Ya think?

/

Coming to Binney Park? If not tomorrow, soon — count on it

/

It’s mischief season, and our Nutmeg Nutcases, otherwise known as your elected representatives in Hartford, have been busy. Greenwich Time has the story:

From ‘just cause’ to zoning reform, these CT housing proposals move closer to becoming law.

Following a marathon meeting Thursday lasting more than 12 hours, the Connecticut legislature's Housing Committee advanced several dozen bills on subjects ranging from tenant protections to zoning reform.

So what’s in those bills? All the usual attacks on landlords and municipalities’ rights to control their zoning regulations and determine the nature and character of their neighborhoods, of course, so nothing new here, just a continuation of the assault on property owners and ordinary citizens. But even if you’re not a landlord, and even if you don’t care whether high rise low income apartment complexes pop up along our rail corridor, those of you who shop in public places or visit town parks might find this particular component of the the package of bills interesting: despite laws like this having proved to be a disaster, ruining towns and cities, and despite those laws being repealed in cities from Portland Maine to Portland Oregon and all points in between, Hartford wants to bring it all home — to you:

Protections for homeless people

Another bill that drew at least modest support from Republicans was a proposal to guarantee homeless people the right to sit, sleep, eat and otherwise live on public land and in public spaces.

The proposal has drawn support from an array of homeless advocates and service providers, who say unhoused people shouldn't be arrested, ticketed or harassed just for trying to live.

"It's time to stop treating homelessness as a crime and start addressing it as the complex, multifaceted issue that it is — one that requires compassion, empathy and systemic change," testified Stephanie Boyce, director of homeless prevention, outreach and food access programs for HandsOn Hartford.

Opponents say the bill inconveniences communities and their residents by granting the homeless too much free reign. Connecticut's transportation commissioner was among those to testify against the proposal, citing the "dangers of allowing unregulated use of public spaces."

Democrats on the Housing Committee broadly supported the proposal, while several Republicans waffled on it. Sampson said the bill had "a lot of promise" but needed to be tweaked to be more specific. Scott said he was "torn" on the proposal before ultimately voting to advance it.


Here’s the proposed law, and what the Democrats have in mind for our towns:

AN ACT PROHIBITING A MUNICIPALITY FROM IMPOSING ANY PENALTY ON HOMELESS PERSONS FOR PERFORMING LIFE SUSTAINING ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LAND.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2025) (a) As used in this section:

(1) "Homeless person" has the same meaning as provided in 42 USC 3 1130 [*] as amended from time to time;

(2) "Motor vehicle" has the same meaning as provided in section 14-1 5 of the general statutes;

(3) "Public land" means any property that is owned or leased, in whole or in part, by any state or local government entity or any property upon which there is an easement for public use and that is held open tothe public, or any federal land where local law enforcement has jurisdiction to enforce local laws, including, but not limited to, plazas, courtyards, parking lots, sidewalks, public transportation facilities and services, public buildings, shopping centers, underpasses and lands adjacent to roadways and parks;

(4) "Recreational vehicle" has the same meaning as provided in section 14-1 of the general statute. ….

(5) "Life sustaining activities" includes, but is not limited to, moving, resting, sitting, standing, lying down, sleeping, protecting oneself from the elements, eating, drinking and storing such personal property as needed to safely shelter oneself; and

(6) "Adequate alternative indoor space" means a space that is legally and physically accessible to an individual and that does not require such individual to sacrifice any other personal right afforded to such individual under federal, state or local law.

(b) No municipality may enact any ordinance and no individual may take any action that infringes upon the right of homeless persons to use public spaces without discrimination based on housing status in accordance with this section, including the right to:

  • (1) Conduct life sustaining activities on public land, provided such activities do not obstruct the normal movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic in such a manner that creates a hazard to others, or on private property with the permission of the property owner, unless sufficient adequate alternative indoor space is available to the homeless persons in a given jurisdiction and has been offered to the individual, including transportation for the individual and such individual's belongings;

  • (2) use and move freely in places of public accommodation without discrimination based on actual or perceived housing status;

  • (3) be free from civil or criminal sanctions for soliciting, sharing, accepting or offering food, water, money or other donations in public places;

  • 4) privacy of one's personal property stored in public places to the same degree of privacy as property in a private dwelling, which shall not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure;

  • (5) pray, meditate, worship or practice religion in public spaces without discrimination based on housing status; and

  • (6) occupy a motor vehicle or a recreational vehicle, provided such vehicle is parked (A) on public property and is not parked in a position that obstructs the normal movement of traffic or creates a hazard to other traffic upon the highway, or (B) on private property with the permission of the private property owner.

(c) Any person or municipality that violates any provision of this section shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed ____ dollars, to be fixed by the court, for each offense. The Attorney General, upon the request of any aggrieved person, shall institute a civil action in the Superior Court to recover such penalty.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections: Section 1 July 1, 2025

New section Statement of Purpose: To prohibit a municipality from imposing any penalty on homeless persons for performing life sustaining activities on public land. [Proposed deletions are enclosed i

*42 USC Definition, in part:

(1). an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence;

(2) an individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground;


No one ever said that a sub-80 IQ was a bar to being elected to Congress; it's quite the other way around, in fact

/

Lest we forget:

You can’t fix stupid, but you can re-elect it: Last fall, Mr. Johnson’s constituents returned him to Washington to serve a 10th term as their congressman

Update: then there’s this rising Democrat star:

(Just) Seen on PJ Media. The entire Politico article is a good read, but here are excerpts from PJ

/

our other local boy looks a bit goofy, but I’d say he comes out well in this interview; candid, anyway (as does Fetterman)

On Friday, Politico released a fun article, “Sex, Drinking, and Dementia: 25 Lawmakers Spill on What Congress Is Really Like.” And it’s pretty flippin’ crazy. Some of the things that congressmen and senators reveal about their private club will make you do a spit-take — so protect your monitor and/or phone screen accordingly:

Biggest misconceptions the public has about their job:

“How absolutely lame it is. You honestly think that life is full of House of Cards or snappy dialogue out of The West Wing. And it’s sad. You’re constantly living out of a suitcase.” —Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)

“How good of friends some of us are, whose political ideologies are totally separate from each other. Some of my best friends up here are members of the progressive caucus. We go out, have dinner and a beer, and we can even tell jokes with each other, as long as nobody’s listening.” —Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.)

“I was surprised at how thirsty my colleagues are.” —Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) 

What’s the worst thing about the other party?

“The worst thing about the Democratic Party is that I think there’s a number of them in the conference who honestly don’t like this country. I think some of them border on hating it, even down to our foundational documents, such as the Constitution.” —Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.)

“The worst thing about the Republicans is the House Freedom Caucus. The House Freedom Caucus consists of ideological arsonists who are willing to burn everything down — the federal government, the full faith and credit of the United States, the economy — in pursuit of their ideological agenda.” —Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)

What’s the worst thing about your own party?

“Intolerance. We are sometimes self-righteous, judgmental, priggish.” —Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)

“Too much of a stagnancy and deference to people who’ve been in office for a long time. There’s just this slowness in making way for a new generation of leadership.” —Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)

“Absolute half-measures, doing just enough to where you can go home and gaslight your voters that you’re doing the right thing.” —Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)

What do you like least about your job?

“The performance art and having to monetize everything. It’s turned all of us into OnlyFans models just monetizing your latest protest or your latest speech or whatever. There’s not a lot of dignity in it.” —Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)

“The single most frustrating thing to me is the dramatic turnover in membership. No one remembers how to really legislate anymore. That’s frustrating to me. I’m old school.” —Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)

How common is all that scandalous, torrid behavior? Is it really like "House of Cards"?

“Absolutely. We’re human beings, right? We’re all sinners, so to even put on the facade that we’re not regular people that are tempted and do stupid things is laughable. It’s ridiculous. So, don’t act like your s**t doesn’t stink.” —Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)

“I have no idea. I’ve been doing this for 16 years, I don’t think anybody has ever come up to me and said, ‘Hey, I’m cheating on my wife.’” —Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)

Are politicians showing up drunk to vote on legislation?

“Every time we do an 11 p.m. vote, a minority of the chamber has a zero blood alcohol content. Now, that’s different than voting drunk. I don’t think I’ve ever seen somebody demonstrably drunk on the floor.” —Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)

“Well, I’ve seen one Republican who, unfortunately for you, has to go unnamed, show up drunk a number of times. There were one or two Dems I thought might be high on something but not drunk.” —Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.)

“If you are prone to substance abuse, everything about this job probably makes it worse.” —Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)

“I have never seen anybody drunk on the floor. I don’t think anybody drinks around the floor. I knew a couple of guys that might have had a drink, but the guys I knew that had a drink, they never showed it. They could hold their liquor well.” —Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)

Are there politicians on Capitol Hill who are so overaged that they have cognitive issues?

“There’s no question that somewhere between six and a dozen of my colleagues are at a point where they’re … I think they don’t have the faculties to do their job.” —Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)

“I have a difficult time sometimes telling between the deterioration of members and a handful who are just not very smart.” —Unnamed House Republican

Making Connecticut Proud

/

And from a reader who follows the antics of our Greenwich shining star, Cadaver Dick Blumenthal, this:

Today he is asking to get Visa'a records regarding their deal with Musk's X, saying maybe this is why Musk is going after the CFPB.   It would seem obvious that Visa would want to have as many entities accept their card as possible. So I looked at the Senator's web donation site and of course they'll take Visa as a donation method.

Our foreign policy expert, mastermind of the Ukrainian negotiating team has also been busy — like this: