5 replies on “Letter [SPONSORED]: A Different Warrior Pride”

  1. I’m not sure how I feel about this. Something doesn’t feel right. A paid letter to the editor? Does this meet journalistic standards? Kudos to GMW for marking it as paid content yet blurring the lines of the editorial page of a media outlet and paid political advertising seems to be a line we should not cross.

    1. Thanks for your comment, Thomas. We do run sponsored content and have always marked it as such when it is published, political or otherwise. We specifically did not run this letter with other election-related letters to the editor, which run each Friday during election season. The letter writer had already submitted one letter this season, and per our published election-year guidelines, couldn’t run a second letter unless space was available once all letters from first-time writers had run. As we typically have more letters than the weekly limit allows, that was unlikely to happen, so she opted for the sponsored post. It’s an option available to anyone or any party, just like all advertising is.

      1. Heather thanks for your response and transparency on this. What makes me uneasy is that this feels like a “Pay to Play” option. Rights and access based on ability to pay are what is corrosive to democracy and continues to drive inequality. I would urge you to reconsider your policy or at least at a minimum to fully strip the pretense of these political advertisements appearing to be Letters to the Editor.

  2. wondering if the author actually read the bill considering this is what it says. It appears the bill is (rightly) prioritizing economic development in distressed cites over the preservation of old, abandoned properties. Seems like common sense to me
    Current law permits interventions to prevent the unreasonable
    destruction of certain historic properties by either (1) the attorney
    general, at the request of the Historic Preservation Council, or (2) any
    party that would not otherwise have standing, filing suit under the
    state’s Environmental Protection Act (see BACKGROUND). This bill
    creates a three-year exemption from these interventions for certain
    historic properties located in towns that meet the bill’s criteria.
    Beginning October 1, 2019 and ending October 1, 2022, the exception
    would apply to any new construction plan or project of a private or
    municipal entity alone, or in combination, that proposes to rebuild,
    remove, demolish, move, or raze a historic structure, on the condition
    that the historic structure has been continuously vacant for at least 10
    years and is located within:
    1. a municipality having a population under 30,000 and designated
    as distressed for the past ten consecutive years, and
    2. a designated opportunity zone (see BACKGROUND).
    Based on the most recent Department of Public Health (DPH)
    population figures (2017) and the most recent distressed municipalities
    and opportunity zone lists, Ansonia, New London, Putnam, and
    Windham appear to meet all three criteria.

    1. I want to thank GOOD Morning Wilton for this longer form option of more than 200 words, which better allows the writer to express themselves, provide more context and include more facts and details for readers.

      To Mr. Schlesinger’s comment, I appreciate the research and would like to provide additional background: the net result of SB1107 would be to deprive municipalities and every citizen of their say, as best summarized by David A. Lehman “…bill would bypass the only procedurally-defined path forward for the rights of the public to seek remedy…”

      Further, it is not in the interest of even the towns cited. The CT Trust for Historic Preservation points out the bill would encourage “demolition by neglect” where historic buildings will be allowed to decay to the point of destruction, increasing blight in neighborhoods and decreasing property values and local tax revenues;” and would “turn Opportunity Zones into Opportunistic Zones, allowing indiscriminate destruction of historic assets; and sets a dangerous precedent and exposes the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act to future disastrous amendments.”

      I hope you find this information helpful.

Comments are closed.