Hartford, The Violence & The Suburbs Views

[HartfordTycoon]

To sum it all up, I agree with Luca. That's it. However, all the violence or peace in this world is not going to change the image that a lot of people have about being in the city. If I were the mayor, I'd be less concerned with the unions and more concerned with the media that portrays the city in a negative light. While his intentions( with the unions) are good, he is hurting the business image of the city. That's #1. Secondly, he is not actively pursuing a better relationship with the media or defending his city in his own right. Sorry, I'm used to Buddy who would have killed anybody( literally) if they said anything bad about the city. Mayor Perez seems( from reading here) to be someone who really is not in a position to carry the city into the next term. I don't profess to know him or his politics, but from reading here, he's more interested in protecting the social class that put him into office. He wants to be perceived as a minority leader that cares for the citizens of his city. While that may get him elected in a majority-minority city, it does next-to-nothing for the future of a city. The crime in Hartford is above-average, but I really don't find it anymore dangerous than where I live or any other city for that matter. Crime would gradually go down if the population went up. I've always said that Hartford city proper needs to attract more residents. Why should that be so difficult with a good business climate and many other amenities.?

It's because mayors and elected officials have kept the city as sort of a haven for the social ills for society. Ae there homeless shelters, methadone clinics,halfway houses, etc. in Farmington, Winsor, or even Glastonbury? I would guess NO, but somebody else would be more equipped to answer that than me. These towns would rather send their " social vagrants" to Hartford because that's what it's been associated with for a long time. ....and then you have people like Mayor Perez who "pretend" to care for the good of the city by reaching out to all its residents as if he were Mother Teresa.....The city needs more of a mix of incomes,race, and social class. It can not be perceived as a social service dumping ground for the state of CT to succeed...and when you don't have that type of mix....crime persists, negative views persist, and progression becomes a distant dream.....Vote him out of office!

There's truth to that, however Mayor Perez has very limited support in the North End, and this is where much of the crime is. All it will take is for a strong black candidate from the North End to run and Perez's days are over. He has actually splintered the dems here in Hartford. I don't agree with the assessment that all he is catering to is the base that elected him, because he is losing much of that support due to his perceivedly being more interested in downtown development. As for other towns having their fair share of services for the poor and such, never gonna happen. Hartford is very much a state run city, and as such they will keep putting that stuff here forever. So we just have to suck that one up. Anyone who can beat Perez will more than likely be from the North End and will have a strong community agenda. Hopefully, Perez gets things under control or someone else wins. I can't imagine a white candidate doing much in Hartford as it is today, but who knows. We already know that no republicans have a shot. I already know and work with all of the people who I think are threats to him, and none of them have plans on running per se. So we'll just have to wait and see. We definately need to control this union stuff.

[Frankie811]

There's truth to that, however Mayor Perez has very limited support in the North End, and this is where much of the crime is. All it will take is for a strong black candidate from the North End to run and Perez's days are over.

I was told years ago that there are two factions in Hartford, the North end and the South end. One black and one hispanic, and the two hate each other. Is this still true, and who the hell lives in the west side and what do they have to say about all this? Since the downtown area is on the river, can I assume that the City of Hartford has no East side? Just East Hartford. Even though Mayor "Mike" was popular, I was under the impression that Mayo Perez was doing a good job. Perez seems to be much more progressive that Mayor Peters.

[Luca Brasi]

The North End, like the South End has many neighborhoods. Some are fine, some are bad. The North End norrth of Asylum Hill is mainly African American and West Indian while the South End is mainly Latino and European immigrants. The deep south end is still mainly Italian and as you move closer to downtown, you get more eastern europeans. The more "central" south end near downtown (Barry Square, Frog Hollow, South Green) is mainly Latino.

The West End is a mix up until about Woodland St where it becomes mostly white. Downtown is mainly white also.

I don't know that the Latino or black neighborhoods "hate" each other... most of the violence seems to be contained to different neighborhoods in different sections of the city (mainly the north end recently) infighting. While much of the gang activity in the early 90's was based in the Frog Hollow, Zion and South Green neighborhoodfs of the South End, those areas are relatively quiet now.

Perez is the first mayor in Hartford to have power since the city charter was changed a few years ago and city council was stripped of its power. Because many of Perez's decisions are in the context of this new power, he seems to be "doing" a lot. I think if we had a much more savvy politician in office, you would really see some results. While "Mayor Mike" was extremely popular, without the power that Perez now has, he was mainly a cheerleader while city council screwed things up continuously.

[drc72]

We already know that no republicans have a shot.

Of course not, because the Dems are doing such a wonderful job in the Hartford. Of course when Guilani was running NYC crime was down and the economy is strong there. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to have one in office. Your right though it will never happen, because the Dems have convinced people in Hartford that the Republicans are evil

[Frankie811]

The North End, like the South End has many neighborhoods. Some are fine, some are bad. The North End norrth of Asylum Hill is mainly African American and West Indian while the South End is mainly Latino and European immigrants. The deep south end is still mainly Italian and as you move closer to downtown, you get more eastern europeans. The more "central" south end near downtown (Barry Square, Frog Hollow, South Green) is mainly Latino.

The West End is a mix up until about Woodland St where it becomes mostly white. Downtown is mainly white also.

I don't know that the Latino or black neighborhoods "hate" each other... most of the violence seems to be contained to different neighborhoods in different sections of the city (mainly the north end recently) infighting. While much of the gang activity in the early 90's was based in the Frog Hollow, Zion and South Green neighborhoodfs of the South End, those areas are relatively quiet now.

Perez is the first mayor in Hartford to have power since the city charter was changed a few years ago and city council was stripped of its power. Because many of Perez's decisions are in the context of this new power, he seems to be "doing" a lot. I think if we had a much more savvy politician in office, you would really see some results. While "Mayor Mike" was extremely popular, without the power that Perez now has, he was mainly a cheerleader while city council screwed things up continuously.

Thanks. I can remember Mayor Peters trying to gain more power while he was in office. There was some sort of ballot question which would have given him more power. The only problem was the voters didn't turn up, so he didn't receive that power. Former Providence Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci always said that Hartford needed a strong mayor to lead the city, and he was right. Finanly Mayor Perez got those votes. But what does he do about all the violence in his city?

[runawayjim]

Of course not, because the Dems are doing such a wonderful job in the Hartford. Of course when Guilani was running NYC crime was down and the economy is strong there. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to have one in office. Your right though it will never happen, because the Dems have convinced people in Hartford that the Republicans are evil

guiliani used some borderline shady methods to kill the crime. guiliani also didn't run the city like a republican (in fact after bloomberg won his re-election, i heard democrats say "i voted for bloomberg because he's not really a republican"). i think guiliani is more neo-con than bloomberg, but they're both not as neo-con as the GOP big shots in washington. neo-cons would hurt hartford. and i wouldn't use the same methods guiliani used to squash the crime.

[drc72]

guiliani used some borderline shady methods to kill the crime. guiliani also didn't run the city like a republican (in fact after bloomberg won his re-election, i heard democrats say "i voted for bloomberg because he's not really a republican"). i think guiliani is more neo-con than bloomberg, but they're both not as neo-con as the GOP big shots in washington. neo-cons would hurt hartford. and i wouldn't use the same methods guiliani used to squash the crime.

I know he wasn't a true conservative, he was more moderate. Say what you want to say about him, but crime went down under his watch. Maybe his methods are a little out of the ordinary, but the way crime is in Hartford now, it probably wouldn't hurt to have a change. The Dems don't seem to be getting the job done. It's pointless anyways to discuss, because no Republican will ever get elected in Hartford

[HartfordTycoon]

I know he wasn't a true conservative, he was more moderate. Say what you want to say about him, but crime went down under his watch. Maybe his methods are a little out of the ordinary, but the way crime is in Hartford now, it probably wouldn't hurt to have a change. The Dems don't seem to be getting the job done. It's pointless anyways to discuss, because no Republican will ever get elected in Hartford

I actually held a fundraiser for my candidate last night and we were talking about this. It's actually possible. More than likely it would have to be black or hispanic republican, but like Veronica Airy-Wilson, black republicans are actually very electible under the right cirumstances, even in a democratic city.

[damus]

Well... Rudy did install cameras at every corner in Manhattan, and his neighborhood to neighborhood Gestapo, err police, sweeps neighborhood to neighborhood were pretty bad. Come to think of it, why should I support this man? Isn't he for the drug war and for gun control?

The thing about Rudy is he makes NY winnable for the Republicans in '08.. other than that, he sucks for a leader. Now that I think of it, Attorney General sounds like good enough of a federal position for him.

[Cotuit]

"i voted for bloomberg because he's not really a republican"

I voted for Bloomberg.

And he's not really a republican, he was a registered Dem. most of his life, it was to his political advantage to change parties (rather Cianciesque of him really). He's quite socially liberally actually. He's more of a Bill Weld, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe kind of Republican, a New England Republican (fitting since he grew up outside Boston and is a proud Red Sox fan).

i think guiliani is more neo-con than bloomberg, but they're both not as neo-con as the GOP big shots in washington.

Guiliani has always been a social conservative, and that pissed off many New Yorkers, but they held their noses and delt with it because crime was going down. On September 10th, 2001 he was hugely unpopular in the city and residents were counting the days until election day. Of course all that changed the following day.

While Guiliani was always socially conservative to a degree, he really became more of a Neo-Con after Sept. 11th and when people started whispering 'President' in his ear. Sad really, he was a better candidate for President on Sept. 10th than he became after Sept. 11th.

[damus]

Guiliani has always been a social conservative, and that pissed off many New Yorkers, but they held their noses and delt with it because crime was going down. On September 10th, 2001 he was hugely unpopular in the city and residents were counting the days until election day. Of course all that changed the following day.

While Guiliani was always socially conservative to a degree, he really became more of a Neo-Con after Sept. 11th and when people started whispering 'President' in his ear. Sad really, he was a better candidate for President on Sept. 10th than he became after Sept. 11th.

How was he a social conservative? He's pro-gay, pro gun control. He's also pro-drug war, but so is just about every politician. The latter two positions are positions of tyranny, not modern day conservatism or classical liberalism. I'm not from New York, maybe I'm missing something.

Didn't he install cameras and have the police go neighborhood to neighborhood knocking down doors raiding drug houses ? I guess the ends justify the means until the government starts using the same tactics against you....

[Cotuit]

How was he a social conservative? He's pro-gay

He's pro-gay only as far as it would serve him politically. While Bloomberg has come out in support of gay marriage (though his city attorneys are challenging gay marriage in court, he says to get clarification from the courts, rather than being a Gavin Newsom and just marrying people without any instructions or interpretations of the law), Guiliani would not support gay marriage. The gay community had a very rocky relationship with him over a number of issues. While he was no Rick Santorum when it came to gay rights, he was no Ted Kennedy or David Cicilline either. Guiliani also had some very notorious and very high profile battles with city art musuems over content. If he didn't like the liberal/radical message of art in city galleries, he didn't want it there (a very conservative view on the First Ammendment I would say). Also in his attempt to clean up Times Square he raided many adult bookstores, while many did have illegal activity happening inside, his real raison-d'etre for those raids was to wipe out smut, which he didn't like. He also had a very poor relationship with the black community following a number of horrible police incidents.

In fact public opinion of the NYPD was horrible just before Sept. 11th, when as we all know, all was forgiven and they became heroes. Which is a problem, because there are still a number of systemic problems within the NYPD that need addressing and the glare of the hero moniker makes it difficult to be critical of the NYPD. Though, 5 years out that is begining to wane.

[drc72]

I voted for Bloomberg.

And he's not really a republican, he was a registered Dem. most of his life, it was to his political advantage to change parties (rather Cianciesque of him really). He's quite socially liberally actually. He's more of a Bill Weld, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe kind of Republican, a New England Republican (fitting since he grew up outside Boston and is a proud Red Sox fan).

Guiliani has always been a social conservative, and that pissed off many New Yorkers, but they held their noses and delt with it because crime was going down. On September 10th, 2001 he was hugely unpopular in the city and residents were counting the days until election day. Of course all that changed the following day.

While Guiliani was always socially conservative to a degree, he really became more of a Neo-Con after Sept. 11th and when people started whispering 'President' in his ear. Sad really, he was a better candidate for President on Sept. 10th than he became after Sept. 11th.

Amazing! It takes a tragedy to like someone you didn't like before.