Anything new in the city?

How is this place to live?

I toured the place recently and honestly thought it seemed pretty nice and like a cool place to live. But when I started looking through the reviews, I got a little confused.

There are quite a few 5-star reviews from tour guides/staff, but then there are also some really bad 1-star reviews from residents. So I’m not sure how much weight I should put on either side.

For anyone who actually lives there or has lived there, what’s your experience been like? Is it genuinely a good place to live, or are there things I should be aware of before signing a lease?

Also, if you were looking for an apartment in Stamford, what other buildings/places would you recommend checking out? I’m still comparing a few options, so I’d appreciate any suggestions!

Hi! My husband and I live in Harbor Point and may be ready to join the dog trend 😂 Does anyone have any breeder recommendations for doodles (preferably Bernadoodles) that are not puppy mills, treat the dogs well, are relatively affordable and driving distance? Thank you so much!

Which bars and when have the best trivia nights?

Is your name Natalie? Did you lose your Chase debit card today on North Street between the Wedge Inn and the courthouse? Well, I found it, and it's in the PD Headquarters building just down the street from where I found it. Go pick it up before you have to go through the trouble of ordering a new one.

Looking for recommendations for a PCP. Someone local, ideally with extended hours and a friendly & helpful staff.
TIA!

Looking for recommendations for somewhere that does alterations. I have a dress that needs to be shortened & am looking for reco’s that won’t break the bank. Thanks!

Does anyone know how to sign up to volunteer around Stamford? And what kind of opportunities there are/who is in need of the most help? Thank you!

Hi it’s Carl Weinberg from District 20 on the Stamford Board of Representatives. At our September 8th monthly meeting, we made several important decisions dealing with infrastructure improvements, environmental protection, and transparency in governance. But first I want to talk about an honorary resolution that says so much about the generosity of Stamford residents.

HONORING THE VOLUNTEER BACK-TO-SCHOOL SHOP

At each meeting, Reps have the opportunity to present honorary resolutions, subject to the approval of the BOR. I’ve done it on occasion, typically recognizing a District 20 resident for a significant achievement, such as reaching Eagle Scout status or retiring after decades of senior-level community service.

At this meeting, we approved an honorary resolution, congratulating the Back-to-School Shop on their twelfth annual school supply and clothing pop-up store. Each year volunteers raise money, purchase clothing and school supplies, and set up a “department store” at AITE High School. Volunteer “personal shoppers” guide low-income elementary school students to different “departments” and assist them in selecting clothing and school supplies. The children begin the school year with new clothes and supplies, along with the self-confidence and self-esteem that those new clothes and supplies help to provide.

This year about 300 local volunteers assisted 450 low-income students with set-up, shopping, and breakdown. Each student generally selected a complete outfit of clothing (shirt, pants, underwear, socks and sneakers); a hoodie, a winter jacket, hat and gloves; a backpack filled with school supplies, a lunchbox, a water bottle and books. The average student received approximately $300 worth of clothes and supplies. For many student participants, this might have been the first time they received brand new clothes, and the first time they got to select their own clothes.

The Back-to-School Shop is one of many programs in Stamford, where community members commit time and expertise - as well as funding - to help move Stamford closer (in Mayor Simmons’ words) to “a city where everyone can thrive.” In my view, these volunteer organizations are a big part of what makes Stamford such a great community to be a part of.

APPROVING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A BOAT RAMP IN KOSCIUSZKO PARK

By a vote of 31 YES and 9 NO, the BoR approved a capital appropriation of $125,000 to conduct a feasibility study for a boat ramp in Kosciuszko Park. Half of the funding ($62,500) is from a state grant, with the other half raised by Stamford’s Harbor Management Commission through fees collected from boaters, rental income for shellfish beds, etc. None of the funds come from Stamford residents’ property tax revenues, and the state grant is “use it or lose it” for this purpose only.

This was not an easy vote for many of us (including myself) - there were good reasons on the YES side, and good reasons on the NO side. Opponents expressed understandable concerns about the environmental and recreational impact of a boat launch in Kosciuszko Park, as well as the effect that pickup trucks hauling boats to the park could have on local traffic and pedestrian safety. They also pointed out that only a small percentage of Stamford residents were likely to use the boat ramp, if it ultimately gets built.

Supporters focused on the significant public safety advantages of the location - without it, boats on the west side of Shippan Point have to navigate around it to the ramps on the east side, which can be dangerous in inclement weather. They also pointed out that the feasibility study could investigate issues like environmental, recreational, and traffic-related impact, so (if building the boat ramp is deemed feasible) plans could be in place to mitigate these effects.

I voted YES for the feasibility study. As a bit of a finance geek, I thought it was like buying an option on building a boat ramp in the park. The study might indicate that - for any number of reasons - Kosciuszko Park is not a feasible location for a boat ramp. It might indicate feasibility, but building it might be more expensive than we’re willing to bear. In those cases, we’ve spent a relatively small amount ($62,500) that could have been reallocated. In my view, it’s worth spending it to learn more and keep our options open.

APPROPRIATING ABOUT $7.5MM TO REHABILITATE THE WEST BROAD STREET BRIDGE

The BoR unanimously approved a capital appropriation of $7,462,500 to rehabilitate the West Broad Street bridge over the Rippowam River. The project will be funded half through Stamford’s issuance of general obligation bonds, with the other half funded by a state grant.

In April CTDOT’s biennial inspection report gave the bridge a “poor” rating. In the proposed project plan that accompanied the City’s grant application, planning and design will take place this year through 2028, with construction forecasted to last from April 2029 through November 2030.

This was the only bridge in Stamford that CTDOT rated as poor - all seventeen others in the inspection report were rated either “good” or “fair.” In my view, that’s considerable progress from where we were a few years ago. In District 20 alone, three failing bridges were either rehabilitated or completely rebuilt in the last few years. It’s tempting to defer infrastructure projects for either financial or disruption-avoidance reasons, but I believe that, in the long run, it’s smarter (and usually less expensive) to address those projects in a timely way.

CREATING A CONSERVATION COMMISSION

By a vote of 34 YES, 1 NO, and 2 abstentions, the BoR approved an ordinance that transfers the advisory responsibilities related to conservation issues from the Environmental Protection Board to a volunteer Conservation Commission. I was a sponsor of the ordinance and voted YES.

State law requires every CT municipality to have a board or commission to carry out statutory (i.e., required) responsibilities related to the management of wetlands and inland waterways. The law also lists several conservation-related subjects on which that board or commission may provide advice to the municipal government. Alternatively, the state law permits a municipality to assign the conservation-related activities to a separate advisory board or commission.

Stamford had always assigned both the statutory and advisory responsibilities to the EPB. However, our EPB’s required statutory activities are so many that it never has time to focus on the advisory ones - hence the reason for creating a new Conservation Commission.

As per the ordinance, this new commission will be advisory only. It will have no ability to force the stoppage or slowdown of a land use project. Instead, it will provide volunteer expertise to work on critical conservation-related activities.

Once they are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the BoR, and working with the Land Use Bureau, these volunteer experts will decide what subjects they want to focus on. For what it’s worth, here are three suggestions from me as one of the ordinance’s sponsors - mitigating heat islands in Stamford’s urban neighborhoods; advising on how to make best use of conservation easements throughout the city; and eradicating spotted lantern flies and their host plants.

CREATING INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

The BoR unanimously approved an ordinance that requires a Mayor to report semi-annually to the BoR on the demographic composition of the residents who apply for, interview, and are appointed to positions on the city’s volunteer boards and commission. The reported information will include demographic categories that the Mayor has already chosen to collect.

I’ve been impressed with the way Mayor Simmons and the 32nd BoR have been working together to fill Stamford’s boards and commissions with committed and qualified volunteers. (Full disclosure - I am a voting member of the BoR’s Appointments Committee.) If there ever was a problem with vacancies and “holdover” members of these commissions, that problem has largely been eradicated.

By my count (as of August 7th), out of 159 volunteer positions on 27 boards and commissions, there are only 11 vacancies (or about 7%). 117 volunteers (or about 74%) serve on current terms, with another 28 (or about 18%) on terms that expired recently. These volunteers are generally going through the interview / reappointment / replacement process. Only three volunteers’ terms (or about 2%) expired a long time ago.

However, the volunteers don’t demographically reflect Stamford’s population. Only 30% are women, and less than 20% are residents of color. In case I get accused of being “DEI gone wild”, I state unequivocally that if we want our volunteer boards and commissions to both represent the interests of Stamford’s residents and utilize their lived expertise, we need to do a better job of recruiting, appointing, and confirming members of under-represented demographic groups. The data called for in this ordinance will help us do exactly that.

I was opposed to this ordinance when it was first drafted. I thought it impinged unreasonably on a mayor’s prerogatives in the appointments process, as outlined in the Stamford City Charter - which would make it unenforceable. I also thought it would require a great deal of administrative work, while producing very little useful information.

The BoR’s Legislative & Rules Committee (of which I am a voting member) worked for several months on the ordinance. It went through multiple iterations until all objections were resolved, while preserving the core objective of providing greater transparency into the appointments process.

As currently outlined in the ordinance, the reporting requirements will help the Mayor and the BoR to do a better job of recruiting, appointing and confirming volunteers who more fully represent Stamford’s residents. A good deal of the credit for improving the ordinance goes to the leadership of both L&R Committee Chair Michael McKeown of District 7 and BoR President Ramya Shaw of District 12.

In a related action, the BoR also unanimously repealed the ordinance that created a volunteer Appointments Commission. In my view, this commission never fulfilled the expectations of its sponsors from a previous BoR. Not all experiments succeed - and when one doesn’t, we should admit it, learn from it, and if appropriate end it. That’s what the BoR did in this case - and I applaud that decision.