Woodstock CT Café

The truth that is as plain as the nose on your face is that the major land owners who dominate the Republican party and the land use boards are determined to minimize any real land use regulation and have done so successfully essentially forever. This is not a secret – they offer their opinions publicly all the time. And they are right now undertaking an effort to reverse the conservation subdivision regulations passed three years ago.

You cannot, with credibility, state here that you do not understand the problem, and then draw a conclusion about the topic based on the tone of Dr. Gordon’s comments – this is simply inane. And you cannot state you do not understand the problem after the extensive information that has been provided to you here. If you do not understand then go re-read it – slowly.

The “birds and bees” language in the Plan of Conservation and Development and Zoning Regulations is simply not enforceable and is virtually never enforced. This is the result of 10-20 years of ridiculous “study circles” in which grouops of people who have no idea what they are doing play paddy-cake and agree only on such vague generalizations that they have ended up with meaningless land use regulations. In the meantime, there is no real land use regulation in Woodstock. And that is exactly what the Republican-dominated PZC wants. What part of this do you not understand, for God’s sake? Read the rest of this entry »

BlogNetNews Rates the Cafe High in Influence in the state because of our contributors and readers.

This measure tracks each blog (>60) over the last twelve weeks in a rolling average, producing a more stable measure of influence that reflects a blog’s longer-term impact on the blogospheric conversation rather than the “Official” single week results which can be influenced by a few really good or really controversial posts. There are many more than 60 blogs in the state but they’re essentially invisible. These top 20 are the most visible.

Jeff’s eliquent statement reminding readers that we all received funding for our educations from someone else prompted me to crunch some numbers.

I thought I would take a stab at estimating the cost of a public school education for us and our families.
Here are the assumptions I used to put together the Table at the bottom of this article:
I used 2008 dollars;
I assumed that the average cost per year was/is $10,000 (2008 dollars, averaging all grades together); and
I assumed 13 years of public school education (K-12).

If a resident is single for life (producing no off-spring) and was schooled in the public school system (K-12), his/her education cost taxpayers $130,000 in 2008 dollars. All individuals have the same cost. If you are a couple living together as a single property taxed entity, then the education of the two of you cost twice as much, $260,000 in 2008 dollars. Larger residental families increase proportionately by the number in the family. The third column is the cost to society for the education of you and your family, or perhaps the amount you owe back to society.  

Becki and I have only owned property in Woodstock for nine years and since then we have paid about $29,700 in property taxes. Mariah was educated in Woodstock from grade 2 through 12 costing taxpayers $110,000 in 2008 dollars. The total cost for our family unit’s education was $390,000 in 2008 dollars but other towns helped pay for that. [By the way, all of my public education took place in CT in Rowayton CT between Darien and Norwalk.] We expect to pay back Woodstock for Mariah’s education if we live long enough (knock on wood). Read the rest of this entry »

Questioner thinks to himself, “A free public education for all. A noble idea not only of benevolence but of foresight. What a great, noble idea. In order for a democracy to flourish mustn’t its citizens be educated?
Mustn’t they assimilate with great minds? Mustn’t they learn what opportunities and what truths await them? What a great model for a Great Society. I get it. I really do.” He smiles.

One day quesioner comes across a local blogsite. He reads an intersting comment written by a Jeff Kelleher. He asks his neighbor Jeff, “I’m not sure I understand your statement ‘if America is really a land of opportunity, I believe we must strive to offer a free quality education to all citizens.’ It seems to be a bit of a non sequitur,” questioner states, “afterall, by this reasoning, should it not follow, then, that if America is a land of opportunity we should provide everyone with free housing, with free healthcare, or even a free car?” While a free education is a Great and Noble idea, Questioner ponders, does it really gaurantee opportunity?

“Oh, but wait, these things really aren’t free afterall.” Questioner remembers, “I mean, someone has to pay for them, don’t they?” Questioner asks.

He remembers how he was once told by his sandel wearing professors at college, “But if we provide all of this “free” opportunity we will attract great talent, we will promote people from poor to middle to upper classes. Quality of life will rise for all….and….we’ll have a new, ever increasing inflow of taxpayers to pay for all these “free” things. The system will support itself. Don’t be so greedy, someday they will help pay for your social security! (At least we hope so).” Questioner was satisfied. It made sense at the time. (He thinks).

But, he inquired, “won’t we need a much larger government to help make this work?” No one answered, but a group of smart looking, sandeled, men and women wearing shirts with jack-asses on them, simply smiled at him. Read the rest of this entry »

I just have a couple of points/questions for you to consider (spoken to Rich). You mention that Seniors (and others for that matter) have no kids in the school system, therefore they shouldn’t have to worry about education. I have another point of view. Every child in our country is offered a free, public, and hopefully, quality education. I’m more than willing to concede that there are schools that are struggling to offer a free quality education, but I think it’s fair to assert that many public schools are doing quite well.

In any case, as a child, every future taxpayer receives a free education. When you grow up, and start paying taxes, you pay for your education. You may label this practice as socialist or communist, and I may have a tough time refuting your argument. Nevertheless, if America is really a land of opportunity, I believe we must strive to offer a free quality education to all citizens.

Let’s be honest. There is a class system in the U.S. There are have’s, have nots, and as our Presidents likes to mention, there are the have more’s that are the base of the Republican party. [as an aside, I’m not overly fond of either of the major parties in our country.] If we get to a point where the only way to get a decent education is to pony up the $$ that private schools charge, there would be the possibility of major class division/war in this country, much more than there is now.

Honestly, I get your point. Believe me, I know there are students who cost more time and money to educate than others. I do believe that some adjustments need to be made to the public school system to address the needs of all students. But I’m not sure the country would be better off if public education was only for “scumbags”.

As for Canterbury “leaning” on a particular high school for better tuition rates, well, good luck with that. I don’t mean to sound snide nor condescending. I just don’t see what bargaining power Canterbury (or any sending town) would have. Read the rest of this entry »