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.