New Haven Independent

Posted by: notimon | January 5, 2010 8:08 AM

Jackie you should not have bowed out, you should have continue even if you got one vote. Blango what have you done for the community, your ward have murders after murders and shootings after shooting and you sir have done nothing to help make the people of newhallville feel safe in their community, Mr. Blango, you are done as Aldermen, we the community will no longer except you siding with the Administration because the Mayor is your boss which is a conflict of interest, we will support and do have someone who will run against you in the next elections, ...

Posted by: Streever | January 5, 2010 9:33 AM

I agree with Notimon, I fully support Goldfield, but man, it's not an election without a race of SOME sort! Jackie you still should have run. What does it say for your future legitimacy that you gave up?

I'm glad Carl won & thought he was the most qualified candidate, but I'd be disappointed to run for something with no opponent. I was excited to see Jackie making a run for the pres position.

Posted by: Bruce | January 5, 2010 10:03 AM

Sounds like there would be no more or less jobs available, it would just give local government more control on who gets hired. I don't like the sound of that. Government jobs are used as bargaining chips for all sorts of things and this may open the door for more corruption. Not to imply that this is the intention, but once the opportunity is there someone will use it.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 5, 2010 10:33 AM

notimon

Jackie you should not have bowed out, you should have continue even if you got one vote. Blango what have you done for the community, your ward have murders after murders and shootings after shooting and you sir have done nothing to help make the people of newhallville feel safe in their community, Mr. Blango, you are done as Aldermen, we the community will no longer except you siding with the Administration because the Mayor is your boss which is a conflict of interest, we will support and do have someone who will run against you in the next elections, ...

That's Why it is call poltricks.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | January 5, 2010 10:43 AM

A mini-WPA could turn out to be a mega headache and expense depending on the details. If you do more in-house labor, you will need more managers, supervisors and the like. You just cut jobs in the public works department last year. And what about the potential jobs lost in the private sector if this were to happen? Are you talking about an accelerated public works plan or routine?

Sen. Donald DeFronzo on WNPR last week said CT Senate Dems were planning a similar idea that would be funded with a BILLION in new debt, all of which would go to construction with supposedly some trickle down to others. This is a rotten idea and if Goldfield moves forward with his version, I certainly hope he really thinks through the details of it first.

I believe any jobs created at the city should be those in technology that will ultimately lead to easier access and streamlined services for taxpayers and residents and an overall reduction in its workforce. We're not an employment agency. On the other hand, perhaps the question should be what specific steps can be done to create quality businesses and jobs in New Haven that is not already being done?

Posted by: Bizzaro world | January 5, 2010 11:09 AM

Same old, same old - Goldfield up top, Blango, Katrina Jones and Greg Morehead in leadership roles and next week look for Goldfield to appoint Yusuf Shah and Roland Lemar as Chairs of the two most important commities the Board has (Finance and Legislation)

Nothing new in bizzaro world.

Posted by: The Professor | January 5, 2010 11:27 AM

Actually, the mini-WPA idea isn't half bad. There's no reason that the city can't incur some debt right now and make it up during better times--countercyclical spending works at the national level, no reason not to try it out at the municipal level.
City Hall Watch, you argue that it would be a huge headache because of the need for increased city personnel, but that's the point! The city is doing more directly, so it needs to hire more people. You also point to last year's budget cuts in DPW, but keep in mind that presumably under Goldfield's proposal, the city would no longer be spending money on private contractors. So that opens up a huge new revenue stream.
Bruce, you don't think that the government can already use jobs as bargaining chits? What about government contracts? Those have been huge at the federal level, no reason a state or municipal government could do the same. Look, if someone wants to screw around, they can find a way regardless of whether the government or one of its contractors takes the lead in hiring laborers. This mini-WPA is roughly as vulnerable to unscrupulous dealings as any other system, and what's more, unlike other systems, it allows the city to focus its recruitment efforts on New Haveners, thereby keeping our tax dollars in the city.
I'm not saying that this should be implemented immediately, but it's something to think about, and it will certainly help a lot of people in this town who need work.

Posted by: Bruce | January 5, 2010 11:53 AM

Professor, the city is already up to its eyeballs in debt from the school-building frenzy.

Posted by: Democracy NOW | January 5, 2010 12:26 PM

SHAME ON YOU JACKIE! You let us all down. We put our necks on the line to support you and you drop out the race?!?! I am grossly appauled and disappointed. It is not only you to blame JACKIE what happened to all of those 14 votes your had. Those Alders did not stand up or run for any leadership positions. This whole notion of change that was so nescessary for the BOA was a fluke. I personally have no respect for ALL the Alders who supported Jackie. At least those who supported Carl made it public and stuck it out! What a sad day in BOA history!

Posted by: streever | January 5, 2010 2:30 PM

Democracy Now: I understand your frustration but at the same time I think you're being too hard on Jackie. Yes, I wish she ran, and I think it's disappointing in a larger sense (just as I was disappointed that Greer stepped down) but let's be realistic, Jackie is not compensated for her work or her effort. I think it's 1800/year to be alder & 2,000 to be president. While I wish that she ran--just to make it an actual race! even though I wanted Carl to win--I don't think she deserves to be berated.

Posted by: Pioneer | January 5, 2010 3:22 PM

Man, we need business taxes lowered. We need to attract companies into the city, make some pretty tall buildings, and we're all cool. From there, we can have a better mass transit (well, we'd NEED it), friendlier downtown environment, perhaps more residents, etc.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | January 5, 2010 3:34 PM

I hate races that end in rolling over, but Jackie was questionable at best. What I'd like to see is paid alders - and 80% fewer of them. Then we would see real races, real ideas, focus and efficiences. There would be competition and less rubberstamping and playing follow the leader.

Posted by: Streever Banter | January 5, 2010 3:46 PM

If we didn't know any better; we would think Carl was your father, idol or personal savior on a horse. ... One question...#1 Fan of the administration and everything self serving: Ask each Alderperson what Goldfields leadership has garnered each ward in this city.

Before you quickly answer...produce hard facts; from each elected official and provide actual support to back it up. Please include all the wards; especially, the wards you don't frequent or have a damn clue about.

Goldfield said it best...we need people on the board who share the vision of the current administration. ... Maybe James is not the one for the job; but, Goldfield is not a star either. ...

Our $36,000,000 deficit-speaks to his abilty to rally everyone to support irresponsible spending with our mayor. ...

I wonder how supportive you would be; if he didn't support your biking concerns? ...

Posted by: FacChec | January 5, 2010 7:07 PM

Two years ago, Goldfield was re-elected and promised a inclusive proactive board of aldermen.
As evidenced by Jackie's campaign and the agreement of other alders, Goldfields rein was neither inclusive and damn sure was not pro-active. Without and mention to is past failures and promises of an independent board, Goldfield strikes again proclaiming...

"He said this term, he’d like to focus on “infrastructure and jobs.”
Specifically, he’d like to set up a small agency by which the city could hire laborers for public works projects. The city currently hires out contractors when it wants to pave a road".

Well,.. LOL... First this is not Goldfields idea, it comes from the Mayor's office and Goldfield is just the messenger.

Setting up an agency to over see hiring of laborers is re-inventing the old tired wheel.
First the city already has several funded departments to carry out this task. Just start with EEOC,who for a very large budget fee now oversees the school construction hiring of women and minorities.

Bright start goldfield, hiring a redundant agency.

Secondly, zero city tax dollars, even automobile taxes, go towards street paving.
Goldfields's board approved 2009/10 budget proves this FAC, in addition, the budget also shows that all monies for street paving, including those for the state st. project, now underway, comes out of a pitiful $1.7M provided by the state of CT. With the current climate of the state's budget, even this fund may be in jeopardy.

So, again this year Goldfield starts out peddling city hall's propaganda, rather than including all of his peers in a round table discussion about the problem and their idea's for solutions.

After all this drama, if it sounds too good to be true.... well, you already know.....!

Check the FACs.......

Posted by: The Trruth | January 5, 2010 8:16 PM

Public Works can't fill pot holes now. Does this guy really think the city can run anything efficiently?

Posted by: Hilary | January 6, 2010 1:22 AM

A new WPA would never happen because the Chambers of Commerce in every city and state would go crazy at the possibility of workers organizing. If they scream loud enough, legislators will fund all job creating through the private sector where union-busting has become completely acceptable.