CONNECTICUT REMEDIES

In the news a week or so ago was grim news: the nation is becoming more
segregated once again. After years of moderate progress through the
mid-eighties, the trend began reversing and has continued in the opposite
direction.

This is not a surprise. When desegregation orders were issued by courts
across the nation, they often required busing, in addition to other
solutions, and busing has been easy to despise. Horror tales of hours' long
commutes by school bus from one end of a metropolis to the other to fulfill
a federal court order fueled were popular with no one. It didn't do much to
make federal judges or courts popular either.

Beginning in the early 80s, these orders began to be expire, sometimes
through technical compliance with the decrees, sometimes through changes in
the bench, and at least partly through the nationwide swing away from
"liberalism" when Ronald Reagan won the presidency. By the end of the
decade, the demise of these orders had a natural result.

That explains the south's experience, at least as the Harvard Project on
Civil Rights, the author of the study which announced the "resegregation"
results. It doesn't explain Connecticut, however. Our own state has
maintained its status at the top of the economic heap despite recession for
half of this decade. Our per capita income is over $36,000. This wealth, in
turn, is incredibly concentrated among municipalities in Connecticut - not
only places like New Canaan, Darien and Weston, which have per capita
incomes of over $90,000 (1996, CPEC's Municipal Budget Report) but in 40
more towns where the average tops $40,000. Away below the average, with per
capita incomes in the low $20,000, are another 40 towns, including, among
the bottom 20, New Britain, Waterbury, New Haven, Bridgeport and, on the
bottom at $17,274, Hartford, the state capital.

This division of income matches an equally appalling racial and ethnic
contrast: the public schools in the three largest cities in the state,
Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven, are overwhelmingly minority - to the
tune of more than 90 percent. The same three cities are the listed homes of
a substantial majority of the state's prison population, both adult and
juvenile. And it is the concentrations of poor minority residents in these
cities which is the most challenging and intractable problem we face. It
isn't resegregation: Connecticut was never like this until the last quarter
of the century. It is de facto segregation, and it's been ordered stopped
under the Sheff vs O'Neill decision.

The legislature has responded creatively within the sphere open to action.
Cities, large and small, are not unrepresented, and worthwhile programs have
been chosen created. Given the political realities and the political will,
these far from radical steps may be pretty much all we can hope for.

There are several steps which no one will even talk about, much less enact,
that could truly help. They are:

1. Eliminate Connecticut's ancient and accidental 169-towns. They lines
reflect European settlement patterns of no present administrative or
economic significance. Townships grew along parish lines: when settlements
dispersed enough to make attending church a burden (by 17th and 18th century
transport) settlers formed new churches. These became townships.

In the 19th century, towns which happened to be located along the nascent
rail lines became cities, each organized around its own specialized industry
(silver in Meriden, brass in Waterbury, hats in Danbury. . .). Today, these
are no more relevant than their vanished industries. The 20th century roads
and cars have made much larger economic entities within (even beyond) the
state, and it is these which should be operating as political subdivisions,
not 169 townships. Setting property tax rates on a regional basis, where
some connection exists, would remove the folly of neighboring towns having
absurdly differing assessments and rates.

2. Decriminalize most drug use and regulate them like alcohol, also a drug.
Same for tobacco. These substances may be addictive, but substance abuse is
a social problem, not a criminal problem. We could liberate vast majority of
petty criminals from our jails, most of whom are there for drug-related
crimes. There would then room to sentence our sexual predators so they'd
never need to be released into the community.

3. With the money saved by closing the jails ($35,000 per inmate), we could
focus badly-needed dollars on anti-drug, alcohol and tobacco propaganda.
After giving each ex-con a stipend with which to start life anew, a good
percentage of the rest could provide a large supply of functioning and
competent cars for the use and ownership of inner-city youth, who could then
use them to seek the rather better sources of employment outside of their
cities. Or we could accomplish the same with public transport.

4. Use the hefty sums now wasted on luring big businesses into the state
(c.f. the Patriots) to provide start-up business grants to residents with
good ideas and initiative. Some will certainly go bad, but then many
business loans the state has made have gone bad, too. This would bolster
local and connected employment and investment.

I know they will never be tried in my lifetime. Too many would view them as
anathema. None the less, they're worth attempting. When everyone's done,
I've some other prescriptions for a better society. My cures begin with
smaller schools and run through encouraging and rewarding interracial
marriage (which is the only way to demagnetize our racial polarity).

Ah, if only I ran the zoo.