60°
NORWALK, Conn. — Norwalk.DailyVoice.com accepts signed, original letters to the editor. Letters may be e-mailed to letters@dailyvoice.com.
Do you think Norwalk needs an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats?
View ResultsDo you think Norwalk needs an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats?
-
Yes
89% -
No
11%
To the Editor,
We are coming up to another election season and a question has come up to me over the past couple of weeks – does Norwalk need an independent party? I feel it would be a great idea if the public had another choice when they go to the polls this year. Some people have told me they did not like the two choices they were given and therefore did not vote.
For years now less and less people have been coming out to vote for one reason or another. This could be one of the reasons, so I say let's take a poll and find out if there is an interest out there to form an independent party or just limit everyone to two choices, after all this is America (freedom of choice) that is something that we all want and deserve as citizens of this great country.
Norwalk has about 85,000 people. If we could get half to come out and vote, that, my friend, would be a good thing.
Comments (13)
A thorough housecleaning of Norwalk's government is way overdue.
Personally I think the City, state & nation would all be better served with fewer liberal thinkers in office. Party doesnt matter, policy & theology does. In CT we have little, very very little, truly conservative representation in Hartford, there are Republicans but they arent conservative. In the city, while people can say differently because we have a Republican mayor etc, the reality is our city is NOT run in any remotely conservative manner. We spend taxpayers money as if it were nothing at all and allow the unions to run unchecked as if they are mandated.
So no, I dont think we need a third party, though I wouldnt be against it, we just need responsible conservative people on the common council who care more about the taxpayers than about appearances or increasing the grand list. Doing more with less needs to become our focus if we dont want to continue a downward slide away from the beautiful small city I grew up in towards the crime ridden cesspools our bigger cities already are.
Bravo, Al, for raising this topic again, and at the best time possible. Just recently I was chatting with someone about why many capable people won't run for office in Norwalk: because of the party Machine (repubs, who management style is "my way or the highway") where considerate, open minded folks are apparently forced to tow the line; or the apparently dysfunctional party (dems- whose management style is a akin to a multiple personality disorder), where folks who don't get their way jump ship, pick up their marbles and go home, or decide if they are to be noble liberals one night and horse-traders of votes the next – just keeping up with who caucuses with whom, and who doesn’t caucus at all is a chore!
The problem with a third party, called independent or any other name, is that it must eventually mutate into the same machine and dynamics as either traditional party. Power mongers, platform disputes, vote trading, in-fighting, hidden agendas, etc. Yet, without the actual organization of a third party, you simply cannot have a place at the table. If there is a way to take all the good of organized civic action, and cleanse it of the partisanship, I'm all for it! Of course, at least in the short-term, a third party could drive more folks to the polls, and will at least raise neglected issues to the point where one or both of the traditional parties must account for them
Finally, the folks I meet that are even willing to discuss a 'third" party can best be described as either socially responsible conservatives or fiscally responsible liberals. So it seems that many of us really are kind of right-down-the-middle when it comes to making reasonable decisions with the best interest of residents and taxpayers in mind. Though sometimes criticized for not "choosing sides", I'm proud to be registered as unaffiliated, and that in itself should speak volumes to the desire of some to at once distance ourselves from, and yet work amicably and respectfully with, both groups...... but PLEASE call me if there is a third-party party.... I never turn down a beer and pizza!
Norwalk either needs an independent party, or it needs existing elected officials to show greater independence from their respective parties.
I think the vast majority of Norwalkers agree that we want the City to perform vital city services, provide good schools, and run a few social programs which help underprivileged youth. But we want that to be accomplished for as little money as possible. In Norwalk it seems to me that the Republicans are generally good at holding the line on taxes and spending, and the Democrats are generally good at spending more on social programs, schools, and supporting municipal employee unions.
Neither party's philosophy is entirely appropriate for what we need, which is a City government that drives a very hard bargain with employee unions, so that we can have good schools and robust social programs at the lowest possible cost. Eighty-five percent of money spent on schools goes to wages and benefits, therefore the recent school funding crisis would not have been a crisis if the City were to drive a harder bargain when it came to negotiating those items.
It is so easy to predict who will blame unions, all working under contracts negotiated by this administration, and claim to be the party that holds the line on taxes and spending, just as their patron saint Ronald Reagan did. He campaigned on the claim that he would put a stop to the terrible spending habits of the other party and acted horrified by the fact the national debt was fast approaching a trillion dollars. He was elected and the national debt tripled on his watch. Republicans have been following his example ever since and blaming the unions every time their party failed to keep their promises on taxes and spending.
As predicted here, back when we were discussing campaign contributions, City Carting is being chosen as the favored contractor to take over City trash collection, with the claim the city employees will not lose their jobs, but will be transferred to lower paid positions, and the City will save 855 thousand the first year. The union, of course, opposes the move, and questions Alvord's numbers. There may well be savings, but Alvord is prone to exaggeration, and taxpayers will end up with fees, just as we did with sewers, and parking. First expense we will see is a requirement for large, standardized trash containers, designed for mechanical dumping, much like commercial dumpsters.
What will they outsource next, with a claim of projected savings ? Schools ? Police ? Fire ? Do they expect us to believe taxes will be reduced ?
They are now calling Vet's park VETERAN'S MEMORIAL STATE PARK AND MARINA. Does that mean the city is turning over all the revenue, including what they get from the ISLAND BELLE, to the state ?
@Old Timer, let's not knock large standardized trash containers designed for automated pickup and emptying. That is the smart and efficient way to reduce collection costs. The problem is that the Director of DPW thinks he needs to hire yet another private company to implement this change, simply because imho, he has given up trying to get any iteration of the common council to focus on policy making that invests in automation and cost savings.
You've correctly identified the poster children examples of how Norwalk outsources its policy making to private companies because of the failure of the Common Council to set policy through legislation and spending authorizations.
Getting back to reducing solid waste costs, the equation is quite simple. Norwalkers have to generate less trash, and commercial properties need to pay there fair share. Why should a business get free pickup service from the city when many of our residents don't? And if the policy is that commercial districts get city pickup, why isn't there a dumpster plan to serve multiple buildings instead of the bags and boxes that line up Van Zant, East Ave, West Ave, North Main and Wall Streets?
@Old Timer
I was quite clear in my comment that THE CITY has to drive a harder bargain when it comes to negotiating with the unions. That means the current administration, including your beloved Mayor Moccia. If you were a regular taxpayer who is footing the bill, rather than a retired Union officer, you'd probably agree with me.
The fact is, it's simple math. If we give City employees raises every year, then every year we either have to cut services or reach into the taxpayers' pockets for more money. In my view, neither of those are acceptable choices. So how about for once we hold salaries flat until such time as the City starts losing significant numbers of employees who find more lucrative jobs elsewhere. Then, and only then, would the taxpayers be well-served by City government reaching into our pockets to give employees another raise.
Unfortunately it's probably the case that to a large degree, the City is hamstrung by collective bargaining. If City negotiators offer no wage increase, and the Union refuses, eventually the contract goes to arbitration where the City has to accept whatever result is deemed "fair" by the arbitrator. In the meantime, the taxpayers who are footing the bills for all these raises consider themselves lucky just to have a job, much less one with guaranteed raises every year.
@lwitherspoon, I've heard this argument, that going to arbitration will not net a change in reducing wage increases. That may be true, but real contract negotiators all over the state, dealing with the same collective bargaining issues manage to get concessions. Which is why I maintain that Norwalk's penchant for keeping the same contract negotiating teams that year after year deliver the same mess are the real problem. It takes two sides to sign a contract, let's focus some attention on the side that writes the checks to the individuals who negotiate such bad deals for the taxpayers.
@jlightfield, thanks for your comment. What justification does the City give for keeping the same negotiating team year after year? Aren't the achievable terms largely driven by what happens in nearby CT cities which are also close to Norwalk in terms of demographics, since the Unions know that arbitrators will place the most weight on those results? Whatever the case I believe most other cities have been forced to negotiate harder due to the bad economy and lack of funds, so I would think this should make wage freezes easier to negotiate.
In my view arbitration is probably the biggest negative for taxpayers that arises from collective bargaining. A private non-union business that's tight on funds simply announces to employees that there won't be any raises next year due to the difficult economy. Employees of that business are free to leave for more lucrative employment elsewhere, if they can find it, but they can't force the business into arbitration where the arbitrator rules that the business must spend money it doesn't have.
@lwitherspoon, the people negotiating on behalf of the city are the issue here, not the arbitrators. Sad to say, lawyers cannot negotiate contracts. The business terms are policy, that's the realm of where elected, appointed and staff people are supposed to do the work. Entrenched negotiators on the labor side know this, and simply stick to preserving whatever is in the current contract regardless of whether it still applies, has merit or is even current. I've read enough City of Norwalk contracts to identify that this is a systemic problem across the political spectrum and because of its technocratic nature, something that is ignored year after year.
lwitherspoon
You talk and talk but say nothing
...said the one-string banjo.
lwitherspoon
the one-string banjo paid stooge for the administration
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$