Comments on: The City that Hates http://www.mrstamford.com/miscellaneous/the-city-that-hates The Authoritative Blog on Stamford Connecticut Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:24:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Stamford Talk http://www.mrstamford.com/miscellaneous/the-city-that-hates/comment-page-1#comment-278 Stamford Talk Sun, 06 Sep 2144 18:07:17 +0000 http://www.mrstamford.com/?p=41#comment-278 There's some pretty nasty stuff up in the Greenwich Time right now, though. (Greenwich Time and Advocate- same owner, a lot of the same content.) The attacks have gotten personal and I really, really question why the paper does not moderate the "discussion." Local people are posting insults against other locals and smearing their names big time, complete with curse words and/or phallic references. Nice, Greenwich Time. There’s some pretty nasty stuff up in the Greenwich Time right now, though. (Greenwich Time and Advocate- same owner, a lot of the same content.) The attacks have gotten personal and I really, really question why the paper does not moderate the “discussion.” Local people are posting insults against other locals and smearing their names big time, complete with curse words and/or phallic references.

Nice, Greenwich Time.

]]> By: JP Cavagnani http://www.mrstamford.com/miscellaneous/the-city-that-hates/comment-page-1#comment-347 JP Cavagnani Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:19:47 +0000 http://www.mrstamford.com/?p=41#comment-347 I would like to spend a few words on the subject. First off, I'd like to say that if a city claims that it doesn't have enough money to wipe snow off the streets within a couple of days from snowfall, it cannot look at long-term expensive projects like the trolley and say "we can do it", much the same way that I cannot plan a vacation to Rio de Janeiro if I don't have the money to even reach Greenwich. Besides that, I'd like to say that a trolley (better, a few lines, else it's not worthy) would be beneficial to the city in the short term, by creating of new jobs (someone will have to build the network, someone else will have to operate it and maintain it) and by finally putting an end to the urban stagnation we have witnessed so far, and in the long term, by creating a viable, safe, and environmentally friendly transportation network and by adding new value to the neighborhoods served by such network. It's indeed a matter of fact that trolley network are in the long run cheaper to run than buses (the rolling stock lasts at least 40 years, rails needs to be replaced every 25 years, and the cost of running one car is the same as running a 3-car train) and a reality that neighborhoods served by streetcars see their real estate value increased. Furthermore, trolleys do not pollute, their timetable is far more reliable than that of buses, it's possible to create right-of-way lanes which protect them from private traffic, and they are safer in difficult weather conditions. Moreover, a more efficient city with a modern trolley network might attract again companies, which would find in Stamford a suitable place for their North-Eastern base (if not headquarters) if, unlike other small cities, it would have the services of a large city. Since the cost of maintaining an office in NYC is skyrocketing, a lot of companies are considering the suburbs: if you don't believe me, take a trip to the Jersey City/Hoboken/Weehawken riverfront, you'll find a lot of new residential developments, new companies' offices, and an efficient (and successful) light-rail line. Finally, I'd like to tell that reader that complained about the removal of tracks that it doesn't really matter: after a few decades (trolleys were discontinued in Stamford in 1933) of abandonment rails are not exactly fit for commercial traffic anymore, let alone if they've been covered up with asphalt. On top of that, new traffic dynamics might suggest a different positioning of tracks (in the old days they were invariably placed in the center of the road, now they might find a better location on the side of it), so in the end new tracks would have to be installed anyway, unless we believe that we're having this conversation in 1936... I would like to spend a few words on the subject. First off, I’d like to say
that if a city claims that it doesn’t have enough money to wipe snow off the
streets within a couple of days from snowfall, it cannot look at long-term
expensive projects like the trolley and say “we can do it”, much the same way
that I cannot plan a vacation to Rio de Janeiro if I don’t have the money to
even reach Greenwich. Besides that, I’d like to say that a trolley (better, a
few lines, else it’s not worthy) would be beneficial to the city in the short
term, by creating of new jobs (someone will have to build the network, someone
else will have to operate it and maintain it) and by finally putting an end to
the urban stagnation we have witnessed so far, and in the long term, by creating
a viable, safe, and environmentally friendly transportation network and by
adding new value to the neighborhoods served by such network. It’s indeed a
matter of fact that trolley network are in the long run cheaper to run than
buses (the rolling stock lasts at least 40 years, rails needs to be replaced
every 25 years, and the cost of running one car is the same as running a 3-car
train) and a reality that neighborhoods served by streetcars see their real
estate value increased. Furthermore, trolleys do not pollute, their timetable is
far more reliable than that of buses, it’s possible to create right-of-way lanes
which protect them from private traffic, and they are safer in difficult weather
conditions. Moreover, a more efficient city with a modern trolley network might
attract again companies, which would find in Stamford a suitable place for their
North-Eastern base (if not headquarters) if, unlike other small cities, it would
have the services of a large city. Since the cost of maintaining an office in
NYC is skyrocketing, a lot of companies are considering the suburbs: if you
don’t believe me, take a trip to the Jersey City/Hoboken/Weehawken riverfront,
you’ll find a lot of new residential developments, new companies’ offices, and
an efficient (and successful) light-rail line. Finally, I’d like to tell that
reader that complained about the removal of tracks that it doesn’t really
matter: after a few decades (trolleys were discontinued in Stamford in 1933) of
abandonment rails are not exactly fit for commercial traffic anymore, let alone
if they’ve been covered up with asphalt. On top of that, new traffic dynamics
might suggest a different positioning of tracks (in the old days they were
invariably placed in the center of the road, now they might find a better
location on the side of it), so in the end new tracks would have to be installed
anyway, unless we believe that we’re having this conversation in 1936…

]]> By: anon http://www.mrstamford.com/miscellaneous/the-city-that-hates/comment-page-1#comment-306 anon Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:20:04 +0000 http://www.mrstamford.com/?p=41#comment-306 Antares changed ownership? heard it thru the grapevine; don't remember seeing it in the paper...? Antares changed ownership? heard it thru the grapevine; don’t remember seeing it in the paper…?

]]> By: JR http://www.mrstamford.com/miscellaneous/the-city-that-hates/comment-page-1#comment-295 JR Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:23:19 +0000 http://www.mrstamford.com/?p=41#comment-295 Stamford Talk: Post some links, please! I want to hear the hoity-toity Greenwich folks going at it! Stamford Talk: Post some links, please! I want to hear the hoity-toity Greenwich folks going at it!

]]> By: Patty http://www.mrstamford.com/miscellaneous/the-city-that-hates/comment-page-1#comment-277 Patty Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:20:00 +0000 http://www.mrstamford.com/?p=41#comment-277 Look, you can't take Topix seriously. Use it as an opportunity to practice your mad skillz at poking a stick at a bag full of squirrels. Otherwise, it's useless. Look, you can’t take Topix seriously. Use it as an opportunity to practice your mad skillz at poking a stick at a bag full of squirrels. Otherwise, it’s useless.

]]> By: anon http://www.mrstamford.com/miscellaneous/the-city-that-hates/comment-page-1#comment-276 anon Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:42:54 +0000 http://www.mrstamford.com/?p=41#comment-276 That's exactly why I like to come here to discuss Stamford :) That’s exactly why I like to come here to discuss Stamford :)

]]> By: JT http://www.mrstamford.com/miscellaneous/the-city-that-hates/comment-page-1#comment-273 JT Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:41:42 +0000 http://www.mrstamford.com/?p=41#comment-273 Right on. It's not even worth wasting breath on the stupidity that is spewed there. Everything is a Trump Plot against our gentle farm community. In reality though it's only a handful of people, Wally, Vox Pop, Former Stamford Resident, Stamford Stinks, and even the tide is turning against them there. Right on. It’s not even worth wasting breath on the stupidity that is spewed there. Everything is a Trump Plot against our gentle farm community. In reality though it’s only a handful of people, Wally, Vox Pop, Former Stamford Resident, Stamford Stinks, and even the tide is turning against them there.

]]>