Stamford, The City That Thinks

Figures Stamford has council peeps that get that meetings should be video recorded and put online.

A Republican city representative has introduced legislation that would require several Stamford elected boards to make digital video recordings of all meetings available on the city website.

The ordinance would apply to the Board of Representatives, the Board of Finance and the Board of Education. The Board of Representatives already provides video recordings of all board and committee meetings on its website.

The author of the proposed legislation, city Rep. Scott Mirkin, R-13, said it would help Stamford residents engage with city government while bringing elected boards into line with the standard of technology available.

“The rationale to do this is that people across the country are becoming more interested in government,” Mirkin said. “People want to know `How are core services delivered? How are tax rates set? How do boards conduct themselves?’ If you think about it, we live in a digital age. Access to the Internet is readily available and people want information in a timely manner.

Read the whole thing at: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Stamford-lawmaker-proposes-requiring-video-961690.php#ixzz1BSE90Z3j

In Norwalk, we get instead:

Agendas for city government meetings must be made available in the city clerk’s office and at the location where the meeting will take place at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

But with one exception, there’s no requirement that such information be posted online, according to Thomas Hennick, public information officer at Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.

“An online (requirement) doesn’t exist with the exception of special meetings,” Hennick said. A hard copy “needs to be at the city clerk’s office and the committee’s place of business.”

Hey why not the really get into the anachronism and hire a town crier to deliver the agendas. Sheesh.

  • Guest

    Stamford, The City That Thinks, is also The City That Spends. Norwalk is more fiscally prudent. We don’t have the money to farm out the task and we don’t have the money to buy the competence and equipment to do it in-house.

    • Anonymous

      Not so sure you can call Norwalk more fiscally prudent when the Stamford mill rate for property taxes is lower than Norwalk’s. Yes Stamford invests in itself has grown its grand list so that residential property owners pay less. Oh and they had a budget surplus.

  • Apathetic Voter

    If Stamford is so great, then why aren’t you living *there*? Frankly you could not pay me to live in Stamford – or even to work there, for that matter. There is nothing even remotely appealing about that city.

    • Anonymous

      Why is it that anytime someone points out that Norwalk can improve, the peanut gallery answer is to suggest that the person move? The fact is that Norwalk residents pay more in property taxes, get less in city services. Stamford is easy comparison to see just how property taxes could get lower if Norwalk made a better effort at investing in development, infrastructure and programs that resulted in a greater valuation of the grand list.

      • Apathetic Voter

        Did it ever occur to you that the majority of residents of Norwalk are not remotely interested in developing the city any more than has already been done? For pete’s sake, if we WANTED to live in the midst of skyscrapers and huge office complexes, we’d move to New Haven, Hartford, or yes, Stamford. Norwalk is far too overdeveloped for my taste and I know dozens of people who feel the same way. Which ought to explain to you why so many people protested many of the decisions of the Zoning Board, just for starters.

        • Anonymous

          Well you see that’s the difference between you and me. I don’t claim to speak for the majority of residents, and yet you think you do. You also seem to have a narrow view of what development is. A pity. Development is not exclusive to skyscrapers and huge office complexes or which you denigrate. You also have no concept of what over development is, so I’ll provide an example. Las Vegas. Want to know why? Because the development there happened on spec and now sits vacant. Care to explain why in Norwalk the newly developed/rehabbed buildings are occupied and the undeveloped ones are vacant?

          More to the point here, you seem to not understand that having a bunch of poorly constructed single story buildings on large lots doesn’t generate enough tax revenue to support the rising costs of the City. Think of it this way, you want to still keep driving that 1980 Chrysler K car and the pro-development crowd wants to see every K car be replaced with something that looks and operates better. It could be a 1965 Aston Martin DB5, or a brand new Toyota Yaris. It’s all about making smarter decisions, and gee wouldn’t it be nice if people actually understood the economic implications of doing nothing versus designing a community that has a little something for all.

          Having sat through six years of zoning, I can also state with confidence, that 150 people over 6 years of zoning approvals of new residential, office and retail projects in a city of 85k is no where near a statistically significant sample of a population. And having looked at the property tax bills of the average East Norwalker, I can bet that you’d be much happier paying at 15 point mill rate than the 22 point mill rate. If the grand list doesn’t grow, guess what happens?