Comments (3)

By Kerri Provost, March 9, 2010 6:28 am

Other than the military personnel who are armed to the teeth with coffee and junkfood from Dunkin Donuts, I rarely see significant foot traffic near the Legislative Office Building. Mostly, people drive to the parking garage and enter the building through the pedestrian entrance, never needing to come into contact with sunlight. Yet, there are large, well-marked warnings painted on the driveway, warning motorists to slow down. There are stop signs posted in places that make them more noticeable. There are even neon yellow signs telling motorists to stop for pedestrians — the signs are posted right in the crosswalks. I do appreciate this, as I use the area as a safer passage to downtown, given that the alternative of continuing along Capitol Avenue means having to cross the I-84 on/off ramp. Even with the stoplights all working and with the pedestrian walk signal on, the cars do not stop. Last week I saw a noticeably pregnant woman pushing a stroller across and the cars were not even obeying the law for her. It seems strange that few such safety features exist along a major street, but within a parking lot, traffic is managed quite well.

Sunday morning, when I read about the volunteer crossing guard who was threatened with arrest for keeping children safe, my heart sank. I read the article a few more times, trying to find a hidden clue that would make this story make sense. In a nutshell, a grandfather, who happens to be a disabled Vietnam Vet, decided to contribute to society by helping children safely get across the street to the Achievement First Academy in the Blue Hills neighborhood. He began this back in September. He had been honored by the school in the school newsletter and by being given a vest and stop sign. That sounds like his actions had been more than merely approved of by those he was interacting with directly.

Why threaten a man with arrest for helping society? Continue reading 'Whose Interests Are We Guarding?'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, February 4, 2009 6:49 am

The job of the City Council is to vote.
Yesterday, Veronica Airey-Wilson failed to do her job.

The message that I got from her decision to abstain was this: Airey-Wilson wants to be everyone’s friend. Airey-Wilson wants to make no enemies. Airey-Wilson is unable to summon the courage to do her job, which, by the way, requires that tough decisions be made from time-to-time. In a time of economic meltdown, in a time when many people are losing their jobs, Airey-Wilson should show a little gratitude to at least have a job by performing one of the central tasks that she is being paid to do.

Much is being made of Cotto’s vote and remarks, some of which you can read on CT News Junkie. I have to wonder if anyone on the Council cared when he announced that he was “not down with the way this is happening.” Applause or lack of in the chambers is not what I’m referring to. Did anyone else voting (or in Airey-Wilson’s case, not voting) yesterday try on some empathy? Did anyone question the unethical and painful attempt to strip someone of power when he had not shown any wrongdoing other than having poor choice in friends?

Here is the full text of the statement given by the Working Families Party (Cotto and Deutsch) regarding the attempt to remove City Council President Torres from his position yesterday:

It is time for change in Hartford. Just as change has been needed at the national level and is now happening in Washington, it has also been needed for a while here in our city – and not just for the past week. We’ve been calling for change since the day we took office.

Throughout the past week, we’ve heard many people say they want to do what is best for the City. What’s best for the city is measured in terms of the quality of life of our residents. That’s the kind of change that we need and the kind of change that we in the Working Families Party are committed to.

What is our job in city government? It is to serve the people, honestly, directly, responsively.
Continue reading 'Calixto Torres Retains Position'»

Comments (5)

By Kerri Provost, December 11, 2008 12:12 am

On Wednesday evening, the public was invited to contribute our two cents on the discussion regarding the Hartford Charter Revision. Commissioners include Richard Wareing (Chair), Monique Rowtham-Kennedy (Vice-Chair), Sara Bronin (Secretary), Marcia Bok Anderson, Alex Aponte, Heather Brandon, Yvonne Duncan, Matt Fleury, Mathew Jasinski, Marquita McElya, Julian Pelaez, Jeff Stewart, and Edwin Vargas. The meeting was held in the downtown Hartford Public Library, which despite its recent bad press, has been accommodating to community events; in this case, they are maintaining a web page devoted to providing information about the Revision Commission and its proceedings. It, however, can’t bear to fix the acoustics in the large room where panels are frequently held. As a result, it becomes a challenge to hear speakers (who use microphones) if the heating system is on (check) or if audience members use this kind of function as a social gathering (check). Beyond the poor sound and failure to introduce members of the Charter Revision Commission, this meeting was disappointing because it was not doing what it said it would. Over the course of the two hour meeting, eight people addressed the commission. Of those, four were from City Council, one was the mayor, one was a state senator, one on the Connecticut State Board of Education, and one was an actual member of the public (though he has served on City Council in the past). On one hand, it makes sense to have officials go first, to present their researched ideas. But their expertise should not be permitted to fill the space of two hours in such a disorganized manner. The meeting came to a screeching halt at 8pm when the library closed, which cut off the ability for the public to actually contribute. The meeting will resume on December 18th at 6pm in City Council chambers.

With that said, the positions presented were interesting. Councilmen Ritter, Kennedy, Deutsch, and Cotto presented their viewpoints, along with Mayor Perez, Connecticut State Senator Fonfara, chair of the Connecticut State Board of Education and former City Councilman (1981-1987) Allan B. Taylor, and Mike McGarry, a newspaper columnist and former City Councilman. There was some disagreement over why the City Charter was even up for discussion. According to information provided by Councilman Ritter in the 2008 Charter Reform Public Hearing Summary Report, the City Council “can offer guidance on what items should be considered, but ultimately the commission can decide what areas of the charter it wishes to review.” It appeared that several members of the Council were offering guidance and/or directives for the Commission tonight.

During the summer of 2008, four hearings were held in different locations of the city–Farmington Avenue, Park Street, Main Street, and Coventry Street–so that the public could get an understanding of the charter revision process. Ritter claimed that during these meetings, the possibility of switching to a district electoral system was the most spoken about issue. Right now, Hartford has at large representation, which means that it is possible for three City Councilmembers to live in one district, while other districts may have only one member residing there; this is the case in Hartford, where there are even districts without their own representation. Councilman Cotto said, “If you start on Broad Street (at Maple Avenue) and draw a line due north connecting to Garden Street (until Love Lane), you have a North-South line splitting the city almost exactly in half…no elected official lives east of that line. The poorest sections in the city are the NorthEast and Southeast.” Senator Fonfara concurred, “It’s not by accident that there is no representation of the East side of the city.” Continue reading '“Take as long as you need to complete this task” —Mayor Eddie Perez'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, July 30, 2008 1:59 pm

For an informed, pragmatic approach to this issue, check out Mira Hartford. For something rambling, keep reading.

This week I’ve read about how a local columnist is moving out of Hartford, and how he partly does not feel so bad about this decision because of the crime rate. I’ve also read about how people believe the role of the police officer is to waste allocate resources to discerning residents’ status. It’s strange to me that nobody questions the right for one person to move across city/town lines or from state-to-state, but that nation borders become an issue. I mention the columnist/radio host because he is employed, somewhat involved in the community, and seems family-centered. Most people–I think–would describe that as being respectable. How different would it be if moving to West Hartford or Canton required more legal issues than selling and buying a house (or renting an apartment)? Why don’t our in-country relocations require much more paperwork than they do? If the issue, as some contend, is that undocumented residents are receiving social services that they should not, then why is the same not an issue when moving to cities or states with vastly different property tax rates? These newcomers haven’t been paying taxes in that area for a long time. Why should their children get to attend better schools? What right would they have to use sports fields?

Making life more complicated is not something that I would get behind, but I think it is worth considering the absence of logic behind the anti-immigrant arguments.

Meanwhile, here in Hartford, some of the people who were elected to take on roles of both leadership and representation are cowering instead of performing either task. The post at Mira Hartford indicates the language of the proposed ordinance as well as what Hartford residents can do to confirm with our City Council that all people be treated with dignity and respect.