A Salute to the Anti-Weenie Wing of the Democratic Party

By MICHAEL NORRIS

At a friend’s house recently, I attended a meet-and-greet for a Democratic candidate running this year. It was a successful event with many attendees. Before the candidate spoke, my friend stepped into the crowded room, holding a large plate of pigs-in-a-blanket and announced: “Here are the weenies!” I quietly snickered it was probably an appropriate thing to say in a room full of Democrats. My wife quickly ’shushed’ me.

Long before the meet-and-greet, I had had enough of the wimpy Democrats who won’t take a solid position on anything and yet somehow summon the nerve to ask me for my support. A few times I’ve been tempted to send a small check to a candidate with the words, “for spine” written on the memo part. Happily, there have been enough exceptions to keep my party affiliation intact, but I can only hope the supply of fearless Democrats can keep up with national demand.

The anti-weenie, John Edwards, the Democrat I supported since I first met him in 2003, stepped out of the race yesterday; it’s truly amazing how gutsy one can be when they can’t afford pollsters. Edwards showed time and again that it’s not necessarily about taking a stand as far to the left as possible; it’s about taking a stand, period. Even if it angers members of your own party, even if it brings ire from right-wing talk radio, and even when it doesn’t get you favorable press coverage. Hasn’t anyone wondered why polls showed Edwards would’ve beaten any GOP nominee by a wider margin than the others?

As Edwards conceded yesterday, he said the following: “With our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we’ll create hope and opportunity in this country”. I sure hope we all take note about the “convictions and backbone” part.

Surrogate Debate at CCSU

By DAN MALLOY

I want to quickly thank everyone who participated in today’s Presidential surrogate debate at Central Connecticut State University, as well as the large crowd that came out to watch. I was happy to participate in the forum and thought that all of the surrogates did an outstanding job.

We were able to touch on a lot of vital issues in a relatively short amount of time, including universal healthcare, the environment, jobs and the struggling economy. While I believe Hillary Clinton is the best candidate Democrats have to make progress on all of those fronts, the fantastic job done by all the surrogates today reminded me of how lucky we are, as a party, to be choosing from such an incredibly qualified and impressive field of candidates.

Thanks again to Ned Lamont, Phil Miller, Carol Austa and CCSU!

Quote(s) of the Day

By BRIAN DURAND

From today’s Stamford Advocate:

Asked by reporters during a separate news conference yesterday whether the Democratic majority was soft on crime for not backing the three-strikes law, Rell said: “I would perceive that as not being in tune with the people of Connecticut, and they want you to be tougher on crime. That is not tough on crime.”

From a November Q-poll of Connecticut voters:

Only 35 percent of voters support a so-called “third strike” law where a person convicted of three violent felonies automatically is sentenced to life in prison, while 63 percent say sentences should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative Energy in Our Backyard

By ARIELLE REICH 

With the threat of global warming and the ever-increasing gas prices, businesses and residents alike are trying to find was to use alternative energy that can cut cost and reduce harmful emissions. Biodiesel, a relatively new renewable fuel alternative is produced through a refinery process that creates usable engine fuel from vegetable or animal oils, fats, and grease. Biodiesel can be used in its pure form or can be blended with regular petroleum diesel. The use of this alternative energy source has been shown to significantly reduce the carcinogenic and environmentally harmful emissions and gases released from regular petroleum. While it was once an extremely rare process to run an engine on leftover restaurant cooking oil, new plants in Japan, Hawaii, and as close as Bethlehem, CT have been making Biodiesel available to the population and are making an impact on the effort to go green.

Last August, intense opposition temporarily shut down efforts to bring the Northeast’s largest Biodiesel production plant to Connecticut. Residents in Suffield worry that the plant will bring truck traffic and pollution to the area and fear that a plant creating chemical reactions from oil will potentially spark large fires. To help quell concerns, the company is emphasizing the monetary gains from the projected $400,000 in property taxes annually and has guaranteed that a certain number of new jobs will be available to town residents. They have even offered to donate 35,000 gallons of biodiesel to Suffield each year.

Despite the incentives, some residents remain vehemently opposed to the plans. However, it appears that public sentiment may not matter in this case, as CT Biodiesel insists that they are completely compliant with safety and both town and state law and plan to proceed with construction as soon as the proper permits are received. Hopefully, the town of Suffield and CT Biodiesel can reach a compromise that will both please the residents and bring more of this alternative fuel to our area. Any effort that will decrease harmful emissions and reduce or dependence on petroleum is worth a shot!

Sticking on Three Strikes

By BRIAN DURAND

State legislators are meeting today to discuss criminal justice reforms – with the proposed “three strikes” law looking to be the biggest sticking point:

Legislators expect a lengthy debate on strengthening the state’s laws against home-invasions and establishing a “three strikes and you’re out” life sentence for repeat offenders when the General Assembly meets in a special session today.

Republican and Democratic state leaders said they have reached a compromise on most topics on the agenda, but those two final items remained unresolved late yesterday and were likely to result in further negotiations this morning.

This most recent criminal justice debate was born largely out of the tragedy in Cheshire last summer.  There isn’t anything inherently wrong with that, so long as the discussion remains positive.  Indeed, I’d hope that any crime so awful would cause us, as a state, to consider what measures we could take to prevent similar incidents in the future.

And thankfully, that’s generally been the attitude from both sides… until now.  The three strikes law is not a thoughtful reform measure – it’s a shortsighted political talking point that most Connecticut residents don’t agree with (63% of respondents to a Q-poll said the sentence for a third violent felony should be decided case by case).

Our jails are already overcrowded (more on that in this post from State Senator McDonald last month).  While building a new prison in Connecticut should be on the table as a possible fix, it would be absurd to spend the money on a new facility only to have it overflowing inside a year because of regressive sentencing “reforms.”  A three strikes law would also take discretion away from judges and prosecutors, and would further clog up our crowded courts, because we’d be decreasing the incentive to plea bargain – meaning more costly and time-consuming trials.

It would be a shame for our state leaders, who have apparently agreed on “95 percent of the items” on the table, to get held up now by something that isn’t wanted, and wouldn’t help.

The Not-So-Glamorous Issue of Waste Management

By DAN MALLOY

Solid waste may not be the most glamorous issue for a Mayor. It can be nasty business in more than a few ways. It is expensive to collect, to sort, to recycle, and to dispose of. The business can be cutthroat, or totally non-competitive. Technology is slow to be adopted, especially here in New England.

In other words, solid waste is a great opportunity for local government to improve services, cut costs and implement modern, environmentally friendly practices. And that is precisely what we’re doing in Stamford.

Recycling

The first order of the day is recycling. The more waste we divert from disposal, the better off we all are in several ways. First is our environment. Whether our garbage is burned in an incinerator in Bridgeport or shipped to an Ohio landfill – and neither option is especially good for the environment – the less the better. Second is cost. In my view, every dollar spent to dispose of recyclable waste is a dollar diverted from something useful. Plus, we are today fortunate to have actual economic value in some recyclable materials. Corrugated cardboard, office paper, newsprint and plastic bottles all have active markets paying tens or hundreds of dollars per ton. If we do it right, that value will cover the costs of collecting, sorting, and transporting these materials, or at least a good portion of these costs.

Our challenge now is to increase the amount of recyclables that we divert from our garbage. The first step we took this year was to bring the service in-house. We collect two streams every week – mixed containers and mixed paper, including newsprint. With new state-of-the-art collection trucks and a dedicated collections staff, we are already seeing gains in our diversion rate.

Collection and Disposal

The next step is to bring new technology and new efficiency to garbage collection and disposal. This summer we instituted semi-automated collection, with each household issued a wheeled garbage bin that can be dumped into a garbage truck using a hydraulic tipper. This should not only make for less litter and greater convenience for residents, but also reduce injuries for our staff. We are soon beginning a pilot program that uses a fully automated truck in which the driver uses a joystick to dump bins with a hydraulic arm. It won’t work well in more urban neighborhoods, but should improve our efficiency hugely in parks and a few other areas without heavy on-street parking.

Our disposal options have been complicated by a pending change in ownership of the Bridgeport trash-to-energy plant that has been the final resting place for most of the garbage generated in Fairfield County, including Stamford’s. As such, we decided to take proactive steps to generate competition and lower our costs. Based on those efforts, we have just begun a new contract with a firm called Trans-Load. This firm uses new portable baling technology to reduce transportation costs. The round bales they produce can be shipped on flat-bed trailers and are easily trans-loaded onto rail cars or even barges for shipment – all at comparatively low cost. This is good for Stamford today, but, just as important, we have begun to create a competitive marketplace for garbage disposal in which technology is reducing costs.

The Role of Local Government

While Stamford’s progress is a bright spot, the impending changes at the Bridgeport plant and other trash-to-energy plants in the state have municipalities deeply concerned. About 60% of Connecticut’s 4 million tons of garbage goes to these plants, and each ton is expensive. As an example, in Stamford we dispose of about 70,000 tons, for a total bill of about $5.5 million. Once private operators can charge whatever the market will bear to accept, prices may become unbearably high if there are no alternatives.

In response, there have been some calls for legislation that would regulate trash-to-energy facilities like public utilities. The argument is that the garbage disposal business is not competitive because of limited disposal options and the disproportionate market power of facilities like the plant in Bridgeport. Regulation could keep tipping fees lower based on the costs of disposal, not a monopoly price. This proposal has some merit, although as I look at the whopping rate increases that have been approved for electricity and water in recent years, I wonder if that agency is going to be effective at controlling a new, unfamiliar industry.

No matter what the solution, we should consider what role, if any, CRRA should play. Their reputation among local officials has suffered badly. It may be time for local governments, working alone and with one another, to chart new, separate courses. This is what Stamford is doing, and others are gearing up to do. In Norwalk, for instance, a group of towns has come together to solicit bids for garbage disposal once their agreement expires in a year. I hope that process is a successful one as well, not only for the taxpayers who will benefit, but for all of us who benefit from a functioning, transparent market.

It may not be pretty, but solid waste and recycling are an area where we need to make progress, modernize, and create efficiency, both for our environment and for our wallets.

Hide the Hybrid

By MICHAEL NORRIS

Finding a parking space in some parts of Stamford and Greenwich is such a challenge, I’m thinking about pitching it to Fox as a reality show concept. Nevertheless, according to a recent Stamford Advocate story, city leaders in Stamford, Greenwich and Westport want to use a new state law that will allow municipalities to give tax breaks to owners of hybrid vehicles and fuel efficient cars.

I admit it was nice to read about the “fuel efficient cars” part, because some people chose to buy non-hybrid Honda Fit that gets 40 miles per gallon instead of a hybrid SUV that gets 35. But my thinking here is that this part of last year’s energy bill doesn’t take into account a simple fact: Cities should not provide incentives for people to own a car, hybrid or otherwise.

Traffic is one of the major reasons a lot of folks don’t like (and are disinclined to move to or work in) cities. On the street and the parking lot, cars take up room. With space at such a premium in successful cities like Stamford, more cars mean less space on the streets and parking lots, which means more hassle and longer commute times. Any sort of savings a tax credit will provide only borrows time from the future when legislators will be forced to do unpleasant things to keep a city from becoming paralyzed by traffic.

Instead of throwing tens of thousands to hybrid buyers right out of the gate (and providing a tax disincentive for automakers to make their hybrids more affordable) wouldn’t it make more sense to not start down that path and instead add bus routes or otherwise invest more in mass transit or other non-car means of travel?

Michael Norris was a volunteer and guest blogger for Dan Malloy’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Before moving to Stamford in 2004, Norris was a freelance writer and researcher in New Hampshire, where he volunteered for several local and national political campaigns. Currently, he works as a book industry consultant based in Stamford and is a member of Southern Fairfield County Young Democrats.

Clinton Campaign Launches in Connecticut

By DAN MALLOY

In Wallingford today we launched the Hillary Clinton campaign in Connecticut, and I formally endorsed her candidacy for President of the United States.

I joined Congresswoman Nita Lowey (NY-18), Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch, Fairfield County Clinton coordinator Susan Cocco (Ridgefield DTC chairman), former Democratic chairman George Jepsen, leadership from the Brick Layers Union Local 1 (who hosted at their headquarters), representatives of Council 15, Leo Canty from the American Federation of Teachers, and scores of progressive supporters from throughout Connecticut, along with a good showing from television and print media.

The message was clear, and I think Congresswoman Lowey said it best — Hillary Clinton has the vision, track-record, and know-how to lead, on day one.

I was struck not only by the intense enthusiasm from the crowd, but by the broad-based Clinton organization.  Immediately after the formal speaking part of the program, the crowd broke into districts to drill deeper into the statewide operation and move the action plan forward aggressively.

I have always had a great deal of respect for what Senator Clinton has been able to achieve in neighboring New York and on the national and international stages.  So when her organization began reaching out to me, culminating with a phone conversation with President Clinton, I was all too happy to sign on.  President Clinton voiced a powerful and moving message, and outlined an impressive national delegate strategy to win, of which Connecticut clearly plays an important part.

In the coming months, I will be actively engaged in the Clinton campaign, traveling around the state as she needs me.  I encourage you to join in this history-making effort to change the course of our great nation, with the best candidate to lead us forward – Hillary Clinton.  Because, as I’ve said on the campaign trail before, with the right leadership our best days are ahead of us.

Learning From Teargate

By ARIELLE REICH

There is little left to say about the ridiculous media swarm surrounding Hillary Clinton’s recent appearance in New Hampshire, where she became visibly emotional and spoke with tears in her eyes. However, the hysteria, in retrospect, does serve as a reminder of what we should – or rather should not – be focusing on when choosing our next President.

In Wednesday’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd mocked Clinton, describing her emotion as a planned tactic used to “[wriggle] out of a tight spot at the last minute”. Dowd’s editorial, absurdly titled “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?,” was unfortunately just one of many. The whole episode finally came full circle, with groups like CREDO Action forming petitions decrying the media’s use of Clinton’s gender to define her and her candidacy.

This incident, stemming from simple as a female candidate’s showing the slightest emotion, is not dissimilar from the media’s focus on Obama’s ethnicity or Romney’s religion. It’s an insultingly simplistic and lazy way for our media to define each candidate – to boil them down into one dimensional talking points. In choosing our next president, voters would do better to ignore the op-ed pages, and instead take the time to research the issues they care about and decide which candidate represents their interests best.

Investing in Early Childhood Education

By DAN MALLOY

Yesterday was an exciting day for the City of Stamford.  We learned that the city’s largest School Readiness site for three and four-year-old children, the William Pitt Child Development Center, was accredited with outstanding marks by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.  The site, which serves close to 375 Stamford children each day, is one of the first programs in the country to earn the mark of quality represented by the reinvented NAEYC Accreditation system.

The marks reflect the outstanding nature of the unique collaboration that works so well at William Pitt. Their program is a collaboration between Childcare Learning Centers, the provider agency, the Stamford Public Schools and the City of Stamford; It is this unique collaboration that creates such a high quality learning environment for our youngest children.

Our city’s vision ten years ago to provide opportunities for all of Stamford’s four- year-old children to have a formal early childhood education has become a reality in the Stamford School Readiness Program.  In the past ten years over 3,000 children have passed through the doors of the Program, significantly reducing the number of children who enter kindergarten in Stamford without an early childhood experience. In addition, the CMT scores of those children who enter kindergarten from the School Program are consistently higher than those children who have no preschool experience.

The administration, the teaching staff, the students and their families have all worked together to make the program a success, and should be commended for their outstanding work.  I hope programs like ours serve as a bellwether to our state, proving that early childhood education systems can and do work, and that investing in our children’s early education dramatically increases their odds of success down the road.