Search This Blog

Saturday, October 29, 2011


It just keeps getting better and better this weekend.

First, I love snow and winter, most of you may not agree with that but it is just one more thing that makes living in New England interesting. The forecasts beginning Thursday that we might have a major snowstorm had my attention and I looked forward to the first snowflakes.

Then to make the weekend even better, I learned that I was going to get the Hartford Courant's endorsement for my run for Hartford City Council. I haven't been able to verify it 100%, but I am being told that this may be the first time in the history of the Courant that they endorsed a petitioning independent candidate.

Then I get the e-mail with a pretty moving piece comparing me to Batman. I was definitely humbled by that, but it made my day.

This was all capped off by the announcement that Sarah Barr will no longer be living off the taxpayers of Hartford. It is a year late in coming, but welcome news none the less. Barr was convicted felon Eddie Perez's spokesperson and was more about the propaganda and the "Gospel of Perez" than she was about information and any truth or honesty coming out of City Hall.

Barr will be leaving for a position with Webster Bank. Like I mentioned in a post a week or so ago, those Credit Unions are looking better all the time.

Maybe with the right person we can actually start trusting the information that comes out of the Mayor's Office now.

Here is the City's press release:





(October 28, 2011)--- After almost seven years serving the residents of the City of Hartford, Sarah Barr, the Director of Communications and New Media, will be leaving her position to become Vice President of External Communications at Webster Bank.

“I can’t imagine City Hall without Sarah,” praised Hartford Mayor Pedro E. Segarra. “She is the consummate communicator and a true professional. While I am very sad that she will be leaving our team, I am very happy for her and her family. Sarah is a dynamic leader and she assures me she will continue to be very involved in Hartford’s communities. I look forward to her continued passion and participation.”

“My experience serving the residents of Connecticut’s Capital City has been very rewarding. I have established many strong relationships and will continue to find ways to serve the community. However, I have always put my family first regarding future career decisions and this new opportunity is no different. It is the right move at the right time and I am looking forward to this new and exciting professional challenge at Webster Bank,” said Ms. Barr.

In addition to her duties as Director, Ms. Barr served as Chairperson of Hartford’s 375th Anniversary celebration. She is currently a member of the Carousel’s Countdown to 100 Committee.

Her last official day with the City of Hartford will be Friday, November 11th.


Diogenis said...

Kevin you are a dreamer....Pedro will just hire another flack to spread the gospel of Segarra.

peter brush said...

Hartford Courant's endorsement
Holy establishment credibility, Brook-Man. You should be pleased about the endorsement; congratulations.
On the other hand, it appears the Courant takes the view that in diversity is the council's strength. Like at a Chinese restaurant, the editorial boys/girls take one from column A, one from column B, one from column C... You are said to have common sense and Councilman Cotto is said to be good for art in the parks.
I don't customarily read the Courant. Does it have an opinion on the charter now that we've lived with the strong mayor getting stuff done for a few years?

Anonymous said...

Good riddens. But i am seriously considering removing my funds from webster bank.

peter brush said...

The Capital City has ... high business taxes that discourage employers and job creation. The city must control spending and find ways to increase its economic base.
Making Hartford business friendly through aggressive tax reform;
Reducing the budget – doing more with less;
Aligning city pension plans with those in the private sector;
I agree with the Hartford Courant and Pedro Segarra.

Bruce Rubenstein said...

Peter...for the 5 years that Pedro was on the Council didnt he in fact vote to raise taxes every year? Please find me one thing that he did on COuncil that was business friendly.

peter brush said...

didnt he in fact vote to raise taxes every year?
He probably did. When he ran he expressed zero interest in fiscal issues. But, that was then, this is now. The Courant says it is interested in cutting spending, but then endorses a WFP guy. Consistency, clarity? Not so much. But, I like what they're saying.

Anonymous said...

"The Courant says it is interested in cutting spending, but then endorses a WFP guy."


Peter, you might want to check your facts against your own perceptions. This also goes to the claims against Pedro in voting for raised taxes five years in a row. The past four years have seen the following:

FY08-09: Mil Rate Increase
FY09-10: Mil Rate Increase
FY10-11: Mil Rate unchanged
FY11-12: Mil Rate decreased by 1 Mil

The Voting record for the three people mentioned (2 WFP and Pedro)

FY11-12: WFP-YES, PEDRO did not vote because he was Mayor at this point and was the person that proposed the budget.

You make a statement that WFP is not about cutting spending. Where are your facts?

Bruce Rubenstein said...

Peter..Anonymous 8:05AM proves the point.The WFP guys were in fact more frugal with our tax dollars then Pedro was.

I would also believe that the WFP guys were also more frugal then Veronica was.That is why most of us residing in Hartford don't believe that the Hartford Republicans would be "better" then the WFP folks. Indeed if history is an apt guide,the Republicans would be worse then the WFP folks.

peter brush said...

I carry no brief for Pedro or the Dems. Now that I mention it, not necessarily for our Republicans, either. I'll take your word for it that the WFP guys voted against the mil rate increases. But, I would note that there's a difference between opposition to property tax hikes and opposition to spending. And, if the WFP of Connecticut is concerned about fiscal policy, its website (above) keeps it pretty quiet. Councilman Cotto's first cause, according to Facebook, is more spending on "the arts." No mention of the city's budget otherwise.
It could be that Cotto and Deutsch are the most fiscally restrained of our council. If that's the case, it's not that much of a surprise that our taxes are high.

Bruce Rubenstein said...

Peter...on that note the Republican Veronica Airey-Wilson voted for increased spending every year when she was on the Council,parroting Eddie,while the WFP didnt or voted the same.That proves there isnt a distinction enough to warrant a change to the R's.The 3 present Republicans running for Council,including their Chair, all of whom were active at the time,offered not even a peep to Ms Airey-Wilson's voting for prolificate spending.So why should we vote for them if they offered no objection to her prolificate spending?

Anonymous said...

Bruce: Where do you come up with "most of us residing in Hartford don't believe that the Hartford Republicans would be "better" then the WFP folks"? Maybe you believe this personally, which is fine, but how do you know what most residents currently believe?

Oh, and the "stench" comment you made a few weeks ago explaining why you stopped seeking election as the HDTC Chair still has me, dem state central and "most" of the old Hartford political cronies chuckling.

peter brush said...

its website (above) keeps it pretty quiet
Got my WFP flyer in the mail today. No reference to budget or any problems associated therewith. What we are promised is if we vote for their four we'll get "change." Given our decades long muni government of social activism, progress, and justice (not to mention higher taxes and lower bond ratings), a change could be a positive thing.



I could send you a brochure promising a brand new car in your driveway Wednesday morning if you vote for me, doesn't mean it is going to happen.

Their promises mean nothing if we don't hold politicians accountable.

Bruce Rubenstein said...

Peter under the 4 decades you mentioned, I hope that you realize that accept for the 1 term of the WFP and the 2 of PFC,the rest were Republicans,mostly in the minority.Those Republicans almost always voted for higher taxes and increased spending.

Anonymous said...

Bruce: Here you go again. Do you think anyone believes you have researched the last forty years of city council votes, in order to make the statement that the various republicans on council during that time "almost always voted for higher taxes and increased spending"? Your claims seem to have little merit, other than entertainment value.

Bruce Rubenstein said...

Dear Anonymous 7:05 PM;

I will tell you how I researched it when you tell us your name.

peter brush said...

Their promises mean nothing
Agree that promises are to be distinguished from actions, but don't agree that they mean nothing. I'm not too well informed on the individuals running for local office. I have to go on their party affiliation, at least in part. Budget not the only issue, but if it could be demonstrated to me with scientific certainty that the WFP were the most fiscally prudent I'd give its four guys serious consideration. In the case of folks not affiliated with a party, for example Kevin B., I view them as non-WFP. (Forgive me if this post is redundant of one I tried to post yesterday.)

GiGi said...


Based on your comments on this blog, here are my suggestions for your vote if your top priority for a candidate is fiscal conservative-ness.

Listed in most conservative to least:

Cory Brinson
Ken Kennedy
Kevin Brookman
Sweets Wilson
Michael Fryar

Here are the most progressive (or liberal or whatever) again...from most to least:

Larry Deutsch
Luis Cotto
rJo Winch
Alex Aponte

Here are the unknowns (at least to me) followed with what my thinking is on their leanings:

Gerry Pleasant (Conservative)
Raul DeJesus (Progressive, or whatever Minnie and Arroyo say)
David McDonald (Progressive)
Shawn Wooden (maybe progressive - don't know)
Kyle Anderson (maybe conservative - don't know)

Bruce Rubenstein said...

GiGi...thank you for your list,however these designations mean very little in the overall scheme of things.You completely left out 2 of the WFPers...and mislabled a few others,in my estimation.

Nevertheless aside from Kennedy( a genuine consevative ) and Brookman ( who I think is more a moderate then a conservative) the others said not a peep when fellow Republican Veronica voted for every increased spending bill and every increase of taxes.Therefore they seem to be more "enablers" then consevatives,or a conceirge at the Hotel of Big Spenders.