Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the State of Connecticut assume control over the development of Fairfield's third train station project?
Results so far:
| Yes | 62% | 32 votes | Total: 52 votes | |
| No | 38% | 20 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites
Connecticut should assume control over Fairfield's third railroad station for a simple reason. Now that work has begun, there is noticeable, concrete evidence [no pun intended] that some considerable progress has been made on the project. The railroad station and all that it entails must be finished for all the work, political, financial, architectural, engineering and site preparation work, et cetera, that has already been done, cannot be left unfinished.
The project originally entailed, conceptually, at least, one of the largest construction programs of its kind in Fairfield. It is situated in an area of Fairfield that has already been grooming itself with developments and some major business remodeling, to accommodate its developers' visions of a mini economic metropolis within the East End, with the railroad station at its hub.
Some slippage in the schedule, for a variety of reasons, has put development of the project years behind schedule. Bureaucratic infighting whether financially burdensome to the project or not, was a tactic used by some to alter the face of a happy front on the project. Meanwhile, if not for this reason alone but among other reasons for the projects financial difficulties, some work stoppage has occurred on the project and has pushed development, if indeed it will ever fully developed as envisioned or at all, further still down the line.
If only to relieve the Town of further turmoil, but also insure the project's core development, the State ought to step in to finish the station. Pave over the rest and allow things to cool or simmer and then march on as the funds once again become readily and reliably available.
It has always been interesting that magical things can happen upstate, but that necessary and essential arterial ways for transportation, cannot be developed here in the bottleneck of major transit systems.
Completing the construction of a third railroad station with some amenities, including sufficient parking garages to accommodate vehicles and some remodeled egress to move in and out, ought to be the only assignment given to the State to carry out. Let us not argue about alternatives that might have been less expensive or disruptive. Let us finish the darn thing and go on with the rest when money and less feuding allows.
The visionaries and their project, like those of other visionaries and their now ethereal projects in Bridgeport, have gone their way, leaving us only the dregs of recrimination and lawsuits that attempt to recover money lost by some on the project.
Whereas Obama promised infrastructure building projects that would put hundreds of thousands to work quickly, we are experiencing a surfeit of talk and little less of the mad dream of actually putting people to work.
Let the governor allocate some of that money or have her have some of that money redirected to a most worthwhile project and other transportation projects, to get people moving from these regions to their work stations, wherever they may be; out of the region, west or east of here.
Learn more about this author, Gerard Coulombe.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
When we think of state control of a local or community project, it seems like a good thing on the surface. More money would roll in. Right? Less responsibility for overtaxed local officials. Right? Unfortunately, these are myths. The money from Fairfield, Connecticut's train station project would go the state, and local officials' paper burden, i.e., the reporting requirements of the state, would increase drastically. If the state develops Fairfield's train station project, then Fairfield residents, and their mayor and council will lose control of two of their most important means for strengthening their community and, hence, their lives and families in their very own neighborhood. First, they will lose control of the decision-making process with regard to the Fairfield train-station project. That is, the state of Connecticut, rather than their own local government, i.e., their mayor and council, will make decisions regarding how the project is developed. Second, Fairfield residents will lose control over the financial management of the project and, hence, over the income from the project.
Why is it important for Fairfield residents to maintain local control over the development and financial management of the project? The train station project, once it is controlled by Fairfield, can become a central theme around which all or many of Fairfield's capacity building and other communiy strenthening programs can be organized and developed. For example, communties such as Lebanon, and Cincinnati, Ohio have organized multiple programs around their train stations. Such events are in the best interest of all residents since they enable them to establish and to preserve their community's unique character. In addition, the programs and activities offered enliven resients and imbue them with an increased sense of civic pride. Conversely, if the state controlled the Fairfield train station project, local needs and community values could be overlooked completely.
In addition to the preservation of unique and cultural characteristics of a community, control over the financial management of its train station project would provide Fairfield with one its most lucrative sources of income. Under the auspices of a nonprofit, programs organized thematically around the train station could add a great deal of money to local coffers. This holds true in Lebanon, Ohio. In the case of Midland, Ohio, the preservation of the depot and control of the project is financiallly reinvigorating the entire community. Midland is linking its train depot thematically to local festivals and other activities county-wide; in addition, it is seeking to use the depot to become an attraction on the national level for railroad and train enthusiasts.
A vote for the state is a vote against Fairfield, whose residents need to become involved and informed of the intricacies of such a project, which if left to others, could mean irreversible damage to their local community, government, and economy,as well as a complete obviation of their local values and culture.
Learn more about this author, Mary Mcfarland.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- News (Other)
- US food safety organizations: Should they be overhauled or should a new, single agency be created?
- Should Illinois hold a constitutional convention to revise its current constitution?
- Should hookah lounges be allowed in Fairfield County, Connecticut?
- Should women who are arrested for prostitution have their names and addresses published in a local newspaper?
- Do you think Connecticut needs to reinstate tolls to maintain its roads?
- Is it OK for the state to remove control of parish finances from the Catholic diocese?
