When I wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times, there was a pretty extensive fact-checking process (shout out to @jdesmondharris). Apparently, that is not the case at the Wall Street Journal, at least when a piece advances a highly partisan, fundamentally racist view...

So let's dig into just how wrong Bob Stefanowski's screed against Hartford is. To be clear, Hartford has a lot of problems! But Stefanowski diagnoses them all exactly backwards. He is consistently and astonishingly wrong...
So, yes, Harford has high violent crime *relative to other cities*. But crime has been at historic lows for a decade, so being the most dangerous doesn't mean "actually dangerous for middle class people who live in the suburbs."
(It is unsurprising that Stefanowski is more concerned with the mostly white, mostly nonresident staff of the Courant than with the Black and brown Hartford residents who *are* affected directly by violent crime.)
Bob is so close to getting it here. White flight and resource-hoarding (and the loss of manufacturing jobs to globalization and souther states with poor wages) *did* hurt the city badly.
Guess what: if you create an education system that puts all the neediest and poorest students together, in a city with a median household income that is half of the regional average, spending marginally more per student won't be enough!
Now Bob wades into pure fantasy. Bronin did not "embrace" the defund the police mantra. He explicitly rejected it, proposed a $1m reduction (and 5-year projected increases) and grudgingly acceded to the $2m reduction (after thousands of BLM protesters showed up at his house).
Hartford has more than double the average per-capita number of cops, and did not reduce that number after the budget was approved. The spike in gun crime began before the budget was approved and mirrored spikes in other cities that didn't cut public safety budgets.
This is my favorite part. Bob accurately notes that the city can't generate enough tax revenue because it hosts the large untaxed services that the whole region uses but doesn't pay for. Then he blames the mayor (who can't fix this) for asking the suburbs (who can) for help.
Dude! The "well-managed" towns exclude the poor and let impoverished cities provide needed services. THAT IS THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEM, WHICH THOSE CITIES CAN'T SOLVE.
The special interest here is suburban legislators and resists unwilling to give up segregated schools and fiscal free-riding! Hartford's taxes are high because half our taxable property is held by nonprofits and government and the state won't reimburse us adequately!
Districts wouldn't underperform if they were drawn to be economically and ethnically diverse, because they would then benefit from the political influence of affluent parents, and the motivation for those families to hoard their resources in segregated towns would decline.
OK, I'm done. Stefanowski is advocating for retrenchment the structural problems that have hurt Hartford because he's unwilling to recognize, like most suburbanites here, that he is complicit in an extractive, racist system of segregation.
I have trod this ground before: https://t.co/pAKTTwAE4J
Indeed, I have trod this ground many times: https://t.co/gN45ScJwqI

More from News

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.