Editorials

The racist epithet — again

Much of the country is in lockdown or semi-lockdown due to the Chinese Coronavirus, Wuhan Virus, or Covid-19. Commerce is slowed to almost non-existent, schools are closed and could be closed well past the Connecticut-mandated March 31, people have been told to work from home, paper goods, meat, and other foodstuffs are ripped from the shelves as fast as they are stacked, and a general surreal atmosphere has permeated daily life. The virus has, because of its uncertainty, disabled an entire world.

While information has been forthcoming and the various state governments have worked with the federal government to mitigate the spread and effects of the pandemic, there are many in the media who cannot get with the program. Instead, they are fixated on the same tropes they have been on for the last three-plus years: blaming Donald John Trump for anything and everything with the goal of delegitimizing his presidency.

Having failed with Russia, Russia, Russia, and the silly Ukraine debacle, the media is now trying to portray the administration as incompetent, when the facts show something entirely different. We will leave it to other outlets to give the timeline, but whilst the Congress was futzing around with a trumped-up impeachment charge (pun intended), the administration was handling things with the Wuhan Virus.

The crux of their problems with the administration was the President’s attempt to calm the population while the media was attempting to drum up hysteria. The fact the president didn’t play Chicken Little irks his adversaries in the press, and does to this day. This past weekend he has attempted to further calm the fears of the nation in his Sunday briefing.

But now we have the most recent kerfuffle concerning the naming of the virus. Somehow it has become insensitive to call it the Chinese Coronavirus (something CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and other did until recently). Now it is racist. No, it’s accurate. The racist charge came from members of the famous “Squad” in Congress, that group of women angry at virtually anything. It was then picked up by the Chinese government, which is trying to do anything to deflect its own incompetence in the face of the virus outbreak months ago.

While the world is trying to cope with something that is verging on catastrophe, there are reporters and politicians still hoping to use identity politics against the administration. Calling a virus by its point of origin has always been the case. But we live in a time when, because the media hates the present administration, will do anything to cause division.

Witness the latest. CBS reporter Weijia Jiang, a Chinese-American, contends a “senior White House official” called it the “Kung Flu.” This was a two-day story ostensibly about something said to her. When confronted, she refused to say who the official was, and is now getting deserved blowback from both sides of the political aisle.

First off, what is the problem? Why is this bit of gallows humor – for that is what it is – so offensive? The answer: because people want to be offended. They want to show the administration is racist. They want to show America is a racist country. They want, when all is said and done, to foment division.

It is not racist to call this the Wuhan Virus. It is not racist to point out the country of origin is China. It is not even racist to make a small word-play joke about it to ease tensions. If everything is racist, nothing is racist. If everything is offensive, nothing is.

There are people looking to be offended, and looking to score political points in doing so. The next time someone tries to shut down a conversation with the call of racism, just answer them: That’s your problem. In the final analysis, it is exactly that – their problem. Then move on with your day.

Let’s have the socialism talk

One of the interesting back stories of this year’s Presidential race is the ascendance of Socialist Bernie Sanders as the putative front-runner in the Democratic Party’s race to the nomination. To say this has the Democratic establishment in chaos is to understate it laughably.

The leadership is in panic mode, mollified only slightly by Joe Biden’s primary victory in South Carolina over the weekend. By the time this paper reaches newsstands, the leadership might be in hysteria once the Super Tuesday results are in. Polls give Sanders a good chance of gaining hundreds of delegates.

We believe the Sanders ascendancy a good thing. In fact, it has become a good already in that people are finally listening to what he says, and drawing right conclusions. Sanders has gained much popularity as a socialist because he is pushing the right buttons with a rather large minority of the electorate. Young millennials and those in university now are drawn by his mantra of “free.” There will be free college, free health care, a new green deal, etc. Who will pay for this is anyone’s guess. And that is really not Sanders’ strong suit as witnessed by his recent 60 Minutes interview. He doesn’t know.

But what intrigues us about this election cycle is that it will bring to the fore the lie that is socialism, and put it in the public debate once and for all. For decades, socialist theory has been taught in academic institutions. The theory is that socialism is on its face a more equitable and egalitarian system, where people’s needs are met, and taxes are proportioned according to one’s ability to pay.

In reality, the system has not worked, has never worked, and won’t work here. Bring that up to the academic elites and one gets the answer that “it really hasn’t been tried the right way.” The implication is, once its implemented here, it will be done correctly, and will work properly.

Sanders sees the totalitarian rules of Stalin and Castro as inconveniences that have brought a greater good. The fact millions have been slaughtered in the name of the state is an unfortunate fact of revolution. After all kids were taught to read!

Sanders’ supports – many of them – are revolutionaries. James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas videos are stark examples of the type of totalitarian rule radicals hope to achieve. Like the Fascisti of Italy, Nazis of Germany and Red Army of Stalin, those against the new reality will be carted away or eradicated.

This is a discussion we must have. This is important. Those who are supporting Sanders are looking only to what they believe are the benefits – free stuff – of the society, without taking heed to the loss of the very freedoms that allow them to trash the current system.

Socialism has been tried and has been found wanting. Venezuela is the most recent example. Cuba went through the throes of thousands of killings in the push toward totalitarian rule.

Sanders’ ideas might be great for the faculty lounge, but their implementation in the real world has led to the worst slaughter in human history. We cannot have a discussion about the supposed benefits of such a system without acknowledging its failures. We await the great debate.

Public forums necessary

In the next several weeks, the City Council will schedule public forums to discuss the proposed charter revisions as laid out by the Charter Revision Commission. The commission, appointed in 2017, worked for 18 months reviewing the present charter, and seeing where revisions and amendments should be made.

What the panel did, ultimately, was not a revision, but an overhaul – in our view a much needed one – as to how the city does its business. The forums will be conducted by members of the former commission, which ceased to exist by law once the report was presented to the City Council.

These former members will answer questions, give rationales and generally bring the public up to speed as to what it was thinking when it re-wrote the document. These discussions were mandated in order to help give residents the opportunity to inform themselves before a final vote is taken. That vote, still to be determined, will be pivotal as it will decide if the commission’s work is worthy of implementation.

The forums are important. The revisions made by the commission in its proposed overhaul will change the way the city does its business, alter the form of government the city employs, and reallocate the powers distributed to the executive and legislative branches. Put simply, it is a whole new ball game if passed.

Under the new proposal the City Council will become primary, with the mayor’s position becoming a “first among equals” position on that body. Somewhat in the vein of the selectman system, the mayor will have some executive powers, but only insofar as there needs to be an ultimate authority.

Much of the executive powers will be allocated to a city manager, who will be hired by the council, and under its authority. This professional will move the city toward a more streamlined operation, and will have the know-how and understanding that takes mayor’s months or years to acquire.

Department heads will be hired based on credentials. There will be expertise in the various departmental categories, giving the city a more professional outlook. These will be handled through attrition, eventually giving the city expertise sometimes lacking in its current structure.

The genius of the document cobbled together by the Charter Revision Commission is the interwoven connection between one section and another. The restructuring of the city’s government is constructed in such a way that one section of the document is dependent on the others. It stands or falls as one piece.

The public’s understanding of the revisions, then, is vitally important toward making an informed decision. If passed, there are going to be necessary changes made almost immediately. And, what the City Council, city attorneys, and the commission itself realize is that it cannot be broken up into several questions. It must be given an up-or-down vote as a whole in order for it to work.

This publication will list the meetings and times. We urge the residents of the city to take part in one or more of these forums in order to gain a working knowledge of the revision, and then make an informed decision.

The Charter Revision Commission has offered to the city a new way of doing things – one that will alter forever the sometimes clunky way things get done. It won’t be easy, but the electorate should know the details before it is asked to vote on it. It is the most important vote electors will make in the history of the city.

Tolls only on trucking? Pardon our skepticism

When I-95 was opened in the 1950s, tolls were set up at several points, especially around well-traveled areas where traffic was heavier and revenue more available. From Old Saybrook (later Madison) to Bridgeport no less than four tolling stations were erected with more toward New York. The tolls were for the upkeep of the highway.

In the 1980s, the move to get rid of tolls was growing. People in the southern part of the state saw other highways built, including I-91 and I-84, which had no tolls. That was seen as unfair to the commuters in the southern tier of the state. Eventually, a catastrophic accident, resulting the deaths of many, happened at Stratford, and the General Assembly eliminated tolls. But, we were told, federal funds would be further available, making the need for tolls unnecessary.

The General Assembly found other ways to repair and maintain highways, especially after the Mianus Bridge disaster, increasing the gas tax to stockpile funds for roads. But as with many “earmarked” funds in Hartford, they find their way into other programs, while spending increases at three and four times the rate of inflation.

In the last decade, ideas for bringing back tolls have been floated because we need funds for maintenance of bridges and highways. What happened to the “earmarked” funds from the gas tax? We know. The General Assembly spends it. And, it is easier to push through a tax than to exercise fiscal restraint.

Now, Gov. Ned Lamont is pushing through a proposal to erect toll gantries in various parts of the state, but we are told these will be for trucks and commercial vehicles only. Really? This is the “camel’s nose in the tent.”

Let’s take this idea. First off, trucks will be able — to a greater or lesser degree — avoid many of the tolls. Those tolls that are paid will result in increased costs not for the trucking companies per se, but for the consumers who purchase those products transported. The ripple effect will make families and individuals pay more.

We are told by assembly officials, particularly Sen. Martin Looney, majority leader, no one should fear expansion of the tolls to cars. Maybe not now, maybe not in five years, but we know how these things work. Make no mistake, this is the “camel’s nose in the tent.” Getting people used to seeing toll gantries is the first step, along with sequestering those tolls to only commercial vehicles.

As with the gas tax and other levies earmarked for roads and bridges (think driver’s licenses, registration, etc.), the revenue is too enticing for a state that cannot curb its budgetary bloating. Remember when the income tax was passed. The General Assembly passed with it a 2 percent spending cap – one that was ignored and now is all but moot.

We live in a state bleeding residents. Yet, instead of finding ways to curb spending and reorganize governing, we find more ways to raise revenues.

We don’t believe the mandarins of the General Assembly telling us this will not lead to toll expansion. The temptation is too great. They will find a way to expand the tolls, and residents will be forced, again, to foot the bill for the legislature profligacy.

Dems divide nation

By the time this publication hits the streets, the Senate impeachment trial will reach its third day. No one knows where it will be at this point, but we should be very cognizant of how we got here. Simply put, this impeachment – the finding of “high crimes and misdemeanors” by the House of Representatives marks new low point in the political life of this nation. It has accomplished two things: made us more divided than at any time since 1861; and has infected the nation with doubt about its institutions.

On the first point, the argument can be made that we’ve been headed in this direction for decades. The post-war notion by liberal elites that the United States is an illegitimate and dangerous nation has become main-stream. It is taught in our universities and public schools. In the name of diversity, these elites teach of oppression of native peoples and the imposition of slavery. Yet, they never complete the story. They never put a context other than the darkest and most evil on the events of our nationhood.

Slavery is considered the original sin of the nation. That argument can be made. But let us remember that slavery was a worldwide institution, and importation of African slaves was the work of other Africans, Middle Easterns and Europeans. Slaves were usually the vanquished tribesmen, captured or defeated in battle. Many times, whole populations were killed, other times they were put into slavery, and either kept by the victorious warlords or sold to others. Is that context ever taught?

We don’t condone slavery. We fought a civil war because of it. Imprudent attempts after that war to vanquish the South caused many of the subsequent problems. Yet is was the moral code of a Christian nation that brought about the end of slavery. And it took more than a century to bring about the changes that we have today. Yet, there are those who would divide us again by race, ethnicity, social status and sexual orientation, not to mention the faux issue of “gender.”

The second division, distrust in our institutions is a lesson in irony. It was the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton campaign and an Obama Justice Department that used false information against an American citizen to get into the Trump campaign. It was they, not Trump, that used this information to do what they accuse Trump of doing: sowing discord and distrust.

Irony is lost on the Democrats, but they accuse Trump and his supporters of destroying our political institutions, when it was their actions, their constant investigations, and their disinformation campaign that has brought distrust to many. Russian leader Vladimir Putin could not have done a better job – the job he is accused of – than the Democrats did.

Democrats have also done what Trump himself could not have done: brought many people to his side. Their constant call to “resist,” their incessant insanity, and their desire to impeach from Day One of his administration have turned many people against the party and tacit supporters of the President.

Recent reviews show that more than half the people attending rallies for Trump were either Democrats or Independents. That should scare the hell out of the Dems. But they are too focused on this fool’s errand of impeachment to mollify their rabid base. We hope they enjoy it…while it lasts.

Resident goals listed for the next 12 months

Last week this publication named three “goals” or areas of improvement we would like to see in the next 12 months. Those goals were directed at the city’s political class and administrative officials. This week we seek to take a different tack, and put forward three goals we would like to see city residents and taxpayers take over the next 12 months that would make our city a better place to live and work.

Property upkeep – West Haven has many private residences, but it is also flush with rental properties. From three-story homes to multi-unit apartment houses, the city has many residents who do not own, but rent. Unfortunately, many of these rental properties are absentee ownerships and that creates problems for the rest of us.

Cars parked on front lawns are becoming a big problem, not only along major thoroughfares, but in all parts of the city. Property owners, whether they be agencies or private citizens who live elsewhere, should be strict prohibiting the practice. It speaks ill of the owners and the people who leave the cars. Renting a property doesn’t mean you can trash it. This is a type of blight that brings down property values, and, in turn, brings down the pride people should have in neighborhoods.

Similarly, renters are not exempt from keeping their residences tidy. Putting out trash in front of the property for pick-up much later, mounding refuse along the curb, and not helping with sidewalk maintenance are things that harm the upkeep of the city.

Red, Yellow, Green – This is not only a city problem, but something we have seen all over the state. In the State of Connecticut, yellow means to begin to stop, not gun right on through the intersection. Only those cars unable to stop or already past the stop line may proceed. Over the last several years red lights seem to be thought of as a suggestion, rather than a responsibility.

We have seen drivers slow at a red light, see no one is coming from the other direction and just go right through. This is a problem waiting to become a tragedy. It is a symptom of a bigger illness: the dismissal of authority and authority figures. That is the topic of a future editorial.

Understanding city issues – Despite publications, news reports and social media, there are too many of us who have very little understanding of how things work in the city, and what issues are facing it. Understanding leads to involvement. One of West Haven’s difficulties over the years are too many of us just allow things to go on unchecked or unquestioned. This has allowed factionalism, bossism, and a certain style of elitism to enter into our politics and our way of doing things.

It takes very little effort to get to know and understand why the city is in a financial mess. It takes very little to understand the problems that face the city’s school system over and above funding. It takes little to understand that the district in which you are residing has its own set of difficulties and problems that need input.

We all work, we all have lives, but that doesn’t mean we can drift through and not be informed individuals. This last goal is one that can transform the city

Over the next 12 months we hope to see one or all of these goals attempted by our residents. Implementation will make our city a better place to live and work.

New Year’s wishes – 2020

With the coming of the New Year – and no, the new decade doesn’t start until 2021 – the West Haven Voice has given three major goals it hopes the city and residents accomplish in the next 12 months. In many cases over the years, the goals and accomplishments are recurring. Brevity and expediency – getting things done in a timely manner under this definition – are not the city’s strong suits. As we enter 2020, we hope the coming year finds us fulfilling these goals:

The Haven – This has been a goal for the last several years, and we’re unsure it will be accomplished in 2020. The revelation last year that the Haven Group, the developers overseeing the site, have expected state funding to help the process puts much of the last four years into perspective.

According to the developers, certain promises were given to the group regarding city attempts under the O’Brien administration, to gain state funds to help enable the project. The languishing and decay of the site area then becomes more understood. The developers might have, indeed, sought DOT plan approvals, and other bureaucratic red tape might have been cut through, but the major hold up is the promised funding.

This makes the success – or even the potential completion – of the project murkier. For years we were told permits would be sought, giving the city millions in revenue. When it came down to it, the group was looking for funds.

What we hope for in the coming year is closure one way or the other. Is the Haven going to be completed? If so, when? The promise of the Christmas of 2021 or 2022 seems somewhat remote at this point. We are at a point when a decision one way or the other must be made crystal clear by the developers to the city. Full stop.

Charter Revision – The 18-month review of the charter and proposed revisions were filed last summer. We hope over the first quarter or at most by the end of the second quarter the revisions will be put to the voters. The City Council in its last term completed its work, what needs to be done now is setting a date for the referendum.

Because of the interweaving of the revisions, one to another, that vote has to be an up-or-down one. Some members were hoping for the city to slice and dice the questions into several, making it easier for the voters. However, doing so would play havoc with the whole document. The changes are so interwoven, doing so could potentially set up a chaotic situation with some parts approved and others not – thus making the whole document inoperable.

Return of the Savin Rock Festival – It has been two years since the Rossi administration canceled the Savin Rock Festival because of financial constraints. While we concur the city should not spend money it doesn’t have, we wonder if some other accommodation could have been made.

Regardless, with the city having a better bankbook, the festival’s return was mentioned as a probability this year. We hope so. The taxpayers of West Haven get very little in the way of payback for their levies. This is one of them.

We hope over the next several months a committee will be formed and the three-day celebration be put back on the schedule of events. We also hope that concerts, once a summer-long staple will be increased. Finding sponsors and getting performers for summer music lovers should be another “perk” taxpayers get for their buck.

In the next 12 months, the city can make great strides in becoming an even better place, and solving some of its internal problems. We hope in the first editorial of 2021, we are able to tout those accomplishments.

Impeachment ‘present’ readied by Democrats

As we approach the Christmas holiday, it seems the Democrats in Congress are going to give the American people a gift, but it is not one that seems to be very popular. The oldest political party in the world is going to gift-wrap an impeachment vote on the floor of the US House of Representatives this week. In fact, by the time this editorial is read, it might have been done already. The vote will be the culmination of a three-year temper tantrum by the Dems, who have proven nothing regarding impeachment, but everything regarding their ability – or suitability – to lead the nation.

To call the impeachment proceedings in both the Intelligence Committee of the House, run by California Rep. Adam Schiff, or that in the Judiciary Committee, run by New York Rep. Jerald Nadler, fair, proper and fact-driven, would be a mockery to terms. They have been nothing but a cavalcade of left-wing academics with axes to grind and professional bureaucrats looking to protect their turf. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has been factual.

But in the process we’ve learned something about so-called “progressive” governance, and the media that clamors for it.

As we’ve said before, the basis of Progressivism from the early 20th Century onward has been the distrust of the average voter, and the belief that a benign class of experts and operatives would rule the nation. After all, the rubes that vote can’t be trusted to do the right thing. In his early statements, for example, former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg has as much as said so, and anyone looking at his record while mayor will see a pattern of top-down governance “for their own good.”

Indeed, the socialist model that so many in the Democratic Party espouse is because the “deplorables” cannot be allowed to rule themselves. It takes a paternalistic group of politicians to show them the way. This will be done by taxation of things they shouldn’t have, control of health care, and divvying out “free stuff” in the form of education, child care, etc. No, Miss Ocasio-Cortez, these are not public goods.

The media, meanwhile, has shown that it has ceased to “speak truth to power” and did it long before Donald J. Trump was elected. We must remind our readers that for eight years anything negative about Barack Hussein Obama was as radioactive to the media as saying anything nice about Trump is now. Despite the obvious use of governmental authority against its enemies, incompetence in world affairs and wasting the government’s treasury, nothing got past the censors in the media.

The mainstream media is a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party because they espouse the same ideologies, attended the same schools, and live in the same neighborhoods.

The impeachment has set in aspic the facts that corruption in the Democratic Party, the federal bureaucracy and the media is working against the needs and desires of the electorate. Trump stands in the way of these actors to remake the nation, and set it into the machinery of a globalist, socialist solar system.

We are eerily reminded of the words of George H.W. Bush, a globalist, following the first Iraq War concerning the emergence of a “new world order.” That is, in fact, what we are seeing today unfold before our eyes.

The impeachment is part of that lurch to the left.

New term, same issues

As of noon Sunday, the city administration took its oath of office and begins the work of governing this city of more than 53,000 over the next two years. Mayor Nancy Rossi begins her second term in office, and a new City Council begins its own term.

This year, for the first time in recent memory, the city’s minority Republican Party, will have two members on the 13-member council. This is a major improvement over the past two decades, and allows debate of minority-generated issues to be discussed by the legislative panel.

With the new term, the administration must now formulate concrete programs to combat the city’s many issues. We, for our part, have a few hopes for the coming term, and hope they correspond with the desires and aspirations of the new administration:

Taxes, spending and staffing – When Mayor Rossi came into office, she entered with an admitted handicap. Unknown to her – or anyone except the former administration – the state had empaneled a review board to oversee city finances. The use of a bonding ordinance to cover a $17 million deficit triggered the action under what was then new legislation. Over the last two years, Rossi and the Municipal Accountability Review Board (MARB) have navigated some treacherous waters with not a little controversy.

As far as taxes are concerned, the die is cast. The MARB has dictated that taxes must go up over the term of the five-year plan to 40 mills. Spending is low, and has been cut by the administration to correspond with MARB’s desires. It is in the matter of staffing that we have, many times, asked for study.

The city is in need of a complete audit of staffing and needs. Personnel are the largest line item in the budget. The city should have a study on its needs, and the number of people working for it. Some of this has taken place via necessity with budget cuts, but this has been more of an activity of necessity, rather than a willful understanding of where personnel are needed. We hope to see something of this nature in the next two years.

Blight – The city has become, for better or worse, one of absentee ownership. This has led to a careless attitude on the parts of many property owners when it comes to upkeep. Meanwhile, on those properties owned by residents, we have seen deterioration, parking of autos on lawns, and other such nuisances. We hope in the next two years a comprehensive plan is laid out to combat this matter.

Redevelopment/Economic Development – During the campaign this issue came up as a matter of course, and, as a matter of course, generalities were used. Over the next two years we hope a plan of development can be issued by the city that will address several key areas: Allingtown and its continued upgrade, the Center and the use of empty properties or storefronts, and the shore (particularly Beach Street), where empty properties are hurting neighborhoods.

The Haven is a matter that, if it is ever begun and finished, would serve as an anchor for future actions, but outside that area of the city, more must be done. To say that areas of town are languishing is to understate the case. We hope that some type of coalition including the city, the business community, and representatives of the three major sections of town can work together to get some type of plan that will attempt to move the city forward.