Another fatal car crash in Stamford

Woman, 32, seriously hurt after hit by pickup truck in Stamford crosswalk

We are once again outraged by the traffic violence plaguing our streets. People have the right to safely cross the street without fear of being hit by a driver. We have already seen two pedestrian fatalities in Stamford. These deaths were completely preventable and are a result of bad road design. It is no coincidence that the recent serious crash on Washington Boulevard and the two fatalities earlier this year all occurred on state roads that are controlled by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. These roads are designed for moving cars as quickly as possible at the expense of safety. We cannot continue to let the State turn a blind eye to this carnage. We call on our elected state officials to finally have CTDOT do something to make these roads safer for pedestrians. We encourage you to reach out to the State delegation and CTDOT to demand action for safer state roads.

housing and Stamford's future

A comment from one of our members (a long-time Stamford homeowner) on the recent election and the path forward for Stamford:

[Caroline] Simmons is really a business moderate Democrat with an keen awareness of equity and social problems but cautious in her solution set.  Her demeanor though is very kind and empathetic not business cold and aloof.  In my opinion Democrats can better achieve their equity and social goals with an economic strategy. For example, a progressive pushing for affordable housing would face a backlash from low-tax constituents in a city-wide race. Stamford's below-market-rate program is a great example of an economic strategy that achieves progressive goals.  It is much better to have all income classes housed together than the stigma of low-income people all housed together.

Because of PFS I have become a housing zealot. I want to see an enormous increase in housing supply for all income levels. Why? Because if you build a lot more housing the cost of housing will drop as supply rises (or at least won’t rise as fast). This will make Stamford more affordable for young people to remain in their hometown or for those who want to leave high-priced NYC.  High growth employers, motivated by self-interest, will come (or stay) to Stamford because these young people are hard workers and cost less in salaries. Then boom. Your city revenues grow (restaurants thrive, etc.).  City planners and transportation engineers build safer more walkable streets.  Your city earns a “cool” factor.  Even the curmudgeonly low-tax types are happy because the fiscal burden transfers slightly to businesses.  I think this business model that I’ve outlined here is a winning model for Democrats.  In the end progressives can get (I’m oversimplifying the challenges of equity and social justice reform in this little text) a housing solution they want and work toward other agendas.  Ultimately you need to mollify the low-tax loudmouths.  There is an old expression that you can get what you want if you help others get what they want.

"People who ride bicycles don't pay taxes"

We are very disappointed to see Stamford Board of Reps member Terry Adams advocating for free car parking and a more dangerous street layout over much needed street safety improvements that would benefit many.

At 53:50 in this meeting, Terry Adams says that "bicyclists don't pay taxes in the neighborhood" as an argument for using public space for car parking rather than bike lanes.

This is a common trope thrown about by local officials all over the country, and we'd like to address it head-on:

1. People who ride bicycles pay as much in taxes as any other resident of Stamford. They are homeowners (they pay property tax) or renters (who pay property taxes through their rent). Most bicyclists also own cars.

2. Car vehicle taxes, gas taxes, and registration fees do not even come close to covering the cost of our overbuilt road and highway infrastructure. The US has one of the lowest gas taxes among developed nations and the revenue covers only about half of the money we spend on roads and highways.

3. Even separate from the tax question, public urban space is valuable and parking is among the least efficient uses of that space. Parklets, outdoor dining, bike lanes, etc. are often far better uses of public streets than free storage for private vehicles.

4. And finally, how much tax one pays should have no bearing on whether it should be safe for them to travel on a street without getting killed by cars. We need streets that are safe for all, not just those inside cars.

Read more about this common misconception: The Free Rider Myth by Elly Blue