Archive
Eric Nathan To Sell Vermont EstateOn January 16 In Manchester, Vt.
Published: Dec 21, 2004 12:00 am
Set 30 pt head
Eric Nathan To Sell Vermont Estate
On January 16 In Manchester, Vt.
The language “any purpose other than open space or recreation, the parcel shall revert to the state of Connecticut” is a bit concerning and warrants clarification. Would the existing infrastructure be violative of this language?
It’s disappointing to see Newtown move forward with the so-called “Save-As-You-Throw” program—let’s be honest, it’s really Pay-As-You-Throw. Most families will end up paying more just to throw out their trash, despite the high taxes we already pay.
While the swap shop and free bulky waste disposal are nice ideas, they don’t offset the added cost and inconvenience of having to buy special blue bags—up to $4.40 each. It’s especially frustrating to see threats of $500 fines and policeenforcement tied to something that used to be a basic service.
This isn’t about sustainability—it’s about shifting more costs onto residents. I hope the town will reconsider and find a more reasonable and affordable approach. I have already heard discussions about purchasing backyard incinerators as a work around. What's next, is the town going to discontinue curb side recycling?
Absent is the observation that the dangerous e-bike riders are young teen boys right at that age where they are physically capable of daring stunts but mentally incapable of understanding how dangerous they can be to themselves and others. I witnessed this Wednesday afternoon driving back home from Norwalk- a kid around 14 was cruising at about 20mph and barely glanced at other traffic while barnstorming thru a 4 way stop. Many others have observed the same behavior from the same cohort. I'm not sure 'big govt' is the solution but without parental supervision I think it's the best we've got. Will there be penalties for breaking whatever e-bike rules are put in place, or will their young age excuse them from legal consequences? Good luck with the regulations!
The recent letter unfairly suggests the Trump administration is deliberately trying to surrender America’s global leadership in science and technology. That’s an oversimplification.
Federal funding has long supported innovation, but it’s only part of the equation. Private investment, world-class universities, and a strong business environment have also driven U.S. leadership. Changes to funding priorities don't equal abandonment — they reflect broader debates about the role of government and where taxpayer dollars are most effective.
Claiming that scientists will flee and that our future rests on tax cuts and golf trips reduces a complex issue to political theater. Let’s have a serious discussion about how best to support innovation — without the hyperbole.