees had passed it out. Call it a starting point or whatever, but the D’s HAD a proposal, it called for “revenue enhancements” and huge increses in spending. So my poin is that you are wron to say the D’s did not have a proposal on the table at the time of the poll. Unless a spending and tax plan passed out of committees doesn’t meet your concept of a proposal, while a R plan introduced at a press conference does.
WTF are you talking about?
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1017
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1060
BTW, I know they asked the question but they relied on the respondents knowing what the plans were – apples to organges as a i siad – and they were all incomplete based on the state continuing not to pay its bills while lying about accounting proctices!!!!
good day
Someone has WAY too much time on his hands….er, wings.
Oh oh, you know when the peanut gallery starts breaking out phrases like “good day” they’re getting pissed off.