Perhaps, but it would be good to know the context and basis for this map.

Very cool map.

Only question I have is what is the time period for this? I think it's misleading to claim this is a map of original native american tribes and I'm not sure there is any evidence that these boundaries were static over thousands of years. Rather than calling this a map of original or indigneous tribes, it should be described instead as a snapshot in time - likely of the period during which first contact with Europeans were made?

"This is not true. Increased public transportation usage directly corrolates to reduced traffic accidents: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-11/cities-with-good-public-transit-have-fewer-road-fatalities"

- Thanks for sharing but I'm not sure how the experience of these cities would be useful for a suburb like West Hartford.

"And this makes sense logically. If more people are using public transit, fewer people are driving. If there are fewer vehicles on the roads, there are fewer opportunities for accidents. If you can take the bus home from the bar, why would you drive?"

- Yes, I agree - in places like NYC or Boston, but not in WH.

"A common misconception. For one thing I bet this is cheaper than you're thinking. Sure it costs a few hundred million dollars"

- I've never seen new inter-town rail costing only a few hundred millions dollars. Have you? If so, where?

,"but the state is eager to drop 5 BILLION dollars on repairing a stretch of I-84 that's shorter than a mile in length."

- Which project is that?

"Also, every dollar spent on public transit returns four to five dollars in economic benefit: https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/research-reports/economic-impact-of-public-transportation-investment/"

- Yes, i'm quite familiar with that but I'm not sure how it is relevant to WH's vision zero goals.

"Entire cities in Europe are completely car-free and they're doing just fine. And they can do that because of strong public transit."

- Those places are very different than WH and the Greater Hartford area. i'm not sure how the experiences of these cities in Europe would at all be instructive here.

"If we aren't building and planning for future generations, what the fuck are we even doing??"

- My sense is that WH is looking for solutions in the near term, not merely in 40 from now ;-)

I appreciate the rail comments and would support such proposals but they are not solutions to auto-related fatalities and serious injuries. Such rail proposals are not only impossibly expensive with no realistic option of ever being built (aside from maybe high speed rail on 84 and 91 corridors - but even that would be decades away), but I'm also skeptical of how much traffic they would take off the road in a place like WH.

I do agree that road re-design is helpful and that would be more cost-realistic.

Increased enforcement should also be part of the solution.

I think most dog owners install invisible fences.

The town does support housing. This article is about a resident opposing Glastonbury's support of housing.

Absurd. One of the best things the state government could do to improve economic development in CT is to curtail the ability of people to bring these types of lawsuits. There is such an intense anti-progress, anti-development mindset in CT that is weaponized through lawsuits like this.

Whether it is in Glastonbury, Canton, West Hartford, Farmington or elsewhere, CTers' reflexive "no" to development is really holding the state back.

This seems great for WH! Congrats!

Massive changes - like 10 to 20 thousand new apartments downtown. Only with that level of density can the city begin to support a real downtown area with self-sufficient shops and restaurants.

The only way to achieve that though is massive investment by the state to allow Hartford to lower property taxes and reduce crime, along with streamling zoning and approvals.

I actually think that is something Amtrak has considered in recent years, at least on their "wish list"

I think the only people who thought that only NY had good pizza in the 1980s are people who never left NY in the 1980s.

I think all depends on how much the govt is willing to spend vs. borrow vs. payback with tolls.

I would love to see CT and NY bring back plans for a bridge or tunnel across LI Sound, particularly one that would connect Bridgeport and Route 8 directly to Long Island. Such an investment would be a boon to both Long Island the Bridgeport area. I know it will never happen - government just doesn't take on such big projects anymore - but it's nice to dream.

It's fine that Tong thinks this rate increase is too high but the fundamental blame for this rests with the state government for allowing CT residents to pay far more in energy costs than people in nearly every other state.

Yes, CT is a "one-party" state meaning only one party to a conversation needs to consent to the recording (meaning you, but not the other person).

That's part of the difference, but another aspect of my opinion I think arises from what I think young gay men need - access to medications that keep them safe and that is where parental knowledge is crucial. Too many young gay kids unreasonably fear their parents' reaction and thus don't come out to them, while at the same time engaging in unsafe practices that they can't get protection for because their parents don't know about it. I see that as the bigger risk to young gay men that rejection or ostracism - maybe in the 1990s, but not today.

The harms I see off the top of my head are:

- breaking the trust and bonds between parents and child;

- preventing the parents from providing often crucial guidance to their child, including access to medical care (e.g. Prep or MP vax);

- having the parents teach their child completely useless sex ed instead of things that the child actually needs to know given their orientation.

I see these harms as more salient in 2022 Connecticut than a risk of a teenage losing her job because of being a lesbian or facing discrimination.

I listed the 4 above.

I agree that my approach is risky - I just see it as the lesser of two bad options.

I agree that is a reason to not have schools out students. But that is only one side of the coin - for me, the reasons to out a child to their parents are more persuasive. Specifically:

1. It is immoral for schools to withhold important (even vital) information from parents regarding their child and their well-being.
2. The withholding of such information is allowed regardless of who the parents are or what they believe.
3. The withholding places a school employee's values and morals above the values and morals of a family, which may lead to discrimination based upon religion, ethnicity or immigrant status.
4. It may result in harms to the child because the parents lack critical information about the child's needs, threats, or risks.

Yes, we do. I was one of them (disowned, not abused).

I'm a gay, married dad and I fully support teachers outing kids to their parents.

No, I did not miss the 2nd half of the article.

What do you think is the author's objective?

I'm not sure I understand the author's objective with this article. Is the idea that these place names need to be changed? are harmful? or are simply quirks of history?

I would live in west hartford. Much nicer and much more to do.