To the editor:
I write in hope of reviving an oft-beaten horse which, although not yet dead, is moribund and largely ignored — the notion of regional government.
The division of Connecticut into counties is a historical anomaly which is arbitrary at best and which does not recognize the different needs or available resources of the municipalities which are grouped together in a single county-wide designation.
Just as the issues facing Hartford differ in size and scope from those of Westport, so the challenges of governance in Danbury differ from those in Westport even though they are both in the same county.
Issues such as transportation and traffic, zoning and land use, affordable housing, public health, climate change and the environment are just a few of the pressing matters which can only be effectively addressed on a regional basis.
By way of example, we have seven transit districts in Fairfield County to provide public transit from town to town with little coordination. It’s an understatement to say that such a system is inefficient and fiscally irresponsible.
Nevertheless, we cling to some outmoded false notion of municipal independence, as witness the fact that even though we are under a mandate to consolidate our transit district with those in Norwalk and Bridgeport, that mandate has been largely if not totally ignored and there has been no attempt to enforce it.
When it comes to land use and affordable housing, attempts to impose uniform requirements state-wide, such as 8-30g, without recognizing and taking into account that each municipality and each region has its own fiscal resources, infrastructure, existing development and geographical challenges, have proved to be grossly unfair, unpopular and largely ineffective.
Similarly, environmental initiatives that fail to take into account each region’s particular relationship to waterways, proximity to the Sound, topography and extent and location of existing development are likely to fail.
It’s high time for the legislature to address this issue and to consider rewriting the map of Connecticut by rational division into regional areas with authority to coordinate the efforts of its municipalities in those areas which demand regional solutions.
Lawrence Weisman
Westport
Amen.
I ask this with no criticism attached, but a desire to better understand what you are recommending.
Connecticut has not had county governments in six decades. We still have counties, but they are little more than lines on a map, at this point. And we don’t have unincorporated land (so we have some sprawling small towns) presumably because of the lack of county oversight. Connecticut does have CoGs (or “allows for” might be a better way to put it).
Depending upon the purpose or service being discussed, planning coalitions for different purposes might take different shapes for the respective cities and towns that are involved (I mean, for instance, a transportation coalition of towns including Westport, might logically be shaped differently than a coalition relating to another function).
So what is the practical benefit of (if I am reading you correctly) recreating counties? Or am I just missing what you are saying?
TIA!