Jump to content

Hartford

ctman987

By ctman987
in Greater Hartford

Recommended Posts

Bill Mocarsky Hamlet

Bill Mocarsky

Posted
Posted

from other discussions, it sounds like you need a mayor with a vision.

something providence is doing is called providence tomorrow. it's involving the residents in the planning and development process for neighborhood planning. they had a kick off event a couple weeks ago. it was really good and i think this is the best way to truly push providence forward.

check it out... www.providencetomorrow.org

Providence is a very dynamic city.

Slightly off topic but related:

I have a problem with terms such as "never gonna happen", "always will be", "will never" etc. which pop up frequently in these threads. I don't think these terms are conducive to a creative enviroment. If someone (5 years ago) said that the Empire State Building will once again be New Yorks tallest, what would be the response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

Providence is a very dynamic city.

Slightly off topic but related:

I have a problem with terms such as "never gonna happen", "always will be", "will never" etc. which pop up frequently in these threads. I don't think these terms are conducive to a creative enviroment. If someone (5 years ago) said that the Empire State Building will once again be New Yorks tallest, what would be the response?

buildings coming down is different than towns being completely annexed, but i see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SOCOM Hamlet

SOCOM

Posted
Posted

that's what some world leaders would like us to think. and it did happen, even though no one would have expected it.

Huh? Skyscrapers getting knocked down by airplanes is much more unlikely than a city annexing surrounding towns. How many other times have hijacked planes knocked down 1,000ft towers? Cities have been annexing land for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

Huh? Skyscrapers getting knocked down by airplanes is much more unlikely than a city annexing surrounding towns. How many other times have hijacked planes knocked down 1,000ft towers? Cities have been annexing land for decades.

i was originally talking about buildings in general coming down... taking off the spin of terrorist attacks, which are unlikely. you seem to be spinning everything i say around. i have yet to make a point that isn't valid in this thread.

while cities have been annexing land, how often does a city annex a completely independent town that has no problems operating completely independent of the neighboring city?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SOCOM Hamlet

SOCOM

Posted
Posted

i have yet to make a point that isn't valid in this thread.

You're right, you have made valid points throuhout this thread. I guess what makes me chuckle or whatever is that you state the obvious over and over (for instance that annexing land is going to be a difficult task, or that it would be a good idea for Hartford to focus on fixing its problems...well duh!). It would be nice if you could add something substantive rather than just stating the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

You're right, you have made valid points throuhout this thread. I guess what makes me chuckle or whatever is that you state the obvious over and over (for instance that annexing land is going to be a difficult task, or that it would be a good idea for Hartford to focus on fixing its problems...well duh!). It would be nice if you could add something substantive rather than just stating the obvious.

the reason i keep repeating that is because everytime someone from hartford (not those from west hartford or east hartford) mentions annexation, they seem to put it off as this quick fix for hartford's problems without really having to worry about the curent problems. it's not that i have something against hartford, because that's not the case at all (regardless of whether or not i'm a big fan of the city, although i did stick up for it against some closed minded person in the providence forum who called hartford desolate or a place you go to get mugged, but that's besides the point). but everytime i hear about annexation, i hear "the schools will be better, the tax base will be larger, the services will have better response times". to me that sounds like "magic fix". yes, more people will be providing taxes to hartford, but the towns that would be annexed already use their tax money for the services they provide. i don't have the first clue what taxes are like in hartford, east hartford, or west hartford, so i couldn't say if they'd be raised or lowered for some in order to really pull it off. but i know that if my taxes were raised because of annexation (and i lived in east or west hartford) so that the taxes of those in hartford could be lowered, i'd be up in arms. that's all.

i'll stop posting in this thread now since i don't seem to have much else to say. i was just trying to get you guys thinking that if this could become a reality of what exactly it would accompish, other than adding more people to hartford, and what would need to be done to really use it to hartford's benefit.

i will admit that i think that annexing pawtucket and central falls (which should be annexed by pawtucket anyways since it's just a square mile and would greatly help central falls in my opinion) would be cool for providence to do. at the very least, it'd better connect the 2 cities (although we wouldn't have a place called "the bucket" anymore). but the neighborhoods in pawtucket and central falls are similar to those of providence lacking any major suburban areas (that are very characteristically suburban), which is why east providence and north providence (which is also quite tiny) would not be included. i'm more in favor of urbanizing providence rather than adding in places that are suburbs and will always remain suburban. but before that would be able to happen, all 3 cities would need some long term solutions to their problems.

a big part of the issue with CT that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue in RI is lack of regional thinking, but that might have to do with the size of RI (or lack there of). the education issue is a big issue in all of RI, and while the towns and cities each need to individually work on their own plans, the state should get involved as well because it is a statewide problem. crime is obviously more limited to the cities, and pawtucket and providence should be working together on a plan to curb the violence and the other crimes (muggings, beatings, auto break ins, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MadVlad Town

MadVlad

Posted
Posted

Annexation and crime are different topics entirely. That's like saying, "why annex, it won't make it easier to access the river....". It's apples and oranges. We aren't saying annex to fix crime, we are proposing it fix the image problem, which is a valid problem, and it can be fixed by annexation. The image of a 124k city is that it is a small city, the image of Hartford is that it's totally crime ridden,everyone gets shot, etc. Annexation can help alleviate the image problem, a city of 200k or 220k or 250k is considered by most to be a larger city, despite the whole "cty size/metro size" deal. We could split Hartford up into 5 parts, "North End " would be the worst city in history because it would have a crazy high homicide ratio. If Hartford were a normal sized cit (physically), it wouldn't even be an issue. See, again, an image problem. It would help marketing. More colleges/schools in the city limits, more diverse population, more industry in the city proper.

here's hoping this thread dies soon....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

Annexation and crime are different topics entirely. That's like saying, "why annex, it won't make it easier to access the river....". It's apples and oranges. We aren't saying annex to fix crime, we are proposing it fix the image problem, which is a valid problem, and it can be fixed by annexation. The image of a 124k city is that it is a small city, the image of Hartford is that it's totally crime ridden,everyone gets shot, etc. Annexation can help alleviate the image problem, a city of 200k or 220k or 250k is considered by most to be a larger city, despite the whole "cty size/metro size" deal. We could split Hartford up into 5 parts, "North End " would be the worst city in history because it would have a crazy high homicide ratio. If Hartford were a normal sized cit (physically), it wouldn't even be an issue. See, again, an image problem. It would help marketing. More colleges/schools in the city limits, more diverse population, more industry in the city proper.

here's hoping this thread dies soon....

crime is done per capita. define normal sized city. i think that's where we're disagreeing. normal sized doesn't have to be 200k or above. i think hartfordtycoon said it in another thread that the reason it was so high up on the dangerous cities list was the nursing home murders with something like 19 in one shot, doubling the average number for that year.

i think hartford can fix the image problem without increasing the population. just looking at hartford by being there and driving into it from almost any direction, it looks much larger than it is because of all the skyscrapers. maybe the city should use the skyline more for marketing tourism. another thing that should be fixed is more reason for people to be out and about throughout almost all of downtown all times of the day. maybe that's changed since i was last there, but i remember it being dead on most streets with very few people out walking around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HartfordTycoon Town

HartfordTycoon

Posted
Posted

the reason i keep repeating that is because everytime someone from hartford (not those from west hartford or east hartford) mentions annexation, they seem to put it off as this quick fix for hartford's problems without really having to worry about the curent problems. it's not that i have something against hartford, because that's not the case at all (regardless of whether or not i'm a big fan of the city, although i did stick up for it against some closed minded person in the providence forum who called hartford desolate or a place you go to get mugged, but that's besides the point). but everytime i hear about annexation, i hear "the schools will be better, the tax base will be larger, the services will have better response times". to me that sounds like "magic fix". yes, more people will be providing taxes to hartford, but the towns that would be annexed already use their tax money for the services they provide. i don't have the first clue what taxes are like in hartford, east hartford, or west hartford, so i couldn't say if they'd be raised or lowered for some in order to really pull it off. but i know that if my taxes were raised because of annexation (and i lived in east or west hartford) so that the taxes of those in hartford could be lowered, i'd be up in arms. that's all.

i'll stop posting in this thread now since i don't seem to have much else to say. i was just trying to get you guys thinking that if this could become a reality of what exactly it would accompish, other than adding more people to hartford, and what would need to be done to really use it to hartford's benefit.

i will admit that i think that annexing pawtucket and central falls (which should be annexed by pawtucket anyways since it's just a square mile and would greatly help central falls in my opinion) would be cool for providence to do. at the very least, it'd better connect the 2 cities (although we wouldn't have a place called "the bucket" anymore). but the neighborhoods in pawtucket and central falls are similar to those of providence lacking any major suburban areas (that are very characteristically suburban), which is why east providence and north providence (which is also quite tiny) would not be included. i'm more in favor of urbanizing providence rather than adding in places that are suburbs and will always remain suburban. but before that would be able to happen, all 3 cities would need some long term solutions to their problems.

a big part of the issue with CT that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue in RI is lack of regional thinking, but that might have to do with the size of RI (or lack there of). the education issue is a big issue in all of RI, and while the towns and cities each need to individually work on their own plans, the state should get involved as well because it is a statewide problem. crime is obviously more limited to the cities, and pawtucket and providence should be working together on a plan to curb the violence and the other crimes (muggings, beatings, auto break ins, etc).

You make a lot of good points. I'll be honest. I want to annex those towns so we do better in the national and regional pissing contest. Hartford would be by far the second largest city in New England. I would be very happy with that. I'm guilty of just wanting it just to want it. Sue me. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SOCOM Hamlet

SOCOM

Posted
Posted

the reason i keep repeating that is because everytime someone from hartford (not those from west hartford or east hartford) mentions annexation, they seem to put it off as this quick fix for hartford's problems without really having to worry about the curent problems. it's not that i have something against hartford, because that's not the case at all (regardless of whether or not i'm a big fan of the city, although i did stick up for it against some closed minded person in the providence forum who called hartford desolate or a place you go to get mugged, but that's besides the point). but everytime i hear about annexation, i hear "the schools will be better, the tax base will be larger, the services will have better response times". to me that sounds like "magic fix". yes, more people will be providing taxes to hartford, but the towns that would be annexed already use their tax money for the services they provide. i don't have the first clue what taxes are like in hartford, east hartford, or west hartford, so i couldn't say if they'd be raised or lowered for some in order to really pull it off. but i know that if my taxes were raised because of annexation (and i lived in east or west hartford) so that the taxes of those in hartford could be lowered, i'd be up in arms. that's all.

i'll stop posting in this thread now since i don't seem to have much else to say. i was just trying to get you guys thinking that if this could become a reality of what exactly it would accompish, other than adding more people to hartford, and what would need to be done to really use it to hartford's benefit.

i will admit that i think that annexing pawtucket and central falls (which should be annexed by pawtucket anyways since it's just a square mile and would greatly help central falls in my opinion) would be cool for providence to do. at the very least, it'd better connect the 2 cities (although we wouldn't have a place called "the bucket" anymore). but the neighborhoods in pawtucket and central falls are similar to those of providence lacking any major suburban areas (that are very characteristically suburban), which is why east providence and north providence (which is also quite tiny) would not be included. i'm more in favor of urbanizing providence rather than adding in places that are suburbs and will always remain suburban. but before that would be able to happen, all 3 cities would need some long term solutions to their problems.

a big part of the issue with CT that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue in RI is lack of regional thinking, but that might have to do with the size of RI (or lack there of). the education issue is a big issue in all of RI, and while the towns and cities each need to individually work on their own plans, the state should get involved as well because it is a statewide problem. crime is obviously more limited to the cities, and pawtucket and providence should be working together on a plan to curb the violence and the other crimes (muggings, beatings, auto break ins, etc).

With the whole annexation thing, honestly I'll never see your side because I don't buy the "it'll be difficult, there's too many problems to work out" argument as a reason against annexation, so I won't even touch that subject. However, I do agree that there would have to be sacrifices made if W. Hartford were to join Hartford. W. Hartford is an amazingly successful streetcar suburb, many of the residents have a great deal of pride about their town. Obviously, that's not always the case in Hartford, so yeah, it would be an adjustment and problems would have to be worked out and what not...but it's Friday night and I'm anxious to get off my computer so I';m outta here. I'll stop replying to you in this thread if you decide to continue just because I don't want to hijack it anymore. It's too hot out to be arguing over something that most likely will never happen in my lifetime anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SOCOM Hamlet

SOCOM

Posted
Posted

a big part of the issue with CT that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue in RI is lack of regional thinking

Guess what stimulates regional thinking among towns!!!!???? Ann... :lol: OK, seriously, I'm done now. I just couldn't leave that one alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Ranger Burg

Lone Ranger

Posted
Posted

You know, it occurs to me that most of the direct, tangible benefits of annexation would come at the level of state funding.

And that would be a real reason for residents of cities such as West & East Hartford to want to join themselves to Hartford. In combination, Hartford, West Hartford, & East Hartford, would have the power to steer proportionately more state money to themselves than any single one of them could do alone, and likely more than all three command separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Mocarsky Hamlet

Bill Mocarsky

Posted
Posted

QUOTE(Bill Mocarsky @ Aug 4 2006, 10:24 PM)

I have thought about West Hartford annexing Hartford. The Connecticut river would flow between the east and the west.

do you mean east hartford?

I meant West Hartford. West Hartford on the west bank of the river, East Hartford on the east bank, collectively known as Hartford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.