The Board of Representatives Land Use and Urban Redevelopment Committee will take up an ordinance establishing a conservation commission on Wednesday, July 22 (LU 32.009). Previous discussion about the ordinance has focused on whether a new environmental advisory body in Stamford would become a tool to slow development. The city’s staff say the commission poses no risk to housing, while a pro-housing advocacy group questions if the commission is needed at all.

What the conservation commission ordinance would do

The ordinance — submitted by Representatives Karen Camporeale, Carl Weinberg, and Virgil de la Cruz — would create a five-member volunteer Conservation Commission. The members would be appointed by the mayor to advise the city on natural resources including urban forestry, tree canopy, open space, invasive species, and climate resilience planning.

Connecticut law explicitly permits a “Conservation Commission.” Section 7-131a of the Connecticut General Statutes allows any municipality — by vote of its legislative body — to establish a conservation commission to research local land use, keep an index of open areas including wetlands, and make recommendations to planning and zoning bodies. The statute is permissive — it says a city “may” establish a commission, and nothing in state law requires Stamford to create one.

Stamford technically holds these conservation powers already but they are housed inside the Environmental Protection Board (EPB) — the city agency that regulates inland wetlands and flood-prone areas.

According to EPB Executive Director Robert Clausi, the board’s regulatory duties consume its staff and meeting time, leaving broader conservation work — open space planning, invasive species management, drought response — undone. City staff said Stamford’s EPB cannot exercise everything state law allows a conservation commission to do due to the city’s current legislative rules. The proposed ordinance would transfer the state conservation powers to the new commission and leave the EPB’s regulatory work untouched.

The draft before the committee states the commission shall “act only in an advisory and non-binding capacity.” It cannot begin a condemnation proceeding or accept a gift of land without Board of Representatives approval. The Office of Operations would provide administrative support using existing staff — no new hires and no new appropriation.

The ordinance has been broadly supported by city staff of the current administration. The EPB formally approved a draft at its April meeting. Director of Operations Matthew Quinones and Land Use Bureau Chief Ralph Blessing both stated their support in previous committee meetings. The Stamford 2035 Comprehensive Plan — the city’s adopted long-range planning document — specifically recommends establishing a standalone conservation commission.

Despite institutional support, the ordinance has lingered in various committees — partly driven by procedural disagreements. After a discussion on whether the ordinance should be reconsidered in Land Use, Camporeale said committee chairs were intentionally obstructing the ordinance.

“I just feel like this is being postponed at this point because the chair is not in favor of the item, and that’s not how this is supposed to work,” said Camporeale. “A certain respect is given even when a chair does not agree with an item.”

Hughes wants the ordinance to promise neutrality on housing

Representative Ryan Hughes — who co-chairs the Land Use Committee with Glenn Price — has stated his opposition to the ordinance since June. His stated concern is a conservation commission — even an advisory one — could become another veto point against density in a city where housing costs dominated the last election.

Hughes did not respond to requests for comment.

In his statements during public meetings, Hughes has pursued an amendment to the ordinance that would explicitly keep the commission neutral on issues related to housing. However, Camporeale claimed the city’s legal department advised against adding the amendment requested by Hughes — referencing concerns about working within state law.

“The lawyers have said that amending it the way that he’s asking to amend it would only make the ordinance muddy and difficult to defend in court,” said Camporeale, “and it already does everything that he’s asking for it to do.”

Hughes said the opposite about the same lawyers.

“I would just reiterate that my concerns have not been addressed. I’ve received differing legal opinions from the same counsel,” said Hughes in the July steering committee meeting. “I don’t know how else to say that other than my concerns have not been addressed.”

Hughes – in the June committee meeting – identified state law as part of the problem.

“Connecticut state statutes in many ways I think are why we have a housing crisis,” said Hughes. “I think there’s something to be talked about there of what our regulatory environment has created, and it’s not an affordable rental or housing market.”

Hughes has repeatedly tied his election to the Board of Representatives to the issue of housing.

“In talking to constituents or voters during the election season, the cost of living — specifically the cost of housing — was the number one concern and that was whether folks at the door were 92 or 18,” said Hughes in the Board of Representatives’ January meeting from earlier this year. “…when we make it more expensive to build housing, we make it less likely that housing gets built here.”1

City staff say the commission can’t block housing

The Land Use committee invited Clausi, Blessing, and Quinones to answer questions at the June meeting. Each addressed Hughes’ concern directly, and each gave the same answer: an advisory commission has no mechanism to stop, slow, or condition a development application.

“I don’t know that there’s any way that a conservation commission could impact, slow down, stymie housing development if those developments go through the other approval processes of the zoning board,” said Clausi. “It’s not prescriptive; it’s just advisory.”

Blessing explained the mechanics. When the Zoning Board receives an application, the Land Use Bureau refers it simultaneously to commenting agencies — the transportation department, the EPB, and others. Each has 35 days to respond — a deadline set by state statute. Comments run in parallel and an agency that stays silent is assumed to have no objection.

“It adds an additional step in the sense that yes, instead of 10 referral letters, we have to write 11 referral letters, but it doesn’t add time to the process,” said Blessing. “You get your 35 days like everyone else, and if you don’t get your act together, sucks for you.”

Blessing also noted that where a local ordinance conflicts with state statute, the statute controls — meaning the commission could not be granted powers beyond the advisory role state law describes, no matter how a future board might want to use it.

Pro-housing advocates ask: why have it at all?

Zach Oberholtzer serves on the executive board of People Friendly Stamford — a local advocacy group working on people-oriented issues including housing abundance. In an interview with Feather Ruffler, he accepted the commission as drafted is powerless — and treated that as the problem.

“If it doesn’t have any teeth, why have it at all?” said Oberholtzer. “And if it has teeth, it seems like it’s bad because it just creates one more veto point in all the other land use stuff.”

Oberholtzer pointed to conservation and planning boards elsewhere in Connecticut that have opposed housing on environmental grounds while ignoring worse existing conditions on the same land.

“You have these unelected planning and conservation boards, and they’re talking about wetlands conservation, and they’re blocking an apartment building where a surface parking lot is,” said Oberholtzer, “and the surface parking lot is almost certainly worse for the wetlands than a four-story apartment building.”

His alternative: if Stamford lacks environmental expertise, hire it.

“If we need the expertise, we should go out and hire it,” said Oberholtzer. “It feels unlikely to me that we’re just gonna find five random people that happen to have that expertise that has just been waiting to do unpaid work for the city.”

Oberholtzer’s expertise argument goes the other direction from the ordinance’s design. The draft relies on unpaid volunteers precisely to avoid new spending. However, Clausi told the committee in June the commission’s “full potential” would never be reached without dedicated technical staff.

Camporeale: development and stewardship aren’t competing priorities

This isn’t the first time Camporeale’s legislative record has been criticized as opposed to housing.

Camporeale was one of the 15 members of the 19^th Charter Revision Commission which resulted in charter recommendations characterized as shifting power from the mayor to the board specifically to block housing development. Camporeale campaigned with Reform Stamford – a political faction opposed to housing development — and has said “development” is the most-pressing issue in the city. These actions were cited by several local sources characterizing Camporeale’s record as opposed to housing.

“I disagree with that characterization,” said Camporeale. “All of the legislation I have worked on has the same thread running through it all and most of it has absolutely nothing to do with housing. I have consistently advocated for science-based environmental stewardship while also supporting responsible growth and investments that make Stamford a stronger, healthier, more sustainable city.”2

She cited her single-use plastics ordinance, legislation transitioning city landscaping equipment to electric, reduced permit fees for nonprofits, and advocacy for workforce housing and infrastructure investment.

“I do not believe responsible development and environmental stewardship are competing priorities,” said Camporeale. “I believe they are complementary investments in Stamford’s future.”

National housing advocates argue conflict between environmentalism and abundance arise in process rather than principle.

“I have spent more than four decades helping clients obtain permits to build in California. The abundance movement’s central claim — that America has regulated itself out of the capacity to build — matches my experience in this work,” Jennifer Hernandez for City Journal in July 2026 — a land-use attorney and senior fellow for the Breakthrough Institute. “…most environmental permit criteria are rife with subjective, unknown, and often unknowable requirements that agencies themselves interpret inconsistently.

For local advocates, the conservation commission is the type of process that’s unnecessary.

“The zoning board can handle the legitimate environmental concerns of the city already, so why do we need another board doing that?” said Oberholtzer.

What happens July 22

The Land Use and Urban Redevelopment Committee meets Wednesday, July 22 at 7 p.m. by webinar. Board of Representatives President Ramya Shaw asked Camporeale to ensure the board’s attorneys attend, and Camporeale committed to circulating counsel’s advice — alongside Hughes’ concerns — to the full committee beforehand.

If the committee approves the ordinance, it advances to a public hearing; a final vote of the full board comes only after that hearing.

Feather Ruffler was not able to obtain legal documents that were claimed to be “in the public record” because Stamford’s Board of Representatives website has been down since at least July 19.

Editor’s Note: If you haven’t checked Feather Ruffler in a bit we’ve backdated Board of Representatives roundups for June and May earlier this year.

STAMFORD — The Board of Representatives voted 35-2 on Monday night to send an ordinance requiring the mayor’s office to report data about applicants to the city’s boards and commissions to a second public hearing, over the objection of Representative Carl Weinberg, who called the measure “unnecessary and burdensome.”

The vote for the ordinance to receive a second public hearing was the most debated item of the board’s July 6 regular meeting at the Government Center — which opened with Mayor Caroline Simmons’ 2026 State of the City address. Feather Ruffler covered the State of the City address in a separate article.

Reporting ordinance advances to a second hearing

The ordinance (LR32.017, discussion begins at 1:01:14) — submitted by Representatives Michael McKeown and Karen Camporeale — would require the mayor’s office to report data each quarter about the people who apply to serve on Stamford’s volunteer boards and commissions. The report would cover three groups: everyone who applied, everyone interviewed by a city official, and everyone nominated before the Board of Representatives.

Applicants would be required to provide their name, address, voter registration status, and voting district. They could optionally disclose their ethnicity, gender identity, political party, age, education, occupation, and languages spoken. The report must present the data in an aggregate, anonymous form that cannot identify any individual. The ordinance would also require the mayor’s office to notify the board president of any seat left vacant — or occupied by an appointee whose term expired — for more than 120 days. Willful violations of the reporting requirements would count as violations of the city’s Code of Ethics.

The appointments process was the center of a multi-year political fight between the previous Board of Representatives and multiple mayoral administrations — including a failed 2023 charter referendum that would have given the board power to fill seats with expired terms. Feather Ruffler published an explainer on how Stamford’s appointments process works.

The Legislative and Rules Committee amended the ordinance in June to require quarterly rather than monthly reports before approving it 8-1. Monday’s vote sends the proposed ordinance to a second public hearing. A date for the hearing was not announced at the meeting.

“To clarify […] this is a vote in favor of bringing [the ordinance] for a second public hearing, but not to approve it,” said McKeown.

Weinberg — who chairs the Personnel Committee that interviews the mayor’s appointees — was the only representative to speak against the ordinance. He said the amendment in the L&R Committee from monthly to quarterly reports was an improvement but the data would “focus on the wrong subject.”

“I still consider the ordinance to be unnecessary and burdensome for the mayor’s office, but more significantly, I also believe that the required data in this ordinance will encourage the board of reps and the public to focus on the wrong subject,” said Weinberg. “It will encourage the board to focus on the mayor’s decisions not to nominate certain candidates, not on why we have a dearth of candidates from certain neighborhoods in the city and from certain demographic groups and from women.”1

McKeown responded that the ordinance’s design prevents the misuse Weinberg described.

“The ordinance specifically prohibits the compilation of the data in any way that would meaningfully identify any individual,” said McKeown. “It is aggregate anonymous data that wouldn’t allow this body to draw conclusions with respect to individual nominees or individual applicants.”

Representative Cara Gilbride also voted no but did not speak on the merits of the ordinance, according to the meeting’s action report, the board’s official minutes document.

A companion ordinance (LR32.016) that would repeal the city’s dormant Appointments Commission was postponed by the committee so both items can be considered together at next month’s meeting.

Former representative: North Stamford roads are neglected

During the public comment period (comments begin at 45:17), former District 19 Representative Don Mays said North Stamford residents receive poor service from the city’s road maintenance operations — which are managed by the Department of Operations.

“My neighbors don’t feel safe walking, running, or cycling along the roads because the road surfaces in the shoulders or the right of way sections are not regularly maintained,” said Mays. “It’s not good enough for the city to just patch an occasional pothole or repave only the worst roads in our area.”2

Mays listed maintenance work he said the city neglects: cutting back overgrowth that narrows lanes, repairing curbs broken by snow plows, street sweeping to clear gravel that endangers cyclists and clogs storm drains, removing dead trees and storm debris from the right of way, repainting road lines, replacing damaged signs, and installing guardrails at steep drop-offs.

Mays requested the board’s Operations and Public Safety committees hold a joint review of road maintenance operations, and asked the board to amend Chapter 214 of the city ordinances to make clear the city is accountable for maintaining the right of way on road shoulders.

“When I was in office, I met with the mayor, I met with the operations director, I met with the road maintenance supervisor about these issues to no avail,” said Mays. “Nothing has changed. I hope you can do better.”

Other business

The board approved nine appointments on the consent agenda (A32.046 through A32.054, reports begin at 55:42), including five new members of the Fire Commission.

The board accepted a $324,646 federal grant (F32.089) from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration — through the Recovery Network of Programs — to cover salary and fringe costs for a police officer assigned to the Stamford Police Department’s Behavioral Health Unit.

The board unanimously approved an employment contract for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer Janeene Freeman (P32.009). Freeman joins Director of Economic Development Leah Kagan and Deputy Director of Operations Josephine Carpanzano as a former Special Assistant to the Mayor who was later hired by Mayor Caroline Simmons for a position created during her administration.

The board’s next regular meeting is Monday, August 3 at 7:30 p.m.

STAMFORD — Mayor Caroline Simmons delivered her 2026 State of the City address to the Board of Representatives at the Government Center on Monday night (video here, address begins at 6:35), reporting progress on affordable housing, an expected decision on the rebuild of the Stamford Transportation Center, and a city budget squeezed by rising fixed costs.

“The state of our city is strong, but our work is not finished,” said Simmons. “As we continue to navigate rising costs, economic uncertainty, and evolving challenges, my administration remains focused on investing in the priorities that matter most to residents, making our city more affordable, investing in our schools, infrastructure, housing, and public safety.”

All figures in this article come from the mayor’s presentation unless otherwise noted. This article provides comparable statistics from other cities in Connecticut and around the country for context.

Housing: 700 units toward a goal originally set for 2025

Simmons signed an executive order in 2023 setting a goal to create or renovate 1,000 affordable housing units by 2025. On Monday, Simmons reported more than 700 units have been completed or are underway — a milestone reached after the goal’s original deadline has passed.

The 700-unit figure counts renovations of existing affordable housing — in addition to newly built units. Simmons’ presentation refers to housing units that “have been completed or are in the pipeline for completion,” which does not identify whether these units were built or renovated. The examples Simmons cited include the renovation of Stamford Manor — an existing 215-unit complex for seniors and individuals with disabilities — alongside new construction such as 61 affordable units replacing World War II-era housing at Charter Oak Communities’ Oak Park property and 55 affordable units planned at 41 Main Street, a city-owned former Midas property the Board of Representatives approved for sale last month.

Simmons also cited an increase of the below market rate program requirement from 10 percent to 14 percent in certain districts and a 22-unit affordable condo project at 287 Washington Boulevard completed with the Housing Development Fund.

“We know that homeownership is so out of reach for so many residents, and property values have skyrocketed in recent years, and especially post-pandemic,” said Simmons. “And so we have to do a better job of creating more pathways to affordable homeownership for residents.”

For comparison, New Haven — a city of roughly 135,000 residents compared to Simmons’ reported population of 140,000 in Stamford — reported 1,500 new housing units came online in 2025. New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker announced a goal of 10,000 new homes over a decade. Bridgeport — the state’s largest city — has a plan targeting 4,300 housing units near its train station by 2029.

Simmons’ 2023 executive order states a goal of “2,433 new affordable units by 2033.” This goal is smaller than other cities, follows a longer timeline than other cities, and exclusively focuses on affordable units with no reference to market rate units — the latter have prevented higher rent increases in Stamford.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year New Rochelle, NY achieved rent decreases after building more than 4,500 units over 5 years — a 12.8 percent increase in the city’s housing supply. This data is consistent with other cities around the country that decreased housing costs after increasing market rate housing. Based on these numbers, Stamford would need to increase its housing supply of roughly 57,000 units1 by 2.5 percent per year — or roughly 1,425 new housing units — to reduce housing costs. This would total 9,975 new housing units by 2033.

Train station rebuild decision expected by fall 2026

Simmons said the state Department of Transportation — which owns the Stamford Transportation Center — completed a request-for-proposals (or “RFP”) process in early 2026 and a finalist is expected to be selected and announced by fall 2026. The selection will cover a rebuild of the station itself and a major transit-oriented development (or “TOD”) on the vacant parcel across the street. Simmons said the TOD will include affordable housing.

The Stamford Transportation Center has attracted previous redevelopment proposals from private parties and former governors over the past decade, but none of these projects went through.

Despite the lack of redevelopment, Stamford’s train station remains one of the busiest Metro-North stations after Grand Central Terminal. The state opened a new parking garage at the station in 2024 with more than 900 parking spaces and 120 spaces for bicycles. Two weeks after the garage opened, a resident posted online the garage reached its capacity before 9AM. At the time the cost of monthly passes at the state garage was lower than the city garage several blocks away. The state garage raised monthly rates from $70 to $87.50 on August 1, 2025.

Simmons also highlighted the June 2 groundbreaking of the new Westhill High School. She described the project as the largest and most sustainable school project in Connecticut’s history. The school is designed for up to 2,458 students and is scheduled to be completed in 2029. The project costs more than $425 million, and Simmons said the state will reimburse 80 percent of that cost — up from the 20 percent reimbursement rate Stamford previously received for school construction. This suggests the cost of the project for the city will be $85 million and the cost for the state will be $340 million.

Budget pressure from pensions, health care, and insurance

The adopted budget for the fiscal year beginning this month is $726 million, split roughly in half between the Board of Education and city government. Simmons said the budget stays within the city’s safe debt limit and funds long-term pension obligations at a combined 87 percent.

What is Stamford’s budget and why does it cost so much? Read Feather Ruffler’s explainer on the city budget.

Simmons said this budget cycle was more difficult than prior years.

“This year’s budget was a more challenging year due to rising fixed costs, including contractual obligations, higher pension and OPEB obligations, increasing health care premiums,” said Simmons, noting premiums rose about 12 percent this year. “My goal over the next several years is to continue to do everything we can to mitigate and alleviate these rising fixed costs, as well as continue to deliver excellent services for our residents.”

Simmons originally proposed a budget that would have resulted in a 6.32 percent increase — the highest since the Great Recession. The adopted budget resulted in a 3.34 percent increase.

On the economy, Simmons said Stamford’s commercial vacancy rate fell from 28.4 percent to 23 percent and apartment occupancy stands at 94 percent. The city’s grand list — the total value of taxable property — grew to $27 billion, the second highest in the state.2

Growth of the grand list is a general indicator of economic vibrancy. Since 2016, the grand list has grown at an average of 3.3 percent per year.3 This past year’s growth from $27.32 billion to $27.42 billion represents a 0.36 percent increase.

Simmons said Stamford is the only city of its size in Connecticut with a AAA bond rating, which Fitch and S&P recently reaffirmed.

Permits, microtransit, and a drone program

Simmons said the walk-in permitting center on the seventh floor of the Government Center has cut the average permit wait time from two years to 90 days — a statistic she has now repeated in all three of the 2024, 2025, and 2026 State of the City addresses.

Simmons reported StamFORWARD — the city’s on-demand microtransit service launched in November 2024 — completed 83,521 rides in fiscal year 2026 and more than 128,000 rides since launch. A ride costs $1.75, or 85 cents for seniors 62 and older and ADA-eligible riders. StamFORWARD is managed by Via, a publicly traded company that specializes in transportation solutions for municipalities.

Simmons also promoted the city’s drone first responder program, launched in October 2025, which deploys drones from sites in North and South Stamford with a response time under 90 seconds. She provided one example where drones located two capsized kayakers within 90 seconds and guided police and fire boats to them. Simmons said drone operations follow strict privacy policies and do not film private areas without legal justification.

The city has integrated AI translation into its 911 call center — replacing in-person interpreters for a population that speaks more than 70 languages.

Federal funding “dramatically changed” under Trump administration

Simmons said the city secured state and federal funding over the past year including $2 million for phase two of the Oak Park development, $2 million for the basketball court and playground at Hatch Field Park, $1.2 million for safety measures along Washington Boulevard, and $1 million toward a new public safety complex. She said the environment for future federal money has worsened.

“Since the Trump administration took office, unfortunately, the federal funding landscape has been dramatically changed, and it’s been much more challenging to secure as much funding,” said Simmons. “However, we are still very actively working with our federal lobbyists and our federal delegation to pursue funding where we can.”

Simmons said approximately 4,000 Stamford residents are at risk of losing HUSKY D — Medicaid health insurance — due to federal legislation passed last summer. In March, the city launched a HUSKY Stay Covered Task Force co-chaired by the mayor’s office and Stamford Health, with about two dozen nonprofits and members of the Board of Representatives, to keep residents enrolled.

The State of the City address was the first item of the board’s July 6 regular meeting.

STAMFORD — The Board of Representatives voted 27-5 with six abstentions on June 1 to approve the sale of the former Midas site at 41 Main Street (LU32.008), clearing the way for a 55-unit below-market-rate apartment development on the city-owned lot.

The vote ended the longest debate of the board’s June meeting, which also saw approval of a lease for a school bus depot on Courtland Avenue, approval of $2.1 million for the redevelopment of St. John Towers, and the rejection of a $125,000 feasibility study for a public boat launch at Kosciuszko Park.

Housing: Midas site sale approved after failed push for a second public hearing

The sale of 41 Main Street (LU32.008, discussion begins at 01:51:56) sends the vacant auto repair property to a developer identified during debate as McClutchy. Representatives cited a $250,000 sale price with a $15,000 deposit during discussion. The vote approves only the sale of the land — the development itself must still go through the planning board and zoning board, which will hold their own public hearings.

Opposition centered on public notice. A public hearing on the sale was held May 21 and no member of the public attended. Representative Nicole Beckham — who represents the surrounding district — asked the board to hold the item for a second hearing. She suggested the public did not know about the first public hearing.

“These buildings are old school buildings, you really have to go knock on the doors, slide the flyers under the door, so at best they were never really given a fair opportunity to come out and voice their opinion,” said Beckham.

Representative Kindrea Walston supported a second hearing and said the neighborhood’s residents would not learn about the sale through official channels, adding that “silence doesn’t mean consent.”

“Everybody’s not tech savvy. The people living in that neighborhood, there need to be flyers in the lobby, flyers put underneath their door, so that they can come out and speak, or better yet, you can take it to them and go to their meeting area,” said Walston.

Representative Ryan Hughes, whose district includes the site, argued the vacant lot was the greater harm and connected the project to the city’s housing costs.

“The reason why housing, by and large, in Stamford, whether you’re buying a home or you’re renting, is unaffordable — it’s because of supply,” said Hughes. “We live in a great community with access to great jobs, great hospitals, great schools, great restaurants, great people. Who wouldn’t want to live here? There’s strong demand. When you have a lack of supply, which is what we have — a lack of housing of all types, not just below market — you create scarcity, and when that scarcity happens, landlords and these corporations that own these apartments can charge more.”

Hughes said the average rent in downtown Stamford is $2,700 and that the 55 units would rent below market rate.

Representative Noah Lapine disputed the notice argument, saying the proposal was publicly before the planning board on April 28 and publicly listed for the hearing by May 11. Clerk Parker Johnson agreed the city’s notification process is flawed but said it is governed by state law and the city charter, and a second hearing would follow the same process — no signs, no flyers.

A motion by Representative Adams to send the sale back to the steering committee failed 16-21 with one abstention. On the final vote, Representatives Beckham, Dorsey, Graham, Hyatt, and Walston voted against the sale, according to the meeting’s action report, the board’s official minutes document; Representatives Adams, Camporeale, de la Cruz, Hill, Sylvestre, and Weathers abstained.

Part of the objection concerned how the “affordable” units will be priced. Beckham urged the board to study low-income housing tax credit properties before voting.

“When our constituents hear affordable housing, they’re used to Section 8 vouchers, where your rent is based on 30% of your income. Tax credit properties, the rents are based on the area income and not the resident’s income,” said Beckham.

Beckham’s description is accurate. In a low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) property, rents are set as a fixed amount tied to the area median income — the median income of the wider region, not the individual tenant. A tenant at the bottom of the qualifying income window pays the same rent as a tenant at the top of it, and tenants whose income rises above the window no longer qualify. Under a Section 8 voucher, by contrast, the tenant pays roughly 30% of their own income and the voucher covers the rest. The Midas site development will use the tax credit model, which is why Walston argued the units are affordable but not “deeply affordable.”

Courtland Avenue school bus depot lease passes 35-4

The board voted 35-4 to approve a city lease of 0 and 338 Courtland Avenue for school bus parking (LR32.018, discussion begins at 01:21:56). The site is currently occupied by Paramount Stone, with the adjacent parcel running along the train tracks. Representatives Gross, Hughes, Price, and Yeager voted against, according to the meeting’s action report.

Representative David Blank, relaying information from the committee meeting, said the depot would hold up to approximately 90 buses and is intended to reduce the city’s dependence on First Student, the district’s current bus contractor. He said a traffic study found little effect on overall traffic in the neighborhood.

“The bus depot will allow for us to get a better service for our schools at a lower cost than First Student is willing to do, and bring us into compliance with regards to GPS tracking and other issues that are outstanding with First Student,” said Blank.

Representative Gross opposed the lease, arguing Courtland Avenue is already one of the busiest roads on the East Side.

“School gets out at 2 o’clock. These buses are going to be returning four or five o’clock when Courtland Avenue is really at its busiest,” said Gross.

Representative Matthew Boudreau responded that buses would mostly pass through before peak commuting hours and that Courtland Avenue, a state road, is built to a higher standard than the residential streets where buses currently park. Walston, who supported the lease, said the West Side needs relief from buses currently parked on Bonner Street, a residential street.

The lease previously passed the Board of Finance 6-0 and the board’s Legislative and Rules Committee 9-0. During public comment, District 12 resident David Berman said the lease runs 15 years and includes a right of first refusal for the city, and asked what Stamford will own at the end of the term.

Kosciuszko Park boat launch study fails 10-26

An additional appropriation of $125,000 for a feasibility study of a public boat launch (F32.082, discussion begins at 00:52:14) on the Stamford Harbor shoreline at Kosciuszko Park failed 10-26 with three abstentions. A companion resolution authorizing an agreement with the Connecticut Port Authority (F32.083) then failed 2-36. The study’s supporters were Representatives Didelot, Gardner, Gilbride, Johnson, Morson, Price, Sandford, Shaw, Weinberg, and Wirz, according to the meeting’s action report; Representatives Bradford, Pollack, and Zachary abstained.

Majority Leader Eric Morson, who supported the study, said none of the money was city funded: half came from a 2022 state grant and half from a 2019 private donation to the Harbor Management Commission restricted exclusively to water use.

“As this was a restricted donation, the money can’t be used for anything in the park other than water use,” said Morson.

Opponents argued the spending sent the wrong message after a difficult budget season.

“We said to many nonprofit organizations that there were requests for four or six hundred dollars to address areas of public service, homelessness, food scarcity, etcetera, were simply not going to be approved because the city of Stamford couldn’t afford it,” said Parliamentarian Michael McKeown. “In the same budget cycle, we reduced a budget for architectural plans to build a library on the East Side by $100,000.”

McKeown also said no one could tell him what the eventual boat launch would cost or where that money would come from.

Representative Karen Camporeale rejected the argument that the study money was free, and argued the private funder’s willingness to pay for a study suggests they already have an idea of the project’s final cost.

“Grants that come from the state are actually our tax dollars,” said Camporeale.

Representatives Graham and Walston, who represent the South End, said the park itself needs investment before the city studies adding a boat launch — citing broken lighting, air quality problems, traffic, and conflicts between boaters and families using the park.

During public comment, South End resident Sue Halpern said a $100,000 request from the parks director to upgrade the park’s parking lot, pathways, and lighting was denied this budget cycle.

“Studying the feasibility of a public boat launch seems dismissive of the long-standing maintenance concerns of this former landfill,” said Halpern, noting 14,000 people live on the peninsula.

Representative Cara Gilbride — who supported the item — told the board “free money is free money” and objected to a suggestion by Hughes that a boat launch would mostly serve the wealthy, inviting colleagues to visit the city’s Czescik Marina to “see the diversity that is there.”

Housing: $2.1 million approved for St. John Towers redevelopment

The board approved a $2.1 million allocation to Heritage Housing, Inc. and the St. John Urban Redevelopment Corp (CHESS32.014, discussion begins at 02:58:07) to redevelop 305 units of affordable housing at the St. John Towers property.

The item was approved through an unusual mechanism: the board voted not to reject it. Under the city charter, certain items come before the board only as “rejection items” — the board cannot vote to approve them, only to reject them or let them stand. To approve the $2.1 million, representatives had to vote down the rejection, a double negative that produced several minutes of confusion during the voice vote. The board’s committee had previously declined to reject the funding 0-8.

In layperson terminology: the funding for the redevelopment of affordable housing units was approved.

Other business

Two related ordinances on the city’s appointments process were both advanced to public hearings, with final votes expected at a later meeting.

The first, an ordinance establishing reporting requirements on board and commission appointments (LR32.017, discussion begins at 01:40:55), was approved 37-2 and would require the Mayor’s Office to report data on applicants and appointees to the city’s boards and commissions. It was submitted by Representatives McKeown and Camporeale. McKeown said the ordinance only requires reporting of data the administration already collects.

During public comment, resident Dave Adams said appointments transparency has been a live issue through multiple charter revision commissions and boards of representatives, including two ordinances passed by the 31st board that were vetoed.

“While the charter defines co-branch responsibility on this matter, there’s absolutely no accountability for these appointments to the various boards, commissions, to the public,” said Adams.

The second, an ordinance repealing the Appointments Commission (LR32.016, discussion begins at 01:47:44), was approved unanimously. The commission is a separate body from the board’s own Appointments Committee, and the repeal was submitted by Mayor Caroline Simmons.

McKeown said his understanding of the administration’s position is that the commission achieved its original mission of increasing representation of unaffiliated and independent voters and no longer adds value to the process. Boudreau said in committee that his support for the repeal was contingent on the reporting ordinance passing, so the existing oversight structure is not eliminated without a replacement.

STAMFORD — The Board of Representatives voted to authorize a project labor agreement for the construction of the new Roxbury School at its regular meeting at the Government Center on Monday, May 4, capping nearly 90 minutes of debate that Majority Leader Eric Morson called the best he’d seen in nine years on the board.

The vote was the centerpiece of a meeting that also saw the board name the Stamford High School sports fields despite objections about diversity, dissolve the Stamford Transit District, and approve $6.3 million of general fund surplus.

Roxbury School labor agreement authorization passes 28-11

The resolution (CHESS32.005, discussion begins at 1:03:48) passed 28-11-0, according to the meeting’s action report, the board’s official minutes document.

A project labor agreement (or “PLA”) is a pre-hire contract negotiated with labor unions that sets the working terms — wages, dispute resolution, hiring rules — for every contractor on a specific construction project, whether that contractor is unionized or not. PLAs are common on large public projects in Connecticut cities including New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford and Waterbury, but Stamford has not used one on its recent school projects, including West Hill High School — the largest school construction project in the state.

The board did not approve a PLA itself. No agreement exists yet. The resolution, submitted by Director of Operations Matt Quiñones, authorizes O&G Industries — the project’s construction manager — to negotiate a PLA with the Connecticut State Building Trades Council on the city’s behalf. The board will receive the finished agreement for information purposes only. (First-time readers can learn more about the Department of Operations here.)

That distinction — voting to authorize a contract nobody has read — did more to drive opposition than any argument about unions. Board Clerk Parker Johnson — who votes as a representative — said conversations with city staff earlier that day had changed his reasoning but not his position.

“What we are approving tonight is not a PLA. It’s an approval for a third-party company, O&G, to negotiate a PLA on our behalf,” said Johnson. “We have absolutely no mechanism for enforcement outside of hoping O&G keeps our preferences in mind.”

Representative Felix Gardner made the same argument in response to Representative Nicole Beckham, who said she came in “a hard no” and would vote yes if the resolution’s workforce promises could be guaranteed.

“There is no guarantee at all,” said Gardner. “It’s all based around a principle of good faith. It’s not actually contractually obligated by the contractor to be delivered, and they could not deliver it, and the city has no recourse whatsoever.”

Supporters framed the vote as a test of the board’s commitments. Representative Karen Camporeale, who opened the debate, closed her second round of remarks with the night’s most pointed question.

“If we, in a blue city with a Democratic mayor and a 40-body Democratic board of reps, don’t vote for unions now, then when do we vote for them?” said Camporeale. “Unions are declining in this country, and along with those unions declining, so is the middle class.”

Representative Steven Shore, a union member who spent his career bidding on projects, argued a PLA buys labor stability in a strained Fairfield County construction market — school construction delays displace students, not just budgets. He also read the resolution’s workforce commitments into the record: the trades council will make good-faith efforts to hire Stamford residents, and the city will hire a third party to recruit at least 100 Stamford program participants into apprenticeship-readiness programs, prioritizing disadvantaged youth, with hiring goals of 60 percent minorities, 40 percent women and 10 percent veterans, plus an annual career fair beginning in fall 2026.

That pre-apprenticeship program converted several votes. Representative Candace Weathers said it was her reason for voting yes.

“Sometimes people sell you one thing, and then in reality something different takes place,” said Weathers. “I will be driving by some of these construction sites and taking pictures… Don’t sell me one thing and I vote yes, and then you implement a whole nother thing.”

Weathers said she specifically wants to see African American youth in the program, “transitioning over to union jobs, getting wages, getting pensions, and benefits.”

Representative Carl Weinberg offered to join Weathers and Beckham “in holding the administration accountable for their promises concerning the pre-apprenticeship program.”

Joe Toner, executive director of the Connecticut State Building Trades Council, previewed the union’s offer during public comment: one out of every five construction workers on the project would be a Stamford resident, with recruitment run through the Building Trades Training Institute.

Local evidence and national research

Gardner said the PLA “narrows the playing field before the game has even started,” comparing the result to airline prices after Spirit Airlines’ collapse.

Representative Lewis Finkel provided bid data: on Torrington High School, a PLA project, only eight of 26 bid packages drew more than three bidders. On Stamford’s own Strawberry Hill project, he said, two bidders came forward while a PLA was attached and six after it was dropped, with the eventual winner falling from $65 million to just over $45 million.

Representative Theo Gross countered that state law makes the competition argument moot, quoting a legal opinion from Quiñones’ office: “Connecticut statute explicitly prohibits discrimination between bidders based on labor organization affiliation.” The city must take the lowest responsible qualified bidder, union or not, and a winning non-union contractor can perform 100 percent of the work with its own employees.

Camporeale cited a 2024 UC Berkeley Labor Center study of Los Angeles affordable housing projects that found no statistically significant relationship between PLAs and total development costs.

Finkel cited a New Jersey Department of Labor report that found PLA school projects cost roughly 30 percent more per square foot. A Connecticut Office of Legislative Research review circulated to the board by Quiñones reached no definitive conclusion either way.

However, Berkeley’s Labor Center explicitly aligns itself with union interests. New Jersey’s Department of Labor has its own incentives against PLA contracts.

Representative Virgil de la Cruz, who voted yes, described a safety valve that eased his cost concerns: if bids for any package come in badly under the PLA, that package can be rebid without it.

On the final vote, Representatives Beckham, Finkel, Gardner, Amiel Goldberg, Johnson, Noah Lapine, John Pelliccia, Daniel Sandford, Scott Stone, Stephanie Sylvestre and Board President Ramya Shaw voted against, according to the action report.

Stamford High field namings pass 37-3 over diversity objections

The board voted to name the Stamford High School baseball, softball and soccer fields — a two-step process that drew the night’s only other extended debate (OPR32.009, discussion begins at 42:54).

City ordinance requires field honorees to have been deceased for at least six months. The board first voted to waive that requirement — which needed 30 votes — and passed 38-2-0.

The naming resolution (OPR32.010) then passed 37-3-0. According to the action report, Representatives Kindrea Walston and Anabel Hyatt voted against both, and Representative Chanta Graham voted against the naming.

Walston, who pulled the item off the consent agenda, read a letter into the record asking the board to consider the Cobb family — particularly Jimmy Cobb, a three-sport captain at Stamford High in 1970 who was named All-State in football and later spent roughly 15 years coaching in Stamford schools. Cobb was inducted into Stamford High’s inaugural hall of fame class but has no field, and Walston noted none of the honorees look like her.

“He was honored in 2007, he’s being honored in a few months, but where’s his name?” said Walston. “Put his name outside, so when little children [ask], who is that? That’s Jimmy Cobb.”

Walston proposed a statue of Cobb outside the baseball field as an alternative, an idea de la Cruz called intriguing, comparing it to the Joe Louis statue on Stillwater Avenue. Representative Bobby Pavia defended the honorees’ qualifications, and Weathers asked future naming committees to “be more equitable and have a little bit more inclusion” in assembling their lists.

Walston also questioned how many more times the board will waive the six-month rule — the 31st board waived it twice — and whether the ordinance needs rewriting.

Other business

The board gave final adoption to an ordinance dissolving the Stamford Transit District (T32.003, discussion begins at 2:20:37). The ordinance — submitted by Quiñones — passed unanimously by voice vote without debate after a public hearing held by the Transportation Committee on April 20.

On the fiscal consent agenda (F32.070, report begins at 33:31), the board approved a $6.3 million appropriation of fiscal year 2024 general fund surplus and $175,000 in community development funds to help the Boys & Girls Club complete the playscape at the Yerwood Center (F32.065) — a project Waterside resident Kieran Edmondson urged the board to support during public comment. A $2 million appropriation for renovations at the Family Centers site at 986 Bedford Street was recommitted to the Steering Committee after the Board of Finance held the item.

In the Board of Education liaison report, Representative Noah Lapine noted the Board of Education unanimously appointed Dr. Adrian Talley as the new superintendent of Stamford Public Schools on April 28. Talley begins July 1, succeeding Dr. Tamu Lucero. Lapine also reported the Board of Finance’s $12.1 million cut to the schools’ operating budget stands, with final state education funding figures still pending.

Two ordinances were postponed in committee: a repeal of the Appointments Commission and a measure requiring the Mayor’s office to report information about board and commission applicants. Both return next month.

After the votes, Morson asked for a moment of personal privilege.

“This is my ninth year on this board, and I have to say that I am honored, thrilled, so impressed with how this board just handled such a controversial issue,” said Morson. “An issue with multiple points of view, clear sides, the homework, the preparation, the respectful debate.”

HARTFORD — State Sen. Ryan Fazio and former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey met Wednesday night in a Republican gubernatorial debate hosted by WTIC News Talk 1080 in Hartford. The debate — moderated by Reese on the Radio, Brian Shactman, and Morgan Cunningham — covered taxation, energy, pension debt, and unifying the Connecticut Republican party.

The full debate is available for free on YouTube and covered familiar topics for Connecticut Republicans: taxes, energy costs, and criticism of Lamont. The debate revealed key differences between the style and substance of each candidate’s campaigns. Here are five that stuck out:

1) “Red meat Republican” vs. “disagree without being disagreeable”

The clearest difference between Fazio and McCaughey was their choice of words.

McCaughey deployed Trumpian branding throughout the debate. She called incumbent Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont “Lefty Lamont” multiple times and later “Windbag Lamont.” She said Connecticut’s Attorney General William Tong has “succumbed to Lefty Lamont ideology” and is driven by “Trump derangement syndrome.” She directed similar insults to New York Governor Kathy Hochul who she called “Crazy Kathy Hochul” and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani an “invader” who is turning the city into “a socialist hellhole.” McCaughey’s bombastic branding was applied to her own initiatives as well. She referred to herself as a “red meat Republican” multiple times and pitched her campaign as the “Connecticut comeback.” McCaughey criticized Fazio’s policies at times, but did not use any nicknames for her opponent.

Fazio did not use nicknames or branded statements for any person or group — Democrat or Republican.

The contrast extended beyond rhetoric. When responding to a question about Lamont’s energy policy weaknesses, Fazio complimented the governor and said “God bless him, I really like the guy.”1 When McCaughey directly responded to Fazio’s answer on energy with “I can cut the rates more and I have a bolder plan,” Fazio began his response with “She’s totally right.”

Later in the debate, an audience member asked how the candidates would bring civility back to government.

“I believe, and firmly believe, that you can be disagreeing without being disagreeable and I think I’ve done it my entire career,” Fazio said. “I think you should always criticize the action before you criticize the individual, and even if you have to criticize the individual, do so before you criticize an entire group of people for their character. We should focus on the issues and the policies.”

“He’s a very civil person. I congratulate him on that,” McCaughey said in reference to Fazio while responding to the same question. “I am a red meat Republican, and I love to talk to the other side. I’m very cordial with the other side, but I don’t want to compromise on things like eliminating the income tax or eliminating mandates for renewable energy that are forcing up the price of what we pay on our electric bill.”

National voters have been polled on if they prefer a candidate who will “stand up” or “compromise” with the other side. These poll questions do not frequently use the same language and different polls have found significant differences across demographics and election years.

2) McCaughey repeatedly referenced her proposal to eliminate state income tax

The first question of the evening was directed to McCaughey about her policy to eliminate the state income tax. She said Connecticut should follow the 18 states reducing their income taxes toward zero and claimed the President’s Council of Economic Advisers reported her state income tax proposal would result in a 25 percent increase in business startups and $6,700 more in pre-tax earnings for the average worker. McCaughey estimated it would take “five to seven years” to reduce the state income tax to zero.

Fazio responded with his own proposal to cut spending by $1 billion and provide an average of $1,500 in tax relief to families in Connecticut. McCaughey called Fazio’s proposal “baby steps.”

“Voters can tell whether the plans that we offer are credible and realistic,” said Fazio. “I will offer the most ambitious and realistic plans possible on this campaign.”

McCaughey brought up her state income tax proposal again across six different questions.

On fiscal guardrails? McCaughey argued for a hard spending cap so that “all new revenue goes to reduce taxes, and then we will make Connecticut a zero income tax state.”

On party unity? McCaughey said she would motivate the party with unapologetic Republican goals. “For example, on the issue of the income tax. Let’s not negotiate with ourselves. Let’s go for a big, bold goal and try to meet it,” she said.

On civility? McCaughey said she was “cordial” with “the other side” but “I don’t want to compromise on things like eliminating the income tax.”

On her day one agenda? “I am going to start ramming through that bipartisan legislation to eliminate — read my lips — the income tax,” said McCaughey.

On marketing Connecticut? “We can do it by eliminating the income tax,” said McCaughey.

In closing? McCaughey said she would bring “bold solutions like eliminating the income tax — not baby steps.”

Generational divide on debt

Connecticut has spent billions over the past seven years paying down long-term pension debt — a bipartisan effort enabled by the fiscal guardrails enacted in 2017 when the state Senate was tied between Republicans and Democrats. McCaughey wants to slow that down. Fazio does not.

Feather Ruffler has written how public debt is a generational issue. The American political system is designed around what is now referred to as “Total Boomer Luxury Communism,” where political and fiscal priorities are focused on providing luxury benefits to people over the age of 65. Uniquely, these benefits are not paid for by collected taxes but instead funded through debt — debt that will become more expensive to pay off when Boomers reach their end of life within the next 10-20 years.

Ryan Fazio was born in 1990 and will be 36 on election day. He is part of the Millennial generation which will take on debt payments for benefits paid for “Boomerism” policies. Fazio said he supports paying down debt.

Betsy McCaughey was born in 1948 and will be 78 on election day. She is part of the Boomer generation which has benefited from “Boomerism” policies for decades. McCaughey said she would “slow down” debt payments.

“Most people in this room and in this state do not lie awake at night worrying about the state debt, but they sure lie awake at night worrying about their own debt,” McCaughey said. “And when we’re taking their hard-earned money to pay down that state debt when they can’t afford their own debts, that is wrong.”

When moderator Brian Shactman pressed her on whether she would stop paying down pension liabilities entirely, McCaughey said: “I would definitely slow down what’s been done.”

Fazio argued the math makes slowing down counterproductive.

“The problem with those long-term debts, especially the pension liabilities, is they get bigger and bigger at 8 percent every year,” said Fazio. “So if you’re not meeting them every single year, then they’re going to double in just a few years’ time.”

Fazio framed Lamont’s reputation on fiscal issues as misleading.

“He was elected on a false pretense to be fiscally responsible as a Democrat and to defend taxpayers, but he has eviscerated the very fiscal budgetary guardrails that he inherited in his first term by the end of his second resulting in billions in dollars, in more debt, [and] much higher taxes,” said Fazio.

A narrow distinction on housing

Republicans in Connecticut respond to most questions about “housing” with concerns about “local control.” Both McCaughey and Fazio said they opposed state-directed housing efforts such as the housing bill 8002 Lamont signed in December 2025 and 8-30g — which allows for the bypassing of local zoning regulations if a municipality has less than 10 percent housing stock defined as “affordable.” While supporters of 8002 and 8-30g focus on the intent (provide more affordable housing), critics focus on the state overreaching on a municipality’s ability to decide its own housing strategy (e.g. “local control”).

McCaughey’s housing answer focused on housing bill 8002, claiming it was not about affordable housing but economic diversity.

“That is not the government’s job to impose a cookie cutter template on every town in the state requiring the same sociodemographic population,” said McCaughey. She added the focus should be on making new housing easier to build, more affordable to build, and providing vouchers to people who cannot afford housing.

Fazio agreed with McCaughey’s answer, but structured his priorities around reducing property taxes, reducing costs for maintenance on existing housing infrastructure, and finally local control” for municipalities.

“Focus on smaller scale development that towns and cities and neighborhoods will embrace rather than reject, like the accessory dwelling units, like the mixed use — the small apartments above the shops in a downtown,” said Fazio. “Make it easier for workers in the trades to get licensed, cut their licensing fees to zero. They shouldn’t have to pay the government just for the right to work every single year.”

Fazio’s answer creates a narrow distinction in his view compared to other "local control” advocates.

In Stamford, politicians of both parties oppose accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and deregulation for housing construction. Pro-housing advocates associate these views with the goal of “local control” — since many advocates for “local control” use it to restrict housing markets. Fazio’s answer suggests local control could be used for pro-housing policies. It is a narrow distinction, but it exists.

The missing candidate

The one other Republican candidate running for governor – Erin Stewart – declined to attend the event.

Fazio and McCaughey both referenced Stewart’s absence without naming her directly.

Fazio’s references were structural. In his opening answer on taxation, he said questions asked in debates “are important for our candidates for governor to answer in an extemporaneous way, with no notes.” Later he said the question about how the candidates would work with a Democratic legislature “should be answered by all candidates.”

McCaughey was more direct. In her closing statement, she criticized her opponents.

“We need to win this election with bold solutions like eliminating the income tax — not baby steps, like reducing taxes $1,500, or what another candidate says, a vague promise for ‘something different.’”

“Something different” is Stewart’s campaign slogan. Stewart launched her gubernatorial campaign in November 2025 with the tagline “It’s time for something different,” positioning herself as a generational change candidate with executive experience from her 12 years as mayor of New Britain.

Stewart did not attend or comment on the debate.

A note from Arthur

Feather Ruffler’s policy is “not partisan, but non-neutral.” I don’t think “having an opinion” should be considered “bias.” It’s not bias to recognize some ideas are better or worse than others. Additionally, it is difficult to control for things like asymmetrical coverage or incomplete reporting without a team of people aware of these concerns.

With that in mind, I think Fazio performed better at the debate and this article may reflect that view.

McCaughey appeared to succeed in getting across the branding she wanted for her campaign. She has a fiery speaking style and is actively seeking endorsements from national Republicans. She wants to focus on homeowners and reverse the state income tax which was introduced in her lifetime.2 That may be her brand — I just personally hate it.

A 78-year-old woman using cringe poems and stupid nicknames to court an endorsement from Donald Trump in pursuit of policy pipe dreams is everything I do not want in an elected official. Everything you can Google about how she stopped being Lieutenant Governor of New York I also find totally disqualifying.

Fazio is a strong contrast. He talked about a number of policies in detail. He didn’t insult his Republican opponents — or any Democrats. He took several opportunities to agree with McCaughey during the debate and even said something nice about the incumbent Governor while laying out his policy disagreements.

I would have liked to see Stewart attend the debate to articulate her priorities and defend herself from common criticisms, but she didn’t.

Between three candidates where one seems normal, another is everything I hate about national politics, and a third one doesn’t even show up — it’s hard to come to any other view than a preference for Fazio’s candidacy.

There is a lot of pizza in Stamford. How much pizza? And what’s the difference between all of them?

That was the mission of Feather Ruffler’s Definitive Guide to Stamford Pizza. This article is real journalism — informing the public about their pizza options in Stamford using a detailed description of the various pizzas in town. This guide may be used to:

• Find your favorite pizza place.

• Understand why you like certain pizzas and not others.

• Argue with other people about pizza supremacy.

• Give new arrivals a fun activity — like trying every pizza place on the list.

However you choose to use this list, remember what this list is not.

This is not a “ranking” of pizza in Stamford.

There may be numbers and pictures in this guide, but there are no “rankings.” I have my own personal preferences, but who cares? There are many ways to enjoy pizza.

Instead, the guide provides an attempt to objectively measure the different ways to make a pizza. This begins by identifying the three core elements of the pizza and defining a “spectrum” of each individual element. These elements and ends of the spectrum include:

• Crust, with a spectrum between chewy and crunchy. Sometimes crust has a distinctive “crunch” noise and sensation when you bite into it. Other times, the crust melds with the other elements so it feels more “chewy.” Our crust evaluation includes the “end crust” — the part you hold while eating pizza — but also the “under crust” which is what the majority of the pizza rests on. Remember all “end crust” is typically crunchy, even if the “under crust” is otherwise “chewy.” This guide frequently uses the word “crisp” and “crispy” which should be read as a gradation of “crunch” and “crunchy.”

  • The chewiest rating is doughy.

  • The crunchiest rating is fire-kissed.

• Sauce, with a spectrum between subtle and strong. When you bite into pizza you will taste flavor. Sometimes the sauce has a strong influence on the flavor. Other times, the sauce has a subtle influence on the flavor. In creating this guide, we always isolate the sauce and taste it independently from the rest of the pizza to verify where the flavor comes from. At the same time, a lot of pizza is cooked so the cheese and sauce “meld” together. In those instances, we talk about the “sauce” as a general “flavor.”

  • The subtlest rating is absent.

  • The strongest rating is dominant.

• Cheese, with a spectrum between light and heavy. Simply put, sometimes pizza has a heavy amount of cheese and other times it’s light. We evaluate cheese on volume because it’s the most objective measurement of the cheese’s influence on the pizza.

  • The lightest rating is sparse.

  • The heaviest rating is loaded.

This guide also identifies a primary element. This is not the “best” element, but which element – between crust, sauce, and cheese – is most present in the bite experience. In other words, what do you experience when you bite into the pizza? The idea behind identifying the primary element in the bite experience is to help people identify if it’s the type of pizza they might like.

Again: this is not a list of the best pizza. Your pizza is not “better” if the evaluation is on the right-side of the spectrum. It’s not a rating. There are many ways to enjoy pizza. We hope this guide helps you find the pizzas you enjoy.

Finally, this guide will continue to grow. Future updates will include:

• Literally every single pizza place. Currently the guide has 21 pizza places. I only stopped because I started to get really bad heartburn from eating pizza every day. Some obvious misses include:

  • Cove Pizza

  • John the Baker

  • Michael’s Pizza

  • Pizza Planet

  • T’s

  • Towne Parlor

  • Westover Pizzeria

• Unique options. This guide is purely for cheese pizza, but not every pizza place is known for its cheese pizza. This may include the white pizza from Slice, the Lomo Saltado from Cove, the best Hawaiian, etc.

• Pizza by the slice and pricing. Not everyone wants to order a whole pie. Where can you get a slice and how much does it cost?

Future updates are TBD.

Pizza Terminology:

• Tavern style. Extremely thin crust – thinner than New York Style – crispy and chewy at the same time. Pies tend to be smaller with simple ingredients.

• Greek style. Brittle crust that holds its shape but easily broken down in the bite experience. Heavy emphasis on cheese.

• New York style. Thin crust with outer layer of crispiness for an otherwise chewy bite experience. Flavor is traditionally from the sauce with minimal cheese.

• New Haven style. Crunchy and thin crust – frequently charred for flavor with powdery flour residue to create what I refer to as a “fire tasting crust.”

• Neapolitan style. Soft and puffy crust with occasional charred spots. Cooked at extremely high heat for a very short amount of time.

• Neighborhood style. I am borrowing this term from someone who joined me for these tastings. A neighborhood pizza doesn’t fit the above terms, but it’s what someone local might say “yeah, that’s pizza to me.” A “middle of the road” pizza with no primary element.

Definitive Guide to Stamford Pizza

Last updated: April 18, 2026

The list is alphabetical. Here’s what the list includes:

• Amore.

• Atlantic Street House.

• Belltown Pizzeria.

• Coalhouse Pizza.

• Colony Grill.

• Fairfield Pizza.

• Fortina.

• Frank Pepe Pizzeria.

• Hope Pizza.

• John’s Pizza.

• Lucy’s Pizza.

• Mario the Baker.

• Nick’s Pizza.

• Pappas Pizza.

• Pellicci’s.

• Quartiere.

• Remo’s.

• Riko’s.

• Sally’s Apizza.

• Slice Stamford.

• Sergio’s Pizza.

Amore

Neapolitan style.

921 Hope Street, Stamford, CT 06907. Springdale neighborhood.

Primary Element: Sauce.

Crust. Amore’s pizza crust is closest to the Neapolitan style, but it is slightly different. Like with other Neapolitan pizzas, Amore’s crust is fluffy and lightly crispy. You’ll get a slight crunch at the outermost layer of the crust, but it is otherwise a chewy bite experience. There is also light charring, but it is a minimal amount of that fire taste so it does not overwhelm the flavor profile. What’s most different for Amore’s crust compared to typical Neapolitan is it is very flaky and thin. It’s easy for bits of crust to break off and fall into your plate/lap while you eat. Both the under crust and end crust are thinner than usual too. This isn’t a pizza where you find yourself chewing on the crust for a while. The under crust is especially thin – which minimizes the amount of crispiness in the bite experience. Generally, a challenging crust to evaluate on our scale since the different elements work against each other. Slightly Chewy.

Sauce. Amore’s pizza has a lot of sauce and a lot of spices in the sauce. The most prevalent spice is oregano, but generally this is an herbaceous sauce. The flavor profile of the sauce is the mixture of different spices and herbs. There’s still a slightly acidic tomato base flavor, but it is minimal compared to the other flavors in the bite experience. Beyond the flavor, the amount of sauce is also well above average. I believe Amore may be the juiciest bite experience of all pizzas in Stamford. You can feel the sauce in every bite. Dominant.

Cheese. Amore’s pizza has a lot of cheese. The overall amount is high, but Amore also uses multiple types of cheese. The most obvious is parmesan – sprinkled across the entire pie. The base cheese appears to be a mixture of several cheeses as well, but I can’t identify the different ingredients from taste alone. The amount of cheese for Amore is unique because this is a style of pizza that does not typically have an above average amount of cheese. Very Heavy.

Overall. You might call Amore a “fancy pizza,” because its flavor profile is defined by herbs and the establishment is a restaurant rather than a pizza place. If you have some preconceptions of what pizza should taste like – specifically that it shouldn’t have too many herbs or parmesan cheese, etc. – then Amore may be beyond what you’d consider for pizza. If you don’t have those preconceptions, Amore surprised me as one of the more unique options in the city. It’s one of the few pizzas that has something interesting going on with all three elements rather than focus on one or the other. If nothing else, this is the juiciest pizza thanks to its heavy sauce application and that may be reason enough to check it out.

Atlantic Street House

Greek style.

221 Atlantic Street, Stamford, CT 06901. Downtown neighborhood.

Primary element: Cheese.

Crust. Greek style pizza is generally on the “chewy” side of the spectrum, but Atlantic Street House is uniquely chewy. The dough has a light cook. Its texture is soft and its color appears white rather than brown or charred. If you like the idea of an “undercooked” crust, that is what you’re getting with Atlantic Street House. The end crust has a Focaccia bread type of bite experience. The end crust has a bit of crunch — all end crust does — but it’s an airy crunch with minimal resistance in the bite. I would call it “brittle.” Hard at first but breaks easily. Overall, the crust experience melds with the cheese into a ball of savory flavor. Doughy.

Sauce. Minimal sauce with no detectable flavor. I wasn’t able to isolate the sauce to taste it independently from the rest of the pizza. It’s very subtle and lightly applied. Absent.

Cheese. Consistent with Greek style pizza, there is a heavy application of cheese for this pizza. For Atlantic Street House specifically, I would say the entirety of the pizza hinges on your opinion of the cheese. It is not heavily seasoned. There’s no detectable saltiness, oregano, or acidity to the flavor profile. It’s driven by the savory flavor of hot cheese. The heavy application means there’s a lot of grease/oil which is the sole contributing flavor of the pizza. Very Heavy.

Overall. Atlantic Street House is one of many Greek style pizzas in the city, but this is the “most Greek style” of any others. It’s very heavy on the cheese, it is very chewy with the crust, and the sauce is essentially not there. There’s no other flavors beyond what you get with standard crust and melted cheese.

Belltown Pizzeria

Neighborhood style.

31 Belltown Road, Stamford, CT 06905. Midtown (Bulls Head) neighborhood.

Primary Element: Balanced.

Crust. Distinctive crunch, minimal doughiness due to overall thinness. It’s on the crunch side of the crunchy-to-chewy spectrum but just barely. Average.

Sauce. Sauce is lightly applied underneath the cheese. It presents very prominently where the cheese meets the end crust, but its flavor contributions are mild. There is a garlic flavor profile, but it is a taste that is influenced by garlic and not purely a “garlic tasting sauce.” Average.

Cheese. Cheese is thick enough to act as a unique layer of the pizza. I want to say it is “above average”, but I think that’s mostly because so many pizzas in Stamford have a lighter application of cheese. Maybe it’s a little bit more than usual. Average.

Overall. No clear primary element of the pizza. This is a middle-of-the-road option for many people with no clear preferences between crust, sauce, and cheese.

Coalhouse Pizza

Neapolitan style.

85 High Ridge Road, Stamford, CT 06905. Midtown (Bulls Head) neighborhood.

Primary Element: Crust

Crust: It’s not crispy at all. There is a little “crisp” at the top layer of the bite experience, but this is squarely on the “chewy” side. In fact, it may be the “chewiest” of all pizzas in Stamford, but my only hesitation in giving it that designation is it is more “fluffy” than chewy. There’s a lot of air in the crust, so it’s not very dense. It’s a light bite experience. Additionally, the crust has a minimal amount of charred spots, so there is that fire-influenced taste you might get from a Sally’s. But considering Sally’s is so crispy – bordering on crunchy – and Coalhouse is not, this is one of the more unique pizzas in the city. I think the other elements are pretty significant to the bite experience, but ultimately there is a lot of crust in a coalhouse pizza and if you don’t like the crust you won’t like the pizzas. Very Chewy.

Sauce: This sauce is easy to overlook because the other two elements are so prominent or unique, but there is a healthy amount of sauce on this pizza. The flavor profile is closer to an acidic savory taste rather than sweet. Coalhouse makes a point to mention their basic pizza is mozzarella “and basil,” and you can understand why they chose to mention a spice that most pizza places would not name directly. The sauce tastes like Basil. There’s probably some other spices in there too – garlic likely – but the Basil flavor is distinct and easy to identify. Slightly Strong.

Cheese: Significantly above average on the cheese application. Potentially the cheesiest pizza that isn’t straight-up Greek style (which is known for more cheese). You’ll get a clear stack of it on your pizza, and it can slide off or get pulled off when you’re biting because there’s so much of it. Some pizzas rely on the cheese to be a conduit for flavor delivered by the sauce, but Coalhouse tastes like cheese. It is a core part of the bite experience and flavor profile. Moderately Heavy.

Overall. Coalhouse reminds me of an old brand from New England called Bertucci’s. Maybe that was just the last time I had Neapolitan style pizza. It’s different from all the more popular styles in the area. Coalhouse leans into uniqueness by offering a crazy number of customized pizzas. The menu has a list of some 30+ different types of pizza. They’re all variations of familiar – and not-so-familiar toppings or sauces – but the point is not a lot of people are ordering plain cheese. There’s a lot to explore here.

Colony Grill

Tavern style.

172 Myrtle Avenue, Stamford, CT 06902. Cove neighborhood.

[I forgot to take a photo]

Primary element: Crust.

Crust. This is a strange crust to assess. There is no “crunch” sensation in the bite experience (other than the end crust). However, it is a uniquely “firm” dough. The under crust feels compacted into a dense material. It takes slightly more effort to chew through than other crusts. The bite experience is definitely chewy, but it is so firm it feels inappropriate to log it alongside other pizzas that are “soft.” This gets a middle rating because of the clash of sensations. Average.

Sauce. The pizza’s flavor is guided by the sauce, but it is a light influence. The flavor profile is sweet. This may be one of the sweetest tasting sauces in Stamford’s pizza scene, which means it is also a unique flavor compared to other options in town. Moderately Subtle.

Cheese. Essentially nonexistent. It appears porous — as if it has been worn out and is now riddled with holes piercing to the sauce underneath. Sparse.

Overall. Colony Grill originated Stamford’s hot oil pizza (see below for more details). It’s a local legend and not coincidentally the highest-rated pizza place in Stamford (4.7 out of 5 with more than 1,000 reviews). Colony Grill Pizza is a very thin crust pizza defined by its sauce. Served exclusively as personal pies, the thinness ensures pretty much anyone can finish a pizza on their own. Colony Grill’s sauce is unique because it is closer to sweet rather than savory, but the general flavor profile is subtle. Of course, this is an assessment of Colony’s plain cheese pizza, but you’re probably interested in the below assessment of the hot oil pizza.

Hot Oil

Colony Grill is one of the places that pioneered hot oil pizza. You should try it.

What is hot oil pizza? Stamford is the origin of hot oil pizza, and it is arguably the city’s defining culinary cuisine. Originally created at Colony Grill, it has since spread to other pizza places around town. Walk into any pizza place and ask for “hot oil” and they will know what you are talking about (although, not all places offer it).

Colony Grill is credited with creating hot oil pizza, but many people in town compare it to Riko’s.

The assessment for Feather Ruffler’s Definitive Guide to Stamford Pizza is exclusive to plain cheese pizza. With that in mind, the above assessment is for plain cheese. If you are interested in an assessment of hot oil pizza, read below:

Crust. Identical to the cheese pizza experience. Very firm but otherwise chewy. Slightly Chewy.

Sauce. Unsurprisingly, when you add a spicy hot oil to the sauce it immediately becomes the most defining element of the pizza. Everything about the bite experience becomes defined by this hot oil, which has a miraculous ability of redefining the other elements in service to the hot oil. The “heat” of the hotness can vary – likely dictated by the jalapeno peppers that come at the center of the pizza, which can be very hot or somewhat sweet. Dominant.

Cheese. Even less of a focus with the sauce overwhelming the flavor profile. Sparse.

Fairfield Pizza

Neighborhood style.

87 Atlantic Street, Stamford, CT 06901. Downtown neighborhood.

Primary Element: Cheese.

Crust. Very much a chewy crust experience. Of course, the end crust has some crunch, but the majority of the slice is chewy. It blends with the heavy application of cheese so there is not a distinct flavor profile between the crust and the rest of the pizza. Very Chewy.

Sauce. Sauce exists entirely for the function of lubricating the pizza. The sauce has no detectable flavor at all. It is not sweet or savory. The sauce does not influence the bite experience at all, you can’t even tell it is there. Occasionally, you will bite into an herb used for seasoning, but the experience is completely absent of any sauce influence. Absent.

Cheese. The most prominent element of this pizza. The cheese is not heavily seasoned. The bite experience is a soft chewiness that makes it feel like a “comfort” experience. It’s the type of pizza you get when you’re craving something warm and savory. Moderately Heavy.

Overall. Fairfield Pizza could be called “generic pizza.” It doesn’t have a distinct style, or flavor profile. It’s essentially “warm food” which could be exactly what you are looking for under the right circumstances.

Fortina

Neapolitan Style?

120 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06902. Harbor Point neighborhood.

Primary Element: Crust.

Crust. Fortina’s pizza feels “light” and that’s driven by its crust. It’s a fluffy and chewy crust. Thin enough in the under crust to have no real “crisp” in the bite experience. The end crust has a slight crisp in the bite, but otherwise it is a fluffy and airy dough. Fortina does char its pizza but a very minimal amount. It is enough to get a distinct fire taste on the end crusts, but the under crust is plain white. The pizza does have a powdery bite experience – but again it is the most minimal amount I’ve come across in this list. The fiery char and slight powder elevates the evaluation on what would otherwise be a very chewy crust. Very Chewy.

Sauce. Fortina’s sauce is melded with its cheese, but its flavor profile is primarily sauce. More specifically, it is the Mediterranean spices like oregano and basil leaves. These are unique flavors in the grand scheme of Stamford pizzas, but there is minimal usage of them. The flavor of Fortina’s sauce is very light and subtle. Very Subtle.

Cheese. Fortina’s cheese is melded with its sauce, and the cheese flavor is practically nonexistent. This is already a very thin under crust and the cheese layer is similarly very thin. Sparse.

Overall. Fortina’s pizza feels like a pizza for people who don’t want to feel guilty about getting pizza. It’s very light. No strong flavors in any direction other than the slight char taste of its crust. Fortina does have a number of specialty pizzas with interesting combinations like burrata, chili honey, or jalapenos – but the plain cheese is very much a no-frills pizza.

Frank Pepe Pizzeria

New Haven style.

64 High Ridge Road, Stamford, CT 06905. Midtown (Bulls Head) neighborhood.

Primary element: Crust.

Crust. Definitely on the crunchier side of the spectrum. Frank Pepe’s crust accomplishes what other high-tier pizza places can do with their crust – which is provide a slight “crunch” at the outermost layer of the crust for an otherwise chewy experience. This is common for regional pizzas in New Haven and occasionally New York City. Even with that in mind, I would consider Pepe’s a bit crunchier compared to other similar pies – which is consistent with New Haven’s style of a crisp and charred crust. Moderately Crunchy.

Sauce. Frank Pepe’s has a very present tomato flavor in their pizza. You will occasionally get more olive oil in some bites which compliments the tomato and pecorino cheese nicely. The combined flavors of the tomato, olive oil, and pecorino is very pleasant. I can’t verify this myself, but I would say Frank Pepe’s tastes like a pizza that’s selecting for above average ingredients compared to other pizza places in town. The sauce has a distinct flavor, but it isn’t overpowering or lightly applied. Average.

Cheese. You can order a pie with mozzarella, but it is worth mentioning this is not a default option at Frank Pepe’s. The “standard pie” is a tomato pie with no mozzarella. Instead, there is pecorino cheese – a cheese that looks like tiny balls of cheese that has a bitter taste compared to other typical cheeses for pizza. The pecorino is also present if you order a basic + mozzarella pizza and it is the most distinctive flavor on the pie. Pecorino may be bitter by comparison, but when mixed with the tomato sauce and olive oil it doesn’t create a bitter flavor profile. It is distinct though and really unlike any other pizza option in Stamford. This specific cheese combo is unique, but it is just below the average level of cheese application. Slightly Light.

Overall. The evaluation of the sauce and cheese for Frank Pepe’s may give the impression this is a “middle of the road” pizza, but this is really an example where the sum is more than its parts. It’s a very pleasant flavor profile that feels “light” to eat. It’s not one of those pizzas where you feel you just ate a whole pizza and now it’s rolling in your stomach. I think what stands out for me is I managed to appreciate the charred flavor of the crust – even though I personally do not enjoy charred style crust. That stands out to me because it shows Frank Pepe’s is a little more put together than similar options. My guess is this is related to ingredients and cooking instructions – which would make sense. Frank Pepe’s in Stamford is a real institution. Wait times are incredibly long for both dine-in and take-out. They seem to know what they’re doing.

Unique option. Frank Pepe’s is specifically known for its “White Clam” pizza. This pizza is so distinct from how we rate pizzas that we didn’t include it in this guide. But it is a regional delicacy, and we recommend it if you like the typical Frank Pepe pizza.

Hope Pizza

Greek style.

230 Hope Street, Stamford, CT 06906. Glenbrook neighborhood.

Primary Element: Cheese

Crust. Hope Street Pizza follows other Greek style pizzas which tend to have “chewy” crust. Hope Street Pizza is unique because their crust tastes more like bread compared to other options in the area. There is a granular consistency to the dough itself which creates a “brittle” bite experience in the crust. I use the word “brittle” to describe how the crust is firm and hard like other crispy crusts – it is not malleable or squishy like some other chewy crusts – but with minimal pressure it collapses in the bite experience. This gives the sensation of a crisp crunch on the end crusts specifically, but this is largely a chewy crust. The bready taste, granular texture, and brittle firmness makes it a bit crunchier than a typical “chewy,” so I’ve moved it across the spectrum in reflection of those unique elements. Moderately Chewy.

Sauce. Somewhere in Hope Street Pizza is a significant portion of spices. It’s not in every bite, because often the tomato sauce for this pizza is subtle. It’s on the savory side (compared to “sweet”) for pizza sauces. Occasionally you will get a burst of flavors from different herbs and spices used in the sauce and applied to the pizza. However, the sauce’s flavor is a mild contribution to the bite experience. Slightly Subtle.

Cheese. Hope Street Pizza is like many Greek style pizzas that put more emphasis on the cheese. There is a hefty amount of cheese on this pizza, enough that you can identify it on sight. The amount of cheese means “cheese” is one of the flavor profiles of the bite experience. This is true for Hope Street Pizza too. The cheese is thick enough to rest on top of the slice, and it can easily slide off with a generous bite or when it’s fresh out of the oven. Moderately Heavy.

Overall. Hope Street Pizza is classic Greek style pizza. It’s a popular neighborhood location and it is tied for the third-highest rated pizza place in Stamford (4.6 out of 5, over 900 reviews). The one thing about Hope Street Pizza is it is fairly inconsistent when it comes to cook duration. I lived down the street from Hope Street Pizza for 3 years and there are times where it’s doughier and light and other times where it is hard and charred. As an average trend, Hope Street tends to be a longer cook than other pizzas – which may or may not be your thing depending on your relationship to crust and the bite experience.

John’s Pizza

Greek style.

162 Grove Street, Stamford, CT 06901. Downtown neighborhood.

Primary Element: Cheese

Crust. Like other Greek style pizzas, John’s Pizza has a “brittle” crust. It maintains its shape and form – it’s not malleable or easily squished – but the “crisp” factor is very light in the bite experience. Just a minimal amount of resistance in your bite and it’ll collapse into your mouth. The under crust for John’s is very soft. The exact chewiness can be inconsistent, but at times John’s can be very “doughy.” You could call it a “light cook” as opposed to a “well done” cook you can get in some pizza places in town. The flavor of the crust is very bready. Very Chewy.

Sauce. John’s Pizza’s sauce is savory, but subtle. It’s not sweet and doesn’t have too many herbs or spices – although you will see an occasional basil leaf in the sauce. When I isolated the sauce for its own flavor inspection, it had its own savory flavor, but it wasn’t a powerful taste. The sauce may have more impact if it wasn’t crowded out so much by the cheese. Slightly Subtle.

Cheese. John’s Pizza is the cheesiest pizza out of all pizzas in Stamford. The amount of cheese can be inconsistent, but on average it is a significant portion of cheese – enough to define the entire pizza. Cheese influences both the bite experience and the flavor profile. The “flavor” of John’s Pizza is cheese. There’s enough of it to get a variety of deeper and lighter cooks (evident in the brown spots you can see in the photo) which creates a varied flavor profile which you really won’t get outside of Greek style pizza. The texture of the bite is also dominated by cheese. Most of what you’re eating is cheese, so there is a consistent chewiness specifically because there is so much cheese. If your standard for pizza is “as much cheese as possible” this is the peak for Stamford pizzas. Loaded.

Overall. John’s Pizza is the polar extreme of a Greek style pizza. If all the other pizza styles focus on either crust or sauce, this is the one pizza place in town that focuses on cheese. Whether it’s “good” or not depends solely on how you feel about eating a bunch of warm cheese on an edible plate. It’s not for everybody, but it is unique and fulfills that desire for those who want it.

Lucy’s Pizza

Neighborhood style.

157 Stillwater Avenue, Stamford, CT 06902. West Side neighborhood.

Primary Element: Cheese

Crust. Lucy’s Pizza has the chewiest crust in the city. Even the end crust — which is typically the crispiest part of the pizza – barely registers a “crunch” in the bite experience. The crust is more doughy than “brittle.” The end crust can be squishy and malleable. There is a slight crunch on the outermost layer of the crust, but the bite experience is very soft. Doughy.

Sauce. Lucy Pizza’s sauce is similar in flavor profile to Greek style pizzas, but there’s more of it. The pizza itself looks redder in photos. You can easily peel the cheese from the sauce. It doesn’t meld together like with some pizzas. When you isolate the sauce from the cheese and crust, there’s a lot to see! The bite experience is heavily influenced by the presence of the sauce – giving it a little more of a meatier savory flavor profile compared to similar style pizzas. With that in mind, the overall impact of the sauce is mild. It’s not distinctly flavorful compared to the other elements. All three of the elements work together in similar measure. Average.

Cheese. Lucy’s Pizza is a bit hard to categorize, but its distinction from other pizzas in the area is the above average amount of cheese. I am close to considering it “Greek style” — specifically because of the amount of cheese — but its biggest difference from that style is it has more sauce. Moderately Heavy.

Overall. Lucy’s Pizza is close to being in the “Greek style” category of pizza, but the presence of significantly more sauce and substantially doughier crust makes it unique. I would describe the bite experience as “comfy.”

Mario the Baker

Neighborhood style.

864 High Ridge Road, Stamford, CT 06905.

Primary Element: Crust.

Crust. Mario the Baker has a crispy end crust and under crust. The texture is hard. The under crust is intentionally charred with the fire “char” taste acting as a significant influence for the bite experience. The under crust is thin, but the end crust is thick enough to have a bready taste. The crispy bite experience, charred taste, and thick breadiness makes it one of the crispiest bite experiences in the city. Very Crunchy.

Sauce. Mario the Baker’s sauce melds with the cheese, so there is very little sauce present in the bite experience. When you isolate the sauce, it is primarily a tomato taste with an above average acidity flavor profile – but it’s subtle and not overwhelming. Very Subtle.

Cheese. Mario the Baker’s pizza has the cheese meld with the sauce. There is an above average amount of cheese, and it can easily slide off the slice. When you get the pizza hot the cheese’s consistency is drippy. It’s easy for it to pool to different sides and drip off the pizza itself. Slightly Heavy.

Overall. The liquid nature of the cheese may present Mario the Baker as a sauce-oriented pizza, but the flavor profile is pretty traditional. The most unique thing about Mario the Baker is it veers into a very crunchy rating because of the hard texture and charred flavor in the bite experience.

Nick’s Pizza

New York style.

522 Glenbrook Road, Stamford, CT 06906. Glenbrook neighborhood.

Primary Element: Crust.

Crust. Nick’s Pizza crust has a very slight crunch for an otherwise soft crust. Every single bite has the definition “New York style” bite experience where the outermost layer of the crust has a distinctive crunch, followed by a very pleasant chewiness. While this is the standard expectation for New York style, Nick’s Pizza executes on its chosen style very competently. It is for this reason the crust is considered the primary element. Every bite in the experience is defined by that slight crunch followed by a chewy crust. Slightly Crunchy.

Sauce. Nick’s Pizza Sauce is savory and feels punchy. The sauce has an obvious influence on the flavor the pizza. You could call it acidic but not grating or irritating. Sauce is heavily applied, each bite feels “wet.” Moderately Strong.

Cheese. Cheese is just slightly below average in terms of application. Cheese is not the focus of the pizza. Average.

Overall. Nick’s is a classic “New York style” pizza but executed better than most other similar pizzas in the area.

Pappas Pizza

Greek style.

201 Main Street, Stamford, CT 06901. Downtown neighborhood.

[I forgot to take a photo]

Primary Element: Cheese.

Crust. Pappas’ Pizza is “Greek style”, but it is unique because it is a more deeply cooked crust than other options. The under crust has a slight “crisp” in the bite experience and the end crust is prominent in its crispiness. Of the other Greek style pizzas Pappas has the crispiest end crust, but it is still faithful to the Greek style approach to crust. This is still a very chewy crust that melds with the rest of the flavor. Moderately Chewy.

Sauce. Pappas’ Sauce melds with the cheese, but if you isolate it from the crust and cheese there is minimal flavor and substance of the sauce. You can barely see it on the pie itself, and the flavor profile is primarily tomato and “savory” influences – as seen with similar Greek style pizzas. Very Subtle.

Cheese. Pappas’ Pizza is a distinctly “Greek Style” pizza, where the cheese is the most prominent element of the pizza. There is a thick amount of cheese – enough to be cooked at different amounts. The flavor profile of the bite experience is varied between lightly cooked – and deeply cooked – cheese on the pizza. In general, the flavor profile is defined by the cheese. The light amount of sauce melds with the cheese to create the flavor profile for the pizza. Moderately Heavy.

Overall. The most unique thing about Pappas Pizza is it is the only “Greek Style” pizza that offers hot oil. If you prefer a heavy cheese pizza – which is typical for Greek style – but still want to try the “hot oil” staple of Stamford… this is really your only option.

Pellicci’s

Neighborhood style.

96 Stillwater Avenue, Stamford, CT 06902. West Side neighborhood.

Primary Element: Crust

Crust. Pellicci’s crust is most similar to the “fire cooked” crispy crust unique to New Haven style. The crust has charred spots that give a “fire” taste to different spots. It also has the grainy crust experience, but it doesn’t go all the way with powder residue. As far as I can tell, this is the only pizza place in Stamford that has this style of crust without being a New Haven based chain with a local location. At the same time, Pellicci’s crust is not as deeply cooked as similar New Haven pizzas. It’s certainly a deeper cook than the average pizza place in town, but not the extreme you can find elsewhere. Moderately Crunchy.

Sauce. Pellicci’s sauce has a lot of influence on the bite experience of its pizza because of the flavor profile. It’s mostly a tomato taste – rather than spices or herbs – and I think it tastes “fresher.” It may be higher quality ingredients, or potentially a different ratio of tomatoes to other liquids in the creation of the sauce that make it taste more refreshing. It’s a mild flavor, but distinct from the cheese. The pizza also has an above average amount of oil – enough you can see it on the pie. Average.

Cheese. Pellicci’s cheese melts into its sauce. When you isolate the cheese from the sauce, it is clear the cheese has more influence from spices. The mixture is unique, so while it is easy to detect garlic there is likely a variety of other flavors mixed into the pizza’s cheese. Average.

Overall. Pellicci’s pizza is somewhat incidental to its establishment. This is a very old and well-known Italian restaurant with an indoor décor that might be appropriate for celebrating an anniversary. The history makes it a Stamford classic, and its pizza is a unique option compared to all other options. The fire cooked crust makes it closer to the New Haven style pizzas in the area, but it’s got its own level of cook and combination of flavors.

Quartiere

Neapolitan style.

51 Bank Street, Stamford, CT 06901. Downtown neighborhood.

Primary Element: Sauce.

Crust. Quartiere’s crust is doughy. It’s undoubtedly chewy and lacks any perceivable crisp in the bite experience at all. However, it does have light charring for flavor and a tiny amount of flour residue to create a very slight fire taste. It’s possible this crust is just as chewy in texture and consistency as others – with an airy end crust and overall doughy flavor – but the fire influenced flavors bump it up just a tad. Very Chewy.

Sauce. Quartiere’s sauce is the classic crushed tomato sauce you’ll get from Neapolitan style pizza, but it is unique by focusing on the sauce. This is one of those pizzas where there are spots of cheese rather than a whole layer of cheese across the entire pie. The red sauce fills in the gaps in between which naturally elevates the prominence of the sauce. Unlike other Neapolitan style pizzas in Stamford, Quartiere’s sauce is not full of herbs and spices. It’s a tomato flavor profile that is slightly acidic and more mild in flavor than distinctly savory or sweet. The sauce is most prominent because of how it contributes to the bite experience. It’s juicy with each bite, even when you’re including the crust and even when it’s cooled down a few minutes later. Slightly Strong.

Cheese. Quartiere’s cheese is in spots rather than a full layer. This might give the expectation the cheese is not very prominent, but it is a healthy amount of cheese. It influences the bite experience both with texture (chewy) and flavor (tastes like high quality mozzarella). The establishment claims they add pecorino to the cheese, but I didn’t taste anything other than basic mozzarella. Average.

Overall. Quartiere may have the look and style of Neapolitan, but it’s trimmed back compared to other options. It focuses on classic flavors like straight tomato and cheese. The business also typically offers bay leaves as a garnish for its margherita pizza, but I chose not to include that for our assessment.

Remo’s

New York style.

35 Bedford Street, Stamford, CT 06901. Downtown neighborhood.

Primary Element: Sauce.

Crust: New York style crust has a very thin layer of distinct “crunch” in an otherwise chewy bite experience. Remo’s crust is crispier than other similar pizzas. The end crusts can have a “crack” bite experience that can occasionally be dryer than other pizzas. Remo’s is not a charred crust, but it can sometimes verge close to that style for the end crust. Moderately Crunchy.

Sauce: Remo’s Pizzeria has a juicy tomato sauce. The bite experience is focused on the wetness of each bite — flavored with a combination of spices that certainly includes garlic and potentially some green spice/herb like basil. This is a pretty classic flavor profile for a New York style pizza. Moderately Strong.

Cheese: New York style pizza has a decent amount of cheese and Remo’s is no exception. The bite experience suggests the cheese is seasoned with spices in addition to the sauce, but I’m not confident. It could be a mix of both. There is a cooperation of flavors between the two elements – evident by the fact the cheese clings to the crust more so than other pizzas. Average.

Overall. Remo’s Pizzeria has a reputation of a crowd pleaser. If you go to a random event hosted somewhere downtown there is a high likelihood the catering is Remo’s pizza. Remo’s offers a classic margarita and “New York style.” This is an assessment of the New York style, which appears to be the more popular of the two options.

Unique option. Remo’s also has a “classic margherita” pizza, which is more sauce-based than the New York style pizza. It has a lighter flavor profile and crust. I may evaluate it at a later date, but it is less popular than the New York style.

Riko’s

Tavern style.

886 Hope Street, Stamford, CT 06907. Springdale neighborhood.1

2010 W Main Street, Stamford, CT 06902. West Side neighborhood.

Primary element: Crust.

Crust. Riko’s has a similar cracker-like look as Colony Grill, but it has a crispier bite experience. The under crust is on the chewier side. It is not “dense” like Colony Grill. The main point of distinction between Riko’s and other pizzas is its thinner, personal-sized pizzas. Average.

Sauce. Riko’s pizza sauce has a distinct tomato flavor. While some pizzas meld the sauce with the cheese for a blended savory flavor, or rely on spices for the flavor profile, the bite experience of Riko’s is clearly tomato. It is a light influence on the taste, but it is obvious. Moderately Subtle.

Cheese. Riko’s is known for its hot oil pizza, which downplays cheese in favor of the sauce flavors. The standard cheese pizza has minimal cheese. Again, it is frequently stretched thin and looks to be full of tiny holes that poke through to the sauce/under crust. Sparse.

Overall: Riko’s Pizzeria has a light tomato flavor that is otherwise defined by its very thin, cracker-style crust. It’s not as sweet as Colony Grill, but it is still directionally a sweeter pizza than other options. Like Colony Grill, Riko’s Pizzeria is known for its hot oil pizza. This is an assessment of the plain cheese. The hot oil assessment is below.

Hot Oil

Riko’s is one of the places that pioneered hot oil pizza. You should try it.

What is hot oil pizza? Stamford is the origin of hot oil pizza, and it is arguably the city’s defining culinary cuisine. Originally created at Colony Grill, it has since spread to other pizza places around town. Walk into any pizza place and ask for “hot oil” and they will know what you are talking about (although, not all places offer it).

Riko’s has some lore about its founders’ relationship with Colony Grill, but the important thing to know is these two pizza places are often considered very similar.

The assessment for Feather Ruffler’s Definitive Guide to Stamford Pizza is exclusive to plain cheese pizza. With that in mind, the above assessment is for plain cheese. If you are interested in an assessment of hot oil pizza, read below:

Crust. Identical to the cheese pizza experience. A crispy cracker-like crust. Average.

Sauce. When you add spicy hot oil to the sauce of a pizza – that becomes the most defining element of the pizza. It is remarkable how much this changes the bite experience. The hot oil redefines the other elements to be in service to the hot oil flavor. The “heat” of the hotness can vary – but in my experience, Riko’s tends to be “hotter” than Colony Grill. Dominant.

Cheese. Even less of a focus with the sauce overwhelming the flavor profile. Sparse.

Sally’s Apizza

New Haven style.

66 Summer Street, Stamford, CT 06901. Downtown neighborhood.

Primary Element: Crust

Crust. Sally’s crust is easily the most charred of any Stamford-based pizza. The end crust is often charred, but the underside of the pie also has a number of charred blotches. More than any other pizza, Sally’s tastes like it was cooked in fire. This is emphasized by the residual flour on the underside of the crust which gives it a powdery bite experience. Each bite has the crust coat your tongue in flour. This might sound very “dry”, but it’s balanced by the sauce (see below). The crust may be of similar crispiness to other high-crispiness rated pizzas on this list, but the charred flavor and flour powder makes it the end point of an extreme. Sally’s pizza is defined by the contributions of its crust, more so than any other pizza. If your standard for pizza is “I want the crispiest crust,” Sally’s is the peak of Stamford pizza. Fire-kissed.

Sauce. Sally’s bite experience is defined by the sauce. Like other similar pizzas, the cheese and sauce are blended together and tightly attached to the top crust. The bite experience is juicy. You feel a lot of fluid rush through your teeth when you bite into the pie. This is a unique experience, but it’s also why Sally’s probably travels the worst of any pizza in the city. If you’re not biting into it within 10 minutes of when it’s done, the sauce cools and the juicy experience is significantly muted compared to when hot. Moderately Strong.

Cheese. Sally’s cheese is lightly applied like similar New Haven or New York style pizzas. When isolating for flavor, it’s clear this pizza gets its flavor from combining with the sauce rather than the cheese itself. Sally’s – like other New Haven style pizzas – offers pies with no cheese at all, which suggests the importance of cheese to enjoying Sally’s. Very Light.

Overall. Locals in Stamford and New Haven tell me Sally’s pizza in Stamford is different than how it tastes in New Haven. This is apparently due to some cooking method that is unique to the New Haven location that cannot be replicated elsewhere due to environmental regulations. I can’t verify that, but even if another variant of Sally’s is “better,” this is still a unique pizza option in the Stamford pizza market. It is the crispiest pizza in the city not only because of the bite experience, but also the flavor profile of a charred crust with powdery residue that creates the impression it really came out of a fire. Even when compared to other New Haven style pizzas, Sally’s is unique. Again though, it’s easily the worst traveling pizza in the city — its flavor and bite experience will change dramatically between “fresh out the oven” and 10 minutes later. I’d recommend dining in.

Slice Stamford

New York style?

581 Newfield Avenue, Stamford, CT 06905. Midtown (Bulls Head) neighborhood.

Primary element: Cheese.

Crust. Mostly a chewy experience, but the end crust is significantly crunchy. The firmness of the crust suggests Slice is going for the experience of a distinctive crunch followed mostly by doughy chewiness, but the crust is thin enough that it all blends together. There is not a distinct “crunch” layer and “dough” layer. It’s all together. Moderately Chewy.

Sauce. Minimal sauce underneath the cheese which suggests this is a pizza where the sauce and cheese meld together. Tasting the sauce on its own, it has a barely perceivable flavor. My intuition says this is because the flavors are embedded in the cheese. Absent.

Cheese. The flavor of the pizza comes from the cheese itself. It tastes as if the cheese is seasoned, rather than the sauce — though more likely the sauce melds with the cheese. If you get a big glob of cheese it tastes salty, with garlic, and other herbs. The cheese stays attached to the slice, but it is possible to separate the cheese as a distinct layer from the crust. While the main portion of each slice is heavy on cheese, the overall slice can be light on cheese as you get closer to the crust — and especially if you order a pizza with toppings. Slightly Heavy.

Overall. Slice in Stamford claims to be “New York style,” but that is not how I would describe it. I would call this a neighborhood pizza. It is very popular and holds the second-highest rating of any pizza place in Stamford on Google Maps (4.7 out of 5, over 300 reviews). I believe it gained that accomplishment because of its variety. Feather Ruffler’s pizza guide is focused on cheese pizzas, but Slice has the appeal of many different styles available to order. When it comes to the basics… it’s pretty basic.

Sergio’s Pizza

Greek style.

985 E Main Street, Stamford, CT 06902. East Side neighborhood.

Primary element: Cheese.

Crust. Sergio’s Pizza is a chewy crust. Like other Greek style pizzas, Sergio’s crust is “brittle.” It maintains its shape and form – it’s not malleable or squishy – but the “crisp” factor is very light in the bite experience. A little bit of bite and it collapses. The under crust for Sergio’s is very soft. You could describe it as “doughy.” In my experience, Sergio’s may be doughier than other Greek style pizzas, but it tends to be a variable pizza. Very Chewy.

Sauce. Sergio’s Pizza sauce is savory and subtle. It’s not sweet. There are few herbs or spices to create strong flavors – and the seasoning is evenly spread out so there isn’t the rare burst of atypical flavor you may get with other pizza places. The sauce has more of a general “savory” taste rather than distinctly tomato or other flavors. The sauce may have more of an impact if the cheese wasn’t so prominent. Slightly Subtle.

Cheese. Sergio’s Pizza is roughly as cheesy as other Greek style pizzas. The “flavor” of Sergio’s Pizza is cheese. The amount of cheese is significant enough to result in a variety of deeper and lighter cooks of the cheese – evident in the brown spots you can see in photos. These varied cooks of the cheese created a varied flavor profile within the continuum of “cheese flavor” which is unique to Greek style. The texture of the bite is also dominated by the cheese. Most of what you’re biting is cheese and there is so much of it the “chewiness” is derived because of the amount of cheese. If your standard for pizza is “as much cheese as possible,” Sergio’s is one of the best options. Loaded.

Overall. I have to say the most significant thing about Sergio’s is it is unbelievably cheap. You can get a small cheese pizza for $6. That’s 60 cents per 166 calories. I think that is the most affordable meal in the whole city. Sergio’s has a lot of similarities to other Greek Style pizzas, but its low costs are probably why it is tied as Google Maps’ third-highest rated pizza place in Stamford (4.6 out of 5, over 900 reviews).

In the movie business, January is called a “dump month.” It’s where you offload all the low quality junk that wouldn’t perform if it had to compete. All publication channels are familiar with this dynamic. For political news there are few worse times to publish than a Friday afternoon. Everyone is going home, they got plans for the weekend, so no one is reading about your ribbon cutting. The only worse time to publish something is the bright early hours of a holiday. You might as well not publish it at all.

Hearst Connecticut published Mayor Caroline Simmons’ piece on the budget at 5am for Easter Sunday. It was immediately knocked off the Stamford Advocate’s Opinion carousel by another story about UConn Men’s Basketball. The article appears to have no formatting — not even paragraph breaks — suggesting it was copy/pasted and published without being read.

This piece doesn’t say anything. I imagine the whole city knows telling our mayor she did a bad job is tantamount to self-exile, so I volunteer to articulate why everyone reads this as vacuous bullshitting.

This week, Stamford residents have an important opportunity to weigh in on our city’s financial future. A municipal budget is a statement of our values and a roadmap for where we want our city to go. For FY2026-2027, I proposed a robust budgetary blueprint for the City of Stamford, designed to deliver progress on the issues residents care about most: investing in our schools, expanding affordable housing, and maintaining the critical infrastructure that keeps our neighborhoods vibrant and safe.

“Deliver results” is such a well-known business term it is enshrined as one of Amazon’s guiding principles. Everyone understands the value of delivering a result. You did something. Something happened.

That is far too much certainty for career politicians. They like to keep things to vague, so our mayor delivers progress.

What about “the issues residents care about most”? What are those issues? I think most people could rattle that off without any research. I certainly care about housing costs — whether it is rent or property taxes. I’m not in the school system, but it would be nice if they were not irradiated with mold. I guess you could keep the crime rate down? That keeps us safe and vibrant. Those issues come top of mind.

Of course, I’m not expecting results. I would never be so bold to expect an elected leader to do something. I want to see them deliver progress. Not the goal itself — some other ancillary second thing that’s kind of similar.

I don’t want a new school, I want to “invest in schools” (spend money).

I don’t want my rent to go down, I want to “expand affordable housing” (spend money).

Finally — I don’t have any expectations for our infrastructure, I just want to “maintain” whatever is “critical” (by spending money).

If any elected official ever dared to state an achievable goal, then I would be aghast at their recklessness. Every statement, action, and policy from political leaders should be graded on the metric of “could this be disingenuously repackaged in a 10 second attack ad decades from now?”

Be vague about your goals, so you can be vague about your failures. Don’t say you care to achieve anything. Signal some vague statement where it isn’t clear if you said anything. “We here for you.”

After all, none of this really matters. I don’t vote in a local election to change my community, I vote to give some aristocrat a resume item they can talk about in their memoir. My Quiet Strength or maybe The Power of a Smile. Maybe I’ll be quoted about how I brushed shoulders with them prior to the nascent and unidentified (but wholly positive) brand identity they will achieve later (somehow).

Heading into this budget cycle, our commitment to responsible budgeting puts us in a position to invest in our future. As we contend with fixed cost increases alongside municipalities nationwide, this budget reflects my commitment to making the tough decisions necessary so that we do not balance the budget on the backs of our residents. This is why Stamford continues to maintain an average mill rate that is lower than every other major city in Connecticut.

The first line essentially says “Heading into the budget, our commitment to having a budget positions us to have a budget.” Hard to tell who that explanation is for. Us? Or the author(s)?

The last sentence about the mill rate has no relationship to the rest of the paragraph. As covered elsewhere, Stamford’s mill rate is low because our property valuations are high. Comparing the mill rate to other communities in this way is — at best — dishonest and — at worst — illiterate. For example: one way to dramatically reduce the mill rate is to be in a housing crisis where valuations are artificially increased. You get more out of 4% on $1M then you do for 5% on $750k. Meanwhile everyone is paying more dollars for their tax bill.

I don’t know if I’ve heard of someone talk about a “tough decision” without referencing the aforementioned decision that was apparently tough. Is the tough decision that the mayor said no to some popular proposal or person? I don’t see any evidence of that. Is the tough decision agreeing to spend everyone else’s money? I guess if we’re evaluating “progress” over “results,” then why get bogged down on the details? Your money is flowing, ya know… somewhere — that isn’t your back!

Stamford is in a strong position today — backed by a AAA bond rating, year over year surpluses for the past four years including a current projected $6 million in surplus, growing revenues, and a grand list that has now grown from $22 to over $27 billion. This balanced growth coupled with responsible budgeting allows us to invest in neighborhoods, infrastructure, and our school system at a lower cost, saving taxpayers millions in debt service costs while funding vital projects.

While it is true it is much better to run a surplus over a deficit, this is government spending — not a business. Simmons has ran a surplus large enough to be the entirety of the tax increase the prior year. I have never seen that pitched as a good thing. Obviously, we’d rather have a surplus than a deficit, but double digit surpluses for half a decade is an accounting problem.

Our commitment to providing high-quality learning environments for our students and teachers remains one of my administration’s top priorities. For too long, our school buildings were neglected, but today, residents can see tangible progress happening across the city.

Progress: DELIVERED.

Construction for the new Westhill High School is set to begin this spring, and we are moving forward with critical safety and air quality upgrades at Newfield Elementary, AITE, and Northeast Elementary, as well as continued improvements at all our schools. Most importantly, by allocating an additional $10 million to Fund 57, we are responsibly funding our historic school construction program through current revenue rather than long-term debt. This strategy protects future generations from unmanageable debt while ensuring that our schools remain a positive asset for our community rather than a budget burden.

In the Martin administration, the construction of Strawberry Hill School was promoted for state-of-the-art media center, expanded classroom capacity to reduce overcrowding, and the historical preservation of a farmhouse on the property. For Westhill High School’s new half a billion dollar facility apparently all there is to say is “kids will breathe air and not die.” There probably is some cool achievement in that building — just not something the mayor has any interest in (not like her kids are going there).

I actually like Fund 57. It’s a smart decision to avoid interest costs. It is also the only substantive policy listed in this entire piece, so you may be unsurprised to know it was not the mayor’s idea. The Board of Finance came up with it.

The national housing crisis is felt deeply here in Stamford, and my administration is taking action to address this challenge. This budget proposes a $3 million investment to advance critical affordable housing initiatives. This includes $2 million to support the rehabilitation of 215 units at Stamford Manor serving seniors and non-elderly residents with disabilities, and $1 million to help redevelop 240 existing units into 305 affordable units at the St. John’s Towers site. This funding reflects a strategic approach to preserving and investing in our existing housing stock, while also preparing for responsible growth. Our goal is to ensure that everyone can afford to call Stamford home.

Finally, we’re onto housing — easily the number one issue in the city. I am encouraged the verbs have changed now that we’re talking about a real crisis. We have dispensed with delivering progress and now we are taking action. All right! What are we doing?

Everyone knows Stamford has high rents. The city has 130k+ residents and roughly 55,000 housing units. If we want to meaningful impact the cost of housing, we might replicate New Rochelle. In that city, a modest 1 percent increase in the housing stock every year for a decade stabilized rents and resulted in a brief decline in median rent between 2020 and 2023. That means Stamford could build 600 housing units a year to keep pace — or be a real leader in the space and commit to 1,100 new units a year. Maybe something really inspiring like 2,200 units a year to deliver real rent decreases within a mayoral 4-year term! I mean, New Rochelle proved it works despite being close to New York City, the city’s housing model is supported by Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, and this model would deliver progress addressing the challenge. Is this the new national Democratic platform Simmons is going to copy here? ARE WE GOING TO FLIP THE ‘FIX EVERYTHING EASILY’ SWITCH?!

No.

We’re getting a net 65 new units! A 0.1 percent increase!! And… wait a minute… Holy fucking shit! It’s NOT market housing?!! It’s 65 units that the vast majority of the public is ineligible to live in?!!! OMG!!!! I CAN’T BELIEVE IT!!!!! WE WON!!!!!!

I am also focused on building upon investments to improve vital infrastructure that keeps our city moving safely and efficiently. It’s important for residents’ quality of life, and it allows us to retain and attract new jobs and economic opportunities. Following the successful paving of more than 200 roads over the last four years, this budget continues our commitment to investing in our streets and sidewalks, upgraded roadway design to improve traffic flows, and enhancing bike and pedestrian safety.

I imagine on the seventh revision of this piece written by committee some despondent secondary aide made their greatest contribution by pointing out the word “critical” has already been used to describe infrastructure, safety, and affordable housing so now we have introduced a new adjective — vital infrastructure.

Otherwise yes, dare I say I do agree with our mayor — being able to move in a city is important to my quality of life. If I were not able to move, it may be difficult for me to depart for other economic opportunities, but witness me lord I would overcome this vexation at great haste for a domicile where they had no fewer than two hundred AND ONE(!) roads paved.

If I were such a sufferer of lethargy I might actually be deceived in the presentation of “enhanced bike safety” to imply — ever so surreptitiously — the arrival of a lane of traffic dedicated to mine own Schwinn. But fear not! No promise of biking infrastructure was promised! Only “bike safety.” As stated in our ambitious Vision Zero there is no greater safety initiative than discouraging travel at all. No bike lanes at all! No, no no!

Additionally, our $73.2 million capital plan prioritizes investments in our parks and neighborhood assets, including renovations at Cove Island and Hatch Field Parks, citywide park lighting and bathroom improvements, ensuring every resident has access to a quality park within a 10-minute walk of where they live. This budget also invests in new community assets, including funding for the design of an East Side Library branch and funding to support the demolition of the old Animal Care & Control Center, which is currently being rebuilt.

“In conclusion, I have spent a lot of money.”

The joint Board of Finance and Board of Representatives public hearing is on Wednesday, April 8, at 7 p.m. at Rippowam Middle School, and I encourage all residents to participate in this process. If you cannot attend in-person, more information about ways to contact your representatives can be found at stamfordct.gov. Together, we can ensure that this budget prioritizes key investments in our community and further supports the services, infrastructure, and opportunities that make Stamford a great place to live, work, and raise family.

It is an interesting tactic to write a piece dedicated entirely to listing all the millions you’ve thrown around, then have a call to action for everyone to show up and talk about it. Also interesting to defend a policy decision without saying what decision was made. This is a 6.32 percent proposed increase — the highest since the Great Recession.

There’s no clear statement of anything in this entire piece. It doesn’t read like it was written for residents. What would they gain by reading it? What was the purpose of the piece?

My recommendation

If I put on my pundit hat, I can’t help but notice the mayor forgot to blame her proposed tax increase on someone else. Previously, she blamed the increase in costs due to “tariffs” and “chaos at the federal government.” “Working ahead of cuts to Medicaid” — or whatever. Nothing about that here. She’s taking credit for all the money she’s spending and wants you to know about it like it’s a good thing.

The strategy might make sense if she connected it to some coherent narrative, but there isn’t one. The only apparent narrative is “I’ll just say yes to anything.” If the mayor wanted a more left-leaning, affordability focused, type of story she can borrow these free talking points:

• Our budget increased because I am looking out for the working class who can’t afford to live in Stamford. Almost certainly a major driver of the budget increase is the various union contract negotiations — including a contract 3 years ago the Board of Finance unanimously recommended to reject. The Board of Reps approved it and that was probably a terrible decision, but whatever — own the messaging. “We want our police officers to work and live in Stamford and many of them cannot afford the cost of living. I am keeping our finest in Stamford.” Of course, this would set you up to give even more generous union contracts to teachers, managers, and operations workers — which is exactly why the Board of Finance voted against it. It’s also pro-cop — so good luck selling that to your Democratic voters... and you might accidentally mention ICE, then you might have to answer why you didn’t vote for the TRUST Act. Hmm.

• The federal government is playing games and you’re paying for it. I am confident tariffs are increasing costs in general… but for a municipal budget? I don’t get it but it doesn’t matter. Most Democrats in Stamford are eager to blame Trump for all their problems anyway, so give the people what they want. “The president is playing games with the global economy for his ego and you’re paying for it. You’re paying for it in increased material costs across the city operating budget, you’re paying for it in increased insurance costs because of global volatility, and you’re paying for it through a lack of leadership in our country. I am the leader of Stamford. I’ve looked at the budget and this is what we need to keep our community whole. I’m not happy about it either, but that’s the truth.” Always good to reference “the truth” when you’re bullshitting. People love that.

• I am a responsible steward for our housing supply. I think Simmons is so bad at advocating for housing, she might as well become a NIMBY. She can dress it up with other language, but she should start flapping those duck wings after walking and quacking like one for four years. “We’re still experiencing a high influx of demand due to people fleeing New York City and inflation continues to disrupt supply chains for housing materials. Given that unstable environment, now is not the time for us to redesign our city’s housing inventory. My efforts have focused on improving housing inventory to the benefit of current residents and replacing any units that are lost from otherwise necessary demolitions. As Mayor, I have already leveraged the income of renters to subsidize single family homeowners and I have intervened to prevent change in local neighborhoods. You can trust no significant housing will be built under my watch.” It won’t win her any friends among people who have a clue about economics, but they don’t like her already.

My alternative recommendation for the mayor may be more actionable. For Wednesday’s meeting, send an email around 11pm the night before saying your tummy hurts. Then — the next day — call out sick.

Subscribe now

When I launched Feather Ruffler as a Stamford-focused news blog in January, it was a natural fit. Journalism was my first passion, and I was applying it to the community where I live. I thought this would not only be a worthwhile endeavor, but relatively “easy” because I was already deeply familiar with Stamford – which I couldn’t say about my previous beats in many different jobs. I was confident I could try it out for a few months, then announce on April 1 I was committing to maintaining the work I’d done into the future.

After 4 months, my thoughts are very different from what I expected. I’m reducing the scope of this project. If you’ve ever wondered: “Why is it so hard to stay informed about things in Stamford?” The answer is because Stamford’s culture is resistant to sharing information.[1]

If that sounds obvious, then you might be from Stamford! That has not been my experience anywhere else in the country. Let me give two examples.

1. My first (real) job out of college was for The Malibu Times based in Malibu, California. Malibu is a ritzy town with identical political arguments as Stamford. They didn’t like development and they didn’t like all the new people moving in. When I started that job I knew nothing about the town. I commuted 90 minutes to get to my job every day, so I wasn’t even “local.” Additionally, I grew up in Massachusetts. I had been in California for 2 years when I worked there. Despite that, within my first month on the job I had two different 3+ hour conversations with 1) a board of education member and 2) the mayor of the city, specifically on the premise of “well, I gotta tell you all about our Malibu.” Similar things have happened in all my others job across many different communities.

2. A more recent example. In pursuit of reporting on Mayor Caroline Simmons’ first budget for her second term, I was following up on the claim made by our mayor that “this is the first year we haven’t gotten any federal grants for capital projects.” I reached out to the City of Stamford and asked a simple question: “what’s an example of a grant we got last year that we didn’t get this year?” I sent my question to Mayor Simmons’ communications staff, the grants director, and the (interim) Director of Administration. The first communication was sent three weeks ago and none of these people have responded with so much as a “I’ll get back to you.” Given that experience, I reached out to the federal Department of Transportation and asked a similar question, and they got back to me in less than week. Their email began with “Thank you for your patience.”

Donald Trump’s Department of Transportation is more accessible to my local news blog than the mayor of the city where I live.

This isn’t unique to our mayor. A number of local officials — who I have maintained good relationships with even during my whackier projects — have decided to stop talking to me at all.[2] This is not because I am asking “tough questions.” We’re talking about refusing to confirm something as simple as “who is the Interim Director of Administration?” I was able to report on that because a non-communications staff city official forwarded me an internal email confirming the information. Which is another way of saying, it’s not that local officials can’t manage to respond — they already sent the information to hundreds of people — they are choosing to not respond.

This has also been true for local businesses and nonprofits, who give me the run around re-directing me to corporation communications and legal experts before ultimately ghosting the request. Again, not for “controversial” stories.

In February I pursued many different stories and they all went nowhere. I felt guilty about that so I published a statewide story at the end of the month so there was something published within 30 days. This post is relieving me of that obligation.

Here is the reduced scope of Feather Ruffler:

• I will continue to pursue an AI workflow that generates meeting transcripts, summaries, and articles based on publicly accessible meetings. All of these are checked by me personally, so they don’t have false information. So far the only AI-generated articles were the explainers on Public Safety and Operations. I’ve been holding off on other articles because I wasn’t happy with the writing output, but it’s pretty close now.

  • I am currently focusing on the Board of Representatives and may expand to committee meetings, Board of Finance, and other land use boards (Planning and Zoning).

• I will continue to feed my quarterly desire to post hot takes about the local community.

• I am open to receiving “tips” and researching topics if someone points me toward a direction.

That’s it. A repository of what happened in public meetings + occasional hot takes.

None of this is very labor intensive, so all of the content will continue to be free. I don’t think this content scope is worth the $5 a month subscription. However, the annual cost for this reduced scope is roughly $350. That’s really just the cost of my software subscriptions which I would probably pay for anyway. If you choose to support the project, I’ll take that as a signal to reconsider at some point when people stop being so risk averse.

[1] You might call it anti-social.

[2] Not the first time this has happened to me in Stamford.

STAMFORD — Every spring, the City of Stamford releases a budget — a document that defines how the hundreds of millions of tax dollars will be spent for the next fiscal year. The “fiscal year” runs from July 1 to June 30 across calendar years, so the budget is typically proposed in March and passed by May.

At the time of this explainer’s publication, Mayor Caroline Simmons presented a proposed fiscal year 2026-2027 budget to the Board of Finance and Board of Representatives. She opened with an acknowledgment that the 6.32 percent increase was “significantly higher” than in previous years. This was uniquely strange since Simmons was in office for two global events that would impact the local budget — the high inflation period of President Biden and the high tariff period of President Trump.

Which invites the question: If the budget didn’t have a significant increase during these global events, why is it experiencing an increase now?

Multiple Stamford municipal budget experts agree: Stamford’s budget is a lagging indicator of fiscal management of the city. In other words, a budget increase (or potentially a budget decrease) in this calendar year is the result of actions taken in the past several years.

How the budget is structured

The city budget is made up of individual budgets for each department that report into a specific office.1 These include:

• Office of Operations.

• Office of Public Safety, Health & Welfare.

• Office of Administration.

• Office of Legal Affairs.

• Mayor’s Office, which includes Economic Development, that is treated as its own office but has no departments underneath it.

Each office has a “Director” who is part of the “Mayor’s cabinet.” All departments in the city report to one of these offices. For example, the Sanitation Department reports to the Director of Operations; the Stamford Police Department reports to the Director of Public Safety, Health & Welfare; and the Tax Collector reports to the Director of Administration. Stamford operates under a “strong mayor” system, so all offices report to the mayor, and the mayor has the ability to increase or decrease the budget of any specific department.

The mayor is obligated to submit a budget proposal each year, but the budget must be approved through a process that relies on a number of democratic checks on the mayor’s power.

The majority of the budget is covered by the “operating budget.” The operating budget covers the day-to-day expenses of city services such as salaries for employees, healthcare for workers, and debt payments — such as pension payments or other “post-employment benefit obligations” (or “OPEB”).

In addition to the “operating budget,” there is the “capital budget.” The capital budget is made up of capital projects — which are essentially infrastructure projects. These are long-term investments that take years or decades to pay off through city taxes or bonds.2

There is also the “board of education budget” (BOE). The BOE budget is a significant contributor the overall budget — close to or exceeding 50 percent — but it is not the focus on this article.

The budget process begins with the mayor working with city staff to create budgets for each individual department. This “city staff” is primarily the Office of Policy and Management (OPM), which “owns” the creation of the city budget and provides guidance for departments to create their budget. This process typically begins in September.

Since all departments and offices report to the mayor, the mayor has the authority to cut or add to any budget. Depending on priorities, the mayor may make modifications to the budget before it is publicly announced and submitted for review from democratically elected oversight boards.

These oversight boards are the Board of Finance and the Board of Representatives. Both boards have the ability to cut “line items” from the budget, but they cannot add to the budget. This creates an incentive for the Mayor of Stamford to propose a higher budget with the expectation the budget will be cut by the oversight boards. With this in mind, mayoral proposals are reliably higher than the approved budget.

Historically, there is an expectation the mayor’s budget is proposed and approved in coordination with oversight boards. For example, each board may express priorities to the mayor ahead of the budget presentation. Cuts proposed by the boards are typically done after conversations with city staff or the mayor’s office. However, in recent years the local boards have pursued cuts without coordinating with city staff or the mayor’s office.

The budget is a delayed indicator of city management

One of the most important things to understand about any city budget is that it is largely a reflection of decisions made years earlier. In that sense, it is less a management report card than a lagging indicator — a record of past commitments coming due.

The most significant of those commitments are union contracts. The vast majority of city employees are unionized, and their wages, benefits, and work rules are governed by contracts that are typically negotiated every 3 years. When a contract is settled, its cost increases are baked into future budgets automatically. These cost increases remain even if other financial factors change or if the mayoral administration changes due to an election.

The same is true of bonding for capital projects.3 When the city “bonds” for capital projects, it is essentially borrowing money to build infrastructure such as a school or a bridge. These projects appear in the capital budget for years afterward – and sometimes in debt service obligations if payments were structured over many years or decades. In other words, the projects that get approved this year become the debt payments of a future administration.

A significant influence on the city budget is healthcare costs for union workers. Stamford switched to the state’s partnership health plan in part to reduce costs. However, this reduced the City of Stamford’s direct control over things like premium costs. In 2026, the proposed budget reflects compounding costs of higher insurance premiums, rising prescription drug costs, and high utilization rates — none of which were the result of decisions made this year, or decisions made by Stamford’s mayor.

This does not mean mayors have no influence.

Contracts can be negotiated aggressively or generously.

Capital projects can be prioritized or delayed.

Reserves can be built up or drawn down.

These choices take years to show up in the bottom line. Any budget a mayor presents is a product of choices inherited or made earlier in an administration.

In 2026, Mayor Simmons has been in office for 5 years. She has significantly more influence over the budget now compared to the budget she inherited in her first year.

Why “cutting the budget” is harder than it sounds

A common assumption in the public is a government budget is like a personal budget – or a corporate budget. These latter types of budgets contain “discretionary spending” that can be trimmed when times are tight. For a city like Stamford, that assumption understates the constraints of the budget.

Salaries for unionized employees are set by contract and cannot be reduced without renegotiation.4 The city’s pension and OPEB obligations are legally required contributions. Debt service on outstanding bonds is a fixed obligation. Healthcare premiums are set by the state plan. All of these costs are “nondiscretionary” and cannot be easily reduced or changed without significant legal intervention. These categories of expenses make up more than $250M — or 67 percent of the city’s operating budget, according to the budget submitted in 2026. Local municipal budget experts claim nondiscretionary costs could be up to 95 percent of the city budget.

What remains after those commitments is the BOE budget and a relatively small number of other costs.5 Outside agency and nonprofit funding — which includes the Ferguson Library, the Stamford Museum and Nature Center, and others — is among the few line items that can be adjusted without touching a contract or a legal obligation. Cutting these items can create significant negative impact on Stamford’s community without significant positive impact on the city’s budget — such as cutting funding to the library, homeless shelter nonprofits, or community centers.

Special positions in the mayor’s office, discretionary capital improvements, and certain program funding represent additional areas of flexibility. But together, these categories make up a small fraction of a $747 million budget.

“The mill rate went down” — and other misleading metrics

One of the most misunderstood metrics for affordability in Stamford — and Connecticut in general — is the “mill rate.” The mill rate is the amount of tax owed per $1,000 of assessed property value. The problem is most people don’t understand what that metric means so they frequently say misleading things.

For example, Republican candidate for Governor Erin Stewart announced in 2025 — for her final year as Mayor of New Britain — she proposed a budget that would “[lower] taxes.” She said this because the mill rate went down. If you review that budget, you will discover:

· The amount of operating expenses in New Britain year-to-year went up.

· The amount of tax dollars collected by the City of New Britain year-to-year went up.

· The mill rate in New Britain year-to-year went down.

How is that possible?

Because the mill rate is the amount of tax owed per $1,000 of assessed property value.

In other words, if your property values go up then your mill rate will go down. If you’re overseeing a housing crisis – where property values are inflated – your mill rate will go down.

Mayor Simmons had a similar presentation in her budget presentation. She showed Stamford has one of the lowest mill rates in Connecticut. This comparison doesn’t mean anything. It is essentially showing everyone else pays 10 percent of $100,000 but in Stamford we only pay 1 percent of $1M!6 Stamford’s property values are higher, so our mill rate is lower.

The practical concern for ordinary residents is not the mill rate, but if city expenses have gone up and how the mill rate will be collected. For example, a previous re-evaluation of property in Stamford could have reduced taxes for multifamily homeowners but this impact was delayed to benefit single-family property owners. When evaluating budget claims, the relevant number is the projected change in total taxes paid — not the direction of the mill rate.

You could focus on the total of city expenditures rather than the mill rate, but that is also an incomplete picture. Municipal budgets often receive revenue through fees or state grants. It is possible for expenditures to be offset by revenues so there is not a notable tax increase. It’s also possible for expenditures to become more apparent because typical revenues are not collected. For example, Mayor Simmons shared this was the first year the city did not receive any federal grants for capital projects.

The most complete picture of fiscal impact combines both sides. What the city is spending? And where is the money to pay for it coming from?

What questions to ask during budget season

With those mechanics in mind, a few questions tend to reveal more about a budget than the headline number:

How much of the increase is driven by fixed costs — contracts, healthcare, debt service — versus new spending decisions?

A budget that rises 6 percent because of contractual obligations locked in three years ago tells a different story than one that rises 6 percent because the administration chose to add staff or expand programs. Mayor Simmons has recommended new positions, but the increase in costs is mostly driven by fixed costs rather than new discretionary spending.

What is the trajectory of long-term liabilities?

Pension funding levels, OPEB reserves, and outstanding bond debt are indicators of how much future flexibility the city is preserving or consuming today.

What is happening on the revenue side?

A budget that holds expenses flat but loses state grants still raises the tax burden on local property owners. The operating budget’s expense total is only half the picture. Mayor Simmons shared the city is not receiving any federal grants for capital projects, which is a significant impact to revenue.

Finally: what decisions being made this year will show up as fixed costs in the budgets three years from now?

Considering Mayor Simmons has been in office for 5 years, the question might be: what happened 3-4 years ago to result in the highest proposed budget increase since the Great Recession?

Residents who want to follow the budget process can review the Board of Representatives Fiscal Committee’s scheduled meeting dates for the FY2026-27.

[3] The FY2627 capital budget authorizes $73.1 million in project spending, with $36.5 million funded through general obligation bonds.

[4] Union employees have a number of protections from “layoffs” too.

[5] The BOE budget is $372.1M which represents 49.8 percent of the budget.

[6] It’s the same number: $10,000.

STAMFORD — After a storm dropped 12 to 18 inches of snow on January 25th earlier this year, Stamford’s average temperature remained below freezing for more than two weeks — frequently dropping to single digits at night. In New York City, 18 people died in the cold. In Stamford, they got coats.

“We noticed that there were a lot of individuals — a lot of the homeless and individuals that are really in need of coats — and they were not coming forward,” said Stamford Police Department’s Lieutenant Jerry Junes. “So we went out into the community and started seeking individuals that really needed assistance, needed coats and blankets, specifically the homeless population.”

Junes oversees Stamford Police Department’s (SPD) Community Outreach Team (COT) — a volunteer cross-departmental unit focused on maintaining engagement between SPD and the public. The Community Outreach Team runs the “Warm Stamford” initiative, which provides donated coats to people on the streets of Stamford as a way to introduce residents to local services.

The team distributed more than 200 coats across six outreach events hosted between late December and mid-February, according to Junes. These events frequently included other warm clothing such as blankets, scarves, gloves, as well as coffee or pizza.

Warm Stamford is provided at “no cost,” according to Junes.

The Community Outreach Team has no personnel costs because it is made up of 22 police officers already assigned to other teams within SPD. These officers volunteer their time to COT in addition to existing responsibilities. For example, Junes is assigned to the department’s Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) and oversees its school resource officers. His involvement in the COT is in addition to his typical work.

The clothing and other items are donated by the public. Pizza and coffee is donated by a local business owner who has contributed to the program for years.[1] Winter clothing is donated by other police officers, the Veterans Resource Center, and occasionally the public. Although Junes hasn’t requested donations in a while.

“The last time I did that we had about 800 coats that were dropped off in one day,” said Junes. “It was just too much to handle.”

“We went out into the community”

The Community Outreach team isn’t new, but its current iteration is an evolution of what existed prior to 2015. In the previous model, officers were assigned to a “community policing team.” These officers were given a specific neighborhood to handle community issues like blight, drug activity, or general community relations. These neighborhoods tended to be on the West Side or South End — which have historically had more demand for police resources.

The current model of the Community Outreach Team was implemented in 2015 and it works differently. The volunteer officers associated with COT are pulled across multiple departments including detectives, patrol, behavior health, youth services, and others. Each officer is mobilized for a community policing initiative based on the identified needs. The team reports its activities to the Chief of Police on a monthly basis which sometimes results in intelligence provided to relevant divisions within the department.

For information about the Stamford Police Department’s public safety structure, see Feather Ruffler’s explainer on Stamford’s Department of Public Safety.

Some version of the “Warm Stamford” initiative has been around since 2008, when the department began collecting coats internally. But what is new this year is the strategy of how to distribute these resources to residents.

For this winter season, Junes said instead of waiting for people to come to them, police officers went out to where homeless individuals tend to gather.[2] This approach is an extension of the Stamford Police Department’s philosophy of “community policing.”

Originally conceived in the United States during the high crime of the 1960s and 1970s, “community policing” was formally outlined after congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994. The Department of Justice’s memo on community policing defines it as “a collaboration between the police and the community that identifies and solves community problems.”

Junes said the term is applied in everyday interactions.

“Every time you get out of your patrol car or truck and you walk into a coffee shop, saying good morning to people, shaking somebody’s hand, hold [sic] a door open for someone… that’s like the foundation of what policing is really about — or what it should be really about,” said Junes. “Does that happen all the time? No. But it’s just that we should be doing it all the time.”

These community interactions build trust between officers and the public. These relationships provide officers with information — and community members with resources — to resolve problems together. Or in the words of the DOJ’s memo, “a foundation of trust will allow police to form close relationships with the community that will produce solid achievements.”

Officers working with the Community Outreach Team wear a deliberately casual uniform — khaki pants and a t-shirt that says “Stamford Police” on the back. Junes says the uniform is “softer” and “more inviting.” This is the uniform officers wear when they approach people on the street to offer warm clothes or food.

Before police can make contact with these people, they need to know where they are — which is provided through coordination with local nonprofits and other service providers.

What services are there for homeless people in Stamford?

Stamford Police Department’s community initiatives are one piece of a broader ecosystem of services in the city. With an estimated 150+ homeless people in Stamford at any given time, their needs can be very different case by case.

Some of these service providers focus on integrating within a local populace to understand the community’s needs. For example, Building One Community was originally founded in 2011 to provide services to “day laborers” in the city. The nonprofit coordinates with the Community Outreach Team to share information about this population's needs.

Other services are provided to the individuals who engage with COT. For example, Junes’ is frequently involved with coordinating between his own Behavioral Health Unit within SPD and Stamford Health — which operates Stamford Hospital.

“Historically, law enforcement encounters with those suffering from behavioral health issues ended at the Emergency Department,” said Chief Safety Officer for Stamford Health Joe Hines. “The patient would receive appropriate care and treatment and be discharged. Then, if the patient had another crisis in the community, the process would start over again from square one.”[3]

After the BHU was founded in 2021, Stamford Health gained a channel to communicate with SPD to get a better understanding of an individual’s needs and provide better care.

“If a person has a behavioral health crisis in the community, SPD’s BHU is often familiar with them,” said Hines. “They can more quickly understand catalysts for the crisis and provide support in the community.”

Stamford Health provides medical and behavioral assistance, but some people just need shelter.

For homeless men in need of shelter, the primary provider in Stamford is Pacific House. Located on Pacific Street, Pacific House operates an emergency shelter 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, serving roughly 60 to 85 men per night. Pacific House provides shelter, but also meals, case management, job training, and substance abuse recovery programs.

For homeless women and families in need of shelter, the primary provider in Stamford is Inspirica. Inspirica provides two locations. A family-centered facility on Franklin Street and a women’s shelter on Woodland Place. Inspirica’s network of facilities across lower Fairfield County house roughly 500 people per night.

Does helping the homeless keep Stamford safe?

Stamford has long been considered one of the safest cities of its size in the country. The city’s population of more than 135,000 has been bolstered in recent years by an influx of residents from New York City. The arrival of these residents creates a population acutely aware of public safety as a quality-of-life factor for where they live.

Junes acknowledge some residents may hear about a program assisting homeless people and question if it invites a larger homeless population to the city. This is known as “magnet theory,” the idea a city with generous services will attract people from outside the city.

“While we have just over [150 homeless people], that’s not a lot in the big scheme of things,” said Junes. “We have had a lot of homeless people that we’ve worked with and now have apartments and are in work programs. I bet if we didn’t do what we do, we would have more homeless people on the street.”

Research from across the political spectrum does not support “magnet theory” for the services provided by the Community Outreach Team.

A study done by the University of Washington found homelessness is not correlated with availability of services, but is correlated with housing costs. The study showed areas with high poverty rates tend to have lower rates of homelessness because housing in these areas also tend to be cheaper.

An analysis by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found a $100 increase in a community’s median rent is associated with a 9 percent increase in homelessness. Stamford’s median rent is estimated at $2,800 or roughly 50 percent above the national average.

Another study done by the Cicero Institute — a right-leaning organization — concluded offering permanent free housing does attract homeless populations. However, no permanent free housing is offered in Stamford.

Pacific House and Inspirica did not respond to requests for comment.

[1] When asked to identify the business owner, Junes claimed the business owner “didn’t want any notoriety.”

[2] Junes said the “Warm Stamford” initiative focuses on the homeless population, but it is not exclusive to Stamford’s homeless population.

[3] Full Comment from Joe Hines: “First let me say that we at Stamford Health feel very fortunate to have the Stamford Police Department (SPD) as a partner in providing the highest level of health and safety for our community. Our goal in coordinating with SPD in general, but also specifically with the Community Care Team (CCT) is to continue to challenge how we do things and collaborate to improve outcomes. Historically, law enforcement encounters with those suffering from behavioral health issues ended at the Emergency Department (ED). The patient would receive appropriate care and treatment and be discharged. There was never any loop closure or consistent, ongoing coordination. Then, if the patient had another crisis in the community, the process would start over again from square one. Now, with consent from our patient(s), we can communicate with SPD’s behavioral health unit (BHU) to get a better understanding of the crisis they are experiencing and provide a more sustained continuum of care. Additionally, if a person has a behavioral health crisis in the community, SPD’s BHU is often familiar with them, so they can more quickly understand catalysts for the crisis and provide support in the community.”

STAMFORD — Mayor Caroline Simmons presented a $747.4 million budget proposal to the Board of Finance and Board of Representatives this week, marking a 6.32 percent expenditure increase — the highest year-over-year increase in expenditures since the 2008 financial crisis.[1]

The Mayor’s proposed budget is the starting point for the city’s annual fiscal review. The budget process is the main method for Stamford’s chief elected official to implement policy changes to the city. The City of Stamford’s Board of Finance and Board of Representatives are given the power to cut line items from the budget, but they cannot add to the budget. This dynamic frequently results in mayoral proposals acting as the “ceiling” of the highest possible budget increase — often designed with the expectation the budget will be cut by the boards. This dynamic appeared in the mayor’s presentation Thursday evening.

“If things could be cut back, would there be a minimum that [the mayor] would be able to still function and operate effectively with? Does she have a figure in mind,” said Board of Representatives member Candace Weathers.

“I think ideally, I would like to get this [budget] down below 5 percent,” said Simmons.

Watch Mayor Simmons’ full budget presentation below.

Fixed costs drive major increases in Stamford’s fiscal year 2027 budget

In Simmons’ presentation to the boards, the mayor said the primary drivers of the budget increase are largely non-discretionary.

In municipal finance, “non-discretionary spending” refers to costs the City of Stamford is legally or contractually obligated to pay. Unlike “discretionary spending” — where the city chooses to fund services or new positions — non-discretionary spending includes debt service, healthcare premiums, and salaries dictated by multiyear union contracts. These are expenditures that elected officials cannot easily reduce without legal risk.

Multiple municipal budget subject matter experts confirmed to Feather Ruffler the city’s budget tends to be a “lagging indicator of fiscal management.” In other words, contract negotiations and market trends that develop over multiple years may appear within a single-year budget increase (or decrease) but elected officials have little control over these changes within a calendar year.

For this year’s budget, contractual wage increases, rising healthcare premiums under the state partnership plan, and increased pension contributions have placed significant pressure on the city’s budget, according to Simmons.

Healthcare costs are a particular point of friction. The state partnership plan is projecting a 15 percent increase in premiums — a figure Simmons said she is actively lobbying the state to lower to the 10 percent to 12 percent range.

“Rising fixed costs have made it an especially challenging fiscal year,” Simmons said during her presentation.

Simmons noted her office had already identified $4 million in departmental cuts before submitting the proposal, but acknowledged the boards would need to identify further reductions to reduce the tax burden on residents.

Understanding the Budget Cycle

In Stamford’s “strong mayor” system, the budget process is an iterative negotiation between the chief elected official and the boards of finance and representatives.

1. Proposal: The Mayor typically interviews cabinet members for the needs of each department. The mayor then submits a budget which establishes the maximum spending level. Only the mayor can propose new line items in the city’s budget.

2. Board of Finance Review: The Board of Finance holds a series of public hearings to scrutinize every line item, with the power to cut specific line items.

3. Board of Representatives Review: After the Board of Finance review, the Board of Representatives holds its own hearings to scrutinize line items in consideration of cuts.

4. Adoption: Following review from both boards, the budget is adopted and executed on by the City of Stamford.

Under the previous Board of Representatives, board members targeted line items that provided funding for capital projects. The justification provided at the time was the city had reported double-digit budget surpluses for multiple years.[2] The previous board cut a line item called “Fund 57” multiple times — a funding mechanism for school construction. Simmons restored funding to this line item this year and called out this decision in her presentation to the board.

“Fund 57 — our school construction reserve — we are increasing this to $10 million in this year’s budget so we can responsibly fund our long term facilities plan and keep our school projects on track,” said Simmons. “It allows us to fully pay invoices for school improvements until the state reimbursement is received. I strongly recommend that the Board of Finance and Board of Reps keep this $10 million reserve fund in — it saves us on our borrowing costs. It’s a fiscally prudent practice to finance a portion of our city’s capital projects with revenue like this.”

School construction has been a known priority for Simmons following the mold crisis discovered under Mayor David Martin’s administration.

The Cost of Infrastructure

The proposed capital budget authorizes $73.1 million in new project authorizations, $36.6 million of which would be funded through General Obligation Bonds. These investments are largely tied to the city’s school construction program and road improvements.

This year’s budget is the first year there is no federal funding as a revenue source for capital projects, said Simmons. The mayor said this shift in funding has placed more financial responsibility on the city to bond for revenue or apply for state grants to fund capital projects like infrastructure.

“We have to be cognizant of that and make sure that we’re taking that into account as we prepare this budget,” Simmons said.

The coming weeks of hearings will determine the extent of cuts to the mayor’s proposed budget. The full schedule for the remaining budget process is available on the city’s website.

[1] Feather Ruffler is producing an explainer piece on Stamford’s municipal budget. It is difficult for an ordinary person to understand how to interpret the budget due to 1) poor reporting standards at the City of Stamford prior to FY2015, 2) a history of modifying budgets after fiscal years conclude, and 3) un-intuitive accounting tricks. Feather Ruffler talked to multiple local budget experts for this story and one background source stated “The budget is fucked up.”

[2] A budget surplus suggests the city is “overtaxing” residents. Historically, Stamford’s budget surpluses have been used to fund capital projects or pay down debt.

HARTFORD — The cost of living is the single most important issue facing Connecticut, according to Nutmeg State Poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire.[1] Candidates vying to replace incumbent Democrat Governor Ned Lamont have taken notice by focusing on how to bring costs down for Connecticut residents.

The Nutmeg State Poll, conducted between Feb. 12 and Feb. 16 among 583 Connecticut residents, found 26 percent of respondents named the cost of living as the most important problem facing the state. Taxes came in second at 14 percent, followed by housing and jobs, each at 9 percent.

“Cost of living” is another way of saying “affordability” which became a major focus for national politicians in 2025. All candidates are focusing on ways to reduce the cost of living for Connecticut residents, but have been received differently by their own voters.

Lamont holds a comfortable lead — but his approval has slipped

The poll found 57 percent of likely Democratic primary voters would vote for Lamont if the primary were held today, compared to 13 percent for his challenger State Representative Josh Elliott, and 29 percent undecided. That represents a slight improvement for Elliott from November, when he polled at 7 percent.

According to the poll, Elliott’s support is concentrated among the party’s left flank. Twenty-five percent of progressives and 20 percent of socialists support his candidacy, compared to 5 percent of moderates and 4 percent of liberals.[2]

Lamont remains broadly popular among likely Democratic primary voters, with 54 percent holding a favorable opinion. His approval rating among all Connecticut residents has dipped to 49 percent approve and 45 percent disapprove — a net approval of +4, down from +17 in November. Approval of Lamont among specifically Democrats has fallen from 86 percent to 76 percent since November 2025.

Lamont’s decreased approval rating from November coincides with his announcement that same month to seek a third term. The prior poll took place before his announcement.

Elliott, 41, represents Hamden’s 88th House District. He was first elected in 2016 and currently serves as deputy speaker. He previously ran for secretary of state in 2022 before dropping out after the nominating convention.

Fazio leads the Republican field with the highest favorability and fewest detractors

Among likely Republican primary voters, State Senator Ryan Fazio holds the strongest favorability rating of any Republican candidate in the field. According to the poll, 42 percent of likely Republican primary voters have a favorable opinion of Fazio, 16 percent are neutral, and 3 percent view him unfavorably. Another 39 percent said they don’t know enough about him to have to say — giving him a net favorability rating of +39.

Favorability at a glance:

• Ned Lamont. Net +43 among likely Democratic primary voters

• Josh Elliott. Net +13 among likely Democratic primary voters

• Ryan Fazio. Net +39 among likely Republican primary voters

• Erin Stewart. Net +18 among likely Republican primary voters

Former New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart is close behind in raw favorability at 40 percent, but her unfavorable rating is significantly higher at 22 percent. Her net favorability of +18 is roughly half of Fazio’s. Political activist Timothy Wilcox and former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey trail further behind, with majorities of likely Republican primary voters saying they don’t know enough about either candidate to have an opinion.

The Republican primary is scheduled for August 11, 2026.

Fazio, 35, represents Connecticut’s 36th Senate District, which covers Greenwich, parts of Stamford, and New Canaan. He is the Ranking Senator on the Energy & Technology Committee and the Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee. Originally elected in a 2021 special election, he won a close re-election in 2022 and again 2024.[3]

Stewart, 38, served as mayor of New Britain for 12 years across six terms, making her the city’s longest-serving Republican mayor. She was first elected at age 26 in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans four to one. She ran for governor in 2018 and later ended her campaign to run for lieutenant governor but did not win the party’s endorsement.

Candidates focus on affordability with energy policies

Fazio’s gubernatorial campaign continues policy proposals he pursued as a State Senator. As a state legislator, Fazio focused on policies addressing electricity costs in Connecticut. He proposed cutting the “Public Benefits Charge,” a line item on utility bills used to fund state energy and environmental programs. As a candidate for governor, Fazio’s campaign proposes expanding the state’s natural gas pipeline, cutting renewable energy subsidies, and ending state programs that subsidize electricity demand — in addition to cutting the Public Benefits Charge.

Stewart, by contrast, has not released a comparable policy document. Her campaign messaging has focused on the broader theme of affordability and “real talk” about Connecticut’s direction. However, a campaign advisor for Stewart referred to Fazio’s energy plan as “reheated soup,” despite Stewart submitting testimony in support of the policies in 2025 and investing $200k into television ads where she states: “I will end the public benefits charge.”

On the Democrat side of the race, Elliott has taken the opposite position to many of Fazio’s proposals. His campaign proposes ending state support for natural gas, expanding renewable energy projects such as rooftop or community solar, and amending eminent domain laws to enable the state to purchase Eversource’s infrastructure assets.

Lamont has proposed a $200-per-person rebate to help offset energy bills, a measure expected to cost the state approximately $500 million and benefit 2.2 million residents. The poll found 60 percent of respondents support the proposal, including majorities of Democrats (73 percent) and Independents (63 percent), with Republicans split (41 percent support, 43 percent oppose)[4].

Market rate housing not included in policy proposals

The poll data suggests voters of all party affiliations are focused on affordable housing. Eighty-five percent of Connecticut residents say affordable housing is a very or somewhat serious problem in the state, including 94 percent of Democrats, 87 percent of Independents, and 71 percent of Republicans.

Lamont received criticism from his own party for vetoing a housing bill proposed by state democrats last year. He later signed another housing bill that state democrats have discussed in Stamford as a “roadmap” for housing. Lamont has since proposed a rent cap to prevent out-of-state landlords from increasing rents by more than a few percentage points per year. The poll found 68 percent of Connecticut residents generally support rent caps for landlords.

Local housing experts claim market rate units keep housing costs stable, but neither Lamont nor any other top challenger candidate has proposed policies for increasing housing supply of market rate units.

Elliott’s campaign focuses on expanding housing subsidies and rent stabilization.

Neither Fazio nor Stewart have any stated policies on housing development.

The gubernatorial primaries for both parties are scheduled for August 11, 2026, with the general election on November 3.

[1] The Nutmeg State Poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center between February 12 and February 16, 2026, among 583 Connecticut residents. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.1%. The poll included 174 likely Democratic primary voters (MOE +/- 7.4%) and 99 likely Republican primary voters (MOE +/- 9.8%). Data were weighted by sex, age, education, region, party registration, and 2024 election results.

[2] Participants in the survey self-described as these labels (progressive, socialist, moderate, liberal).

[3] Fazio won in 2022 by .2 percentage points. In 2024 he won by 3.4 percentage points.

[4] The poll specifically asked about a “up to $400” rebate for residents

In the 1960s, a cultural commentator named Marshall McLuhan published a book about how communications technology had altered the human consciousness.

Before widespread literacy, human beings learned everything through oral histories. We only knew things because they were told to us by another person. There was a social implication to our access to knowledge that meant to know anything you had to have ties to a community. After the printing press was invented — McLuhan explains — our species unlocked the ability to be individualists. Access to knowledge didn’t require social connections at all. You could read alone in the library. Nations saw this and funded education programs to spread literacy on very specific sets of ideas.

There was a period of time where new communications infrastructure created new communal activities. Families listened to President Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats by gathering around the radio and for a few decades the household was united around the television set. But then things shifted. Internet messaging boards, social media, and algorithmic content turned individualism into atomization where alternate realities emerged from your specific exposure to selected information.

All of these transformations in how we communicate made an undeniable impact on how human beings interacted with the world. The method of how we communicated had altered not only what was being said, but who we became based on how that information was communicated to us. Depending on how you got your information, your relationship with your fellow man was completely different.

This insight led McLuhan to famously conclude “the medium is the message.”

Stamford’s public comment system sucks

The medium for communicating with Stamford’s elected officials has been mostly the same since 1641. You need to show up in-person and talk to the board directly, which is so inconvenient most people don’t do it.

At the country’s founding it may have been a novel concept to allow the common man to address the government, but a lot has changed. The public is deeply familiar with alternative communications channels including phones, emails, or other digital-based messaging, but our local government is not. The City technically has the capacity to incorporate these mediums of communications, but the effort on technological innovation has been focused on bolstering in-person public comments rather than replacing them. We got a recorded video archive and Zoom participation before a dedicated email for resident concerns (or city staff dedicated to reading it).

The message of this medium is to make public participation difficult. If you want your voice to be heard — rather than filed into a folder that may or may not ever get read — you need to do the following ritual:

• Look up the schedule for the next monthly board meeting.

• Attend in-person at 7pm on a Monday night.

• Wait up to 30 minutes for the pledge of allegiance, awards of recognition, roll call, and occasionally several minutes of “can you hear me? My Zoom isn’t working.”

• Wait for all the other public commenters to finish — which may take a very long time if you see this guy there.

• Condense your thoughts on public policy to 3 minutes, and don’t violate the other rules such as:

  • You can’t talk about anything that was previously the subject of a public meeting.

  • If you make the Board President upset they can cut you off.

This process already sucks and that might be why the proposal to make it even worse garnered two seemingly opposed opinion pieces that circle around the same point.

Public comments are already so difficult that anyone who would go through the trouble to give one is necessarily a rare individual — which naturally selects for people not representative of the public.

For example: The only in-person comment I’ve ever given was an attempt to prove the Board of Representatives participated in content-based discrimination, but fortunately/unfortunately Nina Sherwood knows the rules of free speech better than Carl Weinberg.1

The fact public comments are not representative of the public gives both political factions in Stamford what they want.

The extreme political minority gets the gratification of a lived delusion. Seemingly, most people are submitting public comments agreeing with their position. Except, it’s not most people it is most people who go through the trouble to speak at public meetings. This lethally combines with Connecticut’s minority representation laws to entrench stubbornness rather than moderation.

Meanwhile, the dominant political majority gets to thoroughly discredit public feedback so they can govern without concerning itself with the public’s opinions. Mayor Caroline Simmons has correctly identified this feature of Stamford’s media market which is why she is rarely quoted outside of press events in mainstream newspapers — and I imagine she will never respond to Feather Ruffler’s requests for comment.2

The solution is not to make minor adjustments to a medium of communication that sucks. In the words of Doug Stanhope, if the current system didn’t exist would you invent it? If you wanted a way to know what the public thinks about something, would you require a 30+ minute commitment at one of the most inconvenient hours of the day? Would you hope a group of volunteer politicians would choose to share critical feedback of themselves? No.

You would create a digital communications channel. Similar to Fix It Stamford but for general comments. You wouldn’t have a length restriction. You’d have city staff dedicated to measuring this feedback to identify trends in public perception and share that with elected officials.

However, you would need to confirm the person submitting their concern is 1) an actual person and 2) actually lives in Stamford. A local solution is possible, but it’s a local solution to a international problem.

The internet cannot be trusted

It has long been a problem on the internet that traffic can be manipulated by “bots” — programs coded to engage with content as if they were human beings. This is why you’ve probably filled out a CAPTCHA and why CAPTCHAs have gotten more difficult since a decade ago. This has always been a problem on the internet, but the digital world crossed the metaphorical Rubicon of this issue in 2013. In that year YouTube’s fraud and abuse team found there was now more traffic from bots than actual human beings. YouTube calls this “the inversion.”

I call it proof of Dead Internet Theory.

Dead Internet Theory is a broad term that includes the massive influx of bot traffic, astroturfed manipulation of influencers, and the preponderance of state-funded actors pretending to be Americans. I personally believe this trend is relevant to the rise of anxiety and depression among young people and political extremism across all demographics. However bad the problem is now, it’s only going to get worse with the rise of AI slop.

Stamford has mitigated the risk to these problems because it has no digital communications infrastructure. To the extent the problems of dead internet theory seep into our politics, it’s because people deranged by the internet find their way into public comments through a process my future self described extensively last year. However, there are still examples of protests organized by people who do not live in Stamford.

These are legitimate reasons to distrust internet-based communications, but it’s not a reason to give up.

Digital representation requires digital verification

There is a local and federal solution to these problems, but it requires an uncomfortable re-examination of the internet’s core ideal — anonymous communication.

The internet was born from idealists who viewed all people as equal. In the digital world you didn’t even have a body to discriminate against. Your only identity was chosen by you through your alias (or “screen name”). In the real world, everyone bears the name given to them by their parents but in the digital world you decided how you chose to exist. It was a beautiful thing and for the first 25 years of my life I was one of those idealists. But then the internet died and most of the identities you see online are not crafted by self-actualized Americans but corporate or foreign bots designed to manipulate you.

The anonymous internet is not defined by Edward Snowden using the name Citizenfour to whistle blow on big government overreach. The anonymous internet is defined by thousands of bots compromising financial institutions or the dark web trading in cryptocurrencies to exchange child pornography and assassination contracts. Hell on earth exists and it is three taps away from the phone you keep in your pocket at all times.3

The federal solution to the Dark Web could be what I call the Bright Net. A second internet funded by the government that requires a digital verification to use at all. The Bright Net doesn’t need to replace the regular internet. It would be a second option for any person or business who wants to know everyone else on the digital landscape is an actual American.

Of course, this would mean the government knows more information about you.

The verification system would be one-way blind. Whatever entity was responsible for maintaining the system wouldn’t see “ID 1234” is tied to “Arthur Augustyn” but just that “ID 1234” is a real person. Alternatively, if we did include personal data — like email addresses — that would present its own opportunities. If every mailing list in the world was legally required to check this central system to see if I gave permission to email me, then I might actually see the day where all political parties and candidates stopped fucking emailing me.

We don’t need a federal solution to the local problem of making public feedback accessible and trusted.

Stamford already has the departments and staff to implement a digital verification system. In 2021, Stamford hired its first Chief Information Officer. This is essentially a position dedicated to improving technology at the City of Stamford. It’s a role common in a lot of businesses and the addition to our local government was an encouraging future-thinking proposal. My understanding is Stamford’s CIO has been primarily focused on upgrading our digital financial system and beyond that it would depend on additional initiatives from the mayor.

Stamford’s verification system already exists in some capacity. Every Stamford resident has unique tax information associated with their existence. Right now, it’s some file in a system but it could be abstracted into a long string of numbers similar to a bank account or credit card. Except, this string of numbers isn’t tied to getting access to anything valuable other than confirming you are a current Stamford taxpayer. The tax department already manages these files and the chief information officer could assist with the verification system. Both of these departments report to the Director of Administration (as does the “IT” department) and — wouldn’t you know it — Stamford is currently looking for a new Director of Administration.

A digital identity verification has already been pioneered by Estonia — which is somewhat familiar with the concern of malicious web-based actors since they share a border with Russia.

With the verification system implemented, the City could rely on any number of existing engagement tools — such as a simple Google form — and require the verified identification number for your submission to be counted.

If the City was concerned about hundreds or thousands of people visiting this feedback form, it could take a more conservative approach. The City could include a URL to a poll that’s included with the tax letter that goes to all property owners in the city. The content of this poll could be formally enshrined in Stamford’s charter along with a number of restrictions to prevent cynical political manipulations.

For example, I would personally recommend the following limitations:

• The annual poll can have no more than 10 questions.

• Any question added to the poll cannot be removed for 4 iterations of the poll (4 years).

• Any question added to the poll will be added after the next 2 iterations of the poll (2 years).

• The poll must include: How do you view the Mayor of Stamford? [Strongly oppose, oppose, neutral, support, strongly support]

• The poll must include: How do you view the Board of Representatives? [Strongly oppose, oppose, neutral, support, strongly support]

• Completion of the poll cannot be “incentivized” by the City of Stamford.

These limitations would prevent inconsistent data by adding/removing questions too frequently and also prevent incumbent politicians from adding their own question to opportunistically frame their own accomplishments.

Whether the city chooses to create a 24/7 form or an annual poll, either of these options are within the grasp of our current resources and does not require spending an hour of your life waiting to speak for 3 minutes.

Stamford goes its own way

I reached out to the authors of the opinion pieces responding to the public comment issue and gave a short pitch of the above solution — requesting their take on the idea. The responses are emblematic of the frozen political climate of Stamford and American politics in general. Each party has its “thing” and that’s what they focus on. There is no appetite to do anything beyond what has already been done somewhere else.

“A digital system, if thoughtfully designed, could complement existing rules by expanding participation to residents who are otherwise excluded by time, location, or format,” said Versha Munshi-South in an email to Feather Ruffler. “The challenge is ensuring that such a system enhances access without introducing new barriers around privacy, verification, or technological literacy.”

“Platforms like that can run tens of thousands of dollars a year, and Stamford already offers multiple ways for residents to reach officials,” said Dennis LoDolce in an email to Feather Ruffler. “For something that’s already fairly accessible, it’s worth asking whether we need a full platform at that scale.”4

These are pretty standard points of view from each respective party. Democrats are concerned about equitable access and Republicans are concerned about cost to taxpayers. These aren’t unreasonable responses, but I’m a bit surprised our most thoughtful voices in both parties defer to a standard point. I’m confident our community has more to say.

That’s why I started Feather Ruffler. The ideas around what Stamford should be as a city, as a government, or as a community are all boring. Stamford is completely in control of its own destiny and we should act like that. We have enough prosperity to earn the right to take some risks. Those big swings are what result in transformative gains for our community.

There is a saying among economists: “the scarcest resource in any market is information.” In the context of all new information moving to digital spaces — and most digital spaces are overrun with slop — Stamford could invest a negligible amount to gain an abundance of citizen-verified information.

More important than the content of this information would be the message of the medium: your local government has invested time and money to know what the public thinks.

Subscribe now

STAMFORD — Tigín Irish Pub is set to reopen on March 1 after it temporarily closed on Jan. 17 earlier this month, according to Tigin’s management.

“At this time we are still working through all [the] details,” said Fado Pubs Inc. Regional Manager Kieran Aherne in an email to Feather Ruffler. Fado Pubs Inc. owns Tigín in Stamford and several Irish pubs across the country.

Tigín closed on Jan. 17 coinciding with the resignation of the business’ general manager. At the time, Tigín had changed its schedule to be closed on Mondays and Tuesdays due to lack of management staff to cover shifts on those days.

Aherne said more information would be available “in a few weeks,” but did not comment on if the establishment was still looking for management staff or if it would reopen for Mondays and Tuesdays.

STAMFORD — A panel of state and local housing experts addressed what policies have prevented rents in Stamford from skyrocketing at an event held at Ferguson Library on Jan. 21.

The panel was hosted by People Friendly Stamford — a local advocacy organization that’s mission includes housing abundance — as part of a screening of the documentary Fault Lines. Fault Lines portrays the story of a single housing development proposed in San Francisco. Relying on interviews with local reporters and national housing experts, the film contrasts the effort of a neighborhood coalition to block the housing development with a homeless man’s attempts to find stable housing. The film was shown in its entirety prior to the panel.

The panel featured President of Pacific House Carmen Colon, State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, and President of Garden Homes and Board of Finance member Richard Freedman. The panelists echoed comments shared at another housing event hosted at the Government Center last week, but provided more specifics about Stamford’s housing situation.

Supply and demand in Stamford’s local market

Policy discussion on housing often splits on the best method of lowering the cost of housing. One side focuses on “Affordable” housing, while the other focuses on “market rate” housing.

“Affordable” housing typically refers to housing units where the rent is set by the government. Market housing refers to housing units where the cost of rent is set by the owner of the housing unit. Local Stamford housing experts create a distinction between “capitalized Affordable” and “lower-case affordable.” Affordable units (capitalized) are units where rent is set by the government, while affordable units (lower case) are units with lower rent compared to other options.

Stamford’s “Affordable Housing Program” is the Below Market Rate (BMR) program. The BMR program directly interacts with market rate housing. The federal government’s Department of Housing and Urban Development identifies the area median income (AMI) for geographical areas. Based on this AMI, Stamford’s BMR program identifies an appropriate monthly rent limit.

For example, a new development that typically charges $2,500 for a 1-bedroom may also have several “BMR units” that are compelled to a lower rent based on HUD’s data on AMI. In Stamford, the majority of 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units are set at 50% of the region’s AMI. This means the typical 1-bedroom in the BMR program is limited to $1,692 monthly rent, based on the 2025 policy.

The panel commented Stamford’s success has been its focus on market rate and “Affordable” housing units.

“Affordable housing is extremely important. That’s not enough,” said President of Garden Homes Richard Freedman. “We have to let market housing be built. We just need housing. I mean, we just need as much housing as we can get. Housing, housing, housing. We’ve proven it here in Stamford, right? Most of what gets built here is for the is for the top of the market, but I can tell you it’s held rents down here. So our rent growth here has been much slower than it has been in the rest of the state, because we’ve expanded the housing supply at a meaningful scale.”

An analysis of monthly average rent in Connecticut cities showed Stamford had one of the lowest rent increases in the state. While Stamford’s rent increases are still significant, they are less than other communities that have not built market rate housing.

State incentives to offset local costs

The recently signed House Bill 8002 provides “carrots” to municipalities that agree to expand their housing plans.

“I do think it is [an] important component that we provide a carrot of an additional bump of school construction for communities like Stamford can go from 60 to 65%,” said State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff. “I do think it’s important that we have another carrot of shaving off a half percent of interest rate for sewer connections, because we hear a lot of excuses from many towns around the state that they would build more housing if only they could get sewer connections. Okay, so we provided the tool to get a little money off that.”

School construction is a significant cost for Stamford since the mold crisis in 2018 revealed the need to remediate or rebuild a number of school buildings. Mayor Caroline Simmons has prioritized the new construction of Westhill High School which may end up costing more than $450M. Simmons announced in 2022 the State of Connecticut would cover 60% of the cost of the Westhill project.

Freedman said market rate housing can provide the benefits of more units without adding a cost to municipal budgets.

“Market housing [is] free. All you have to do is change the zoning,” said Freedman. Government doesn’t have to invest a nickel in that stuff.”

Regional imbalance of housing in Fairfield County

Stamford has expanded its housing inventory, but neighboring communities have not. The panel was critical of municipalities and elected officials who oppose housing.

“In most other places — let’s just list a few while we’re at it — Greenwich, New Canaan, Darien, Weston, Wilton, Westport,” said Freedman. “It’s not just the neighbors. It’s the elected officials. The first select people. The elected members of planning and zoning commissions or appointed members of planning and zoning commissions who oppose housing. The neighbors can make it worse, don’t get me wrong, but the elected leadership themselves don’t want housing. The dynamic you see in [Fault Lines] is that seemingly liberal people contort themselves into all kinds of rhetorical positions to justify their opposition. In this case, there was a lot of talk about environmental issues.”

In Fault Lines, the neighborhood group opposing the housing development initially frames their opposition as a lack of input from the community. Over the course of the film, the group discovers the dirt below the proposed housing development may have toxic chemicals. When the developer of the project performs testing that reveals there is not a significant health risk, the group maintains their view there is an environmental and health risk.

“Boy, I’ve run into those many times,” said Freedman. “Phony ones, by the way. The film makes that clear.”

Other panelists echoed Stamford has led on the issue of housing.

“There is not another city within our local communities at the moment that is doing everything that can be done to take care of the homeless population — especially during cold weather season,” said President of Pacific House Carmen Colon.

Pacific House provides overnight housing for men and young adults who are homeless. The organization claims to serve 60 to 85 men and young adults each night. Colon personally identified Simmons as a leader on the issue of housing for the homeless and asked her to “take her show on the road” for other mayors in Connecticut.

The event concluded with Duff and Freedman encouraging local residents to get involved in local politics.

“Please get involved,” said Duff. “Please show up at your planning and zoning meetings. A lot of times it’s very easy to wrangle people to say no. It’s harder to bring a lot of people to say yes.”

“What the senator said is very true. If you show up to a zoning hearing and you support something that can be effective,” said Freedman.

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday, Jan. 13 the federal government will withhold payments to any jurisdiction that “supports sanctuary cities.” The administration has not clarified what funding could be withheld. Previous attempts by the administration to block funding to sanctuary cities were ruled against by a judge who said federal funds cannot be conditional on immigration policy.

Trump’s announcement comes months after the Department of Homeland Security published a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The list included Connecticut, but not Stamford specifically.

Sanctuary status is “a meaningless term”

Attorney General William Tong said Connecticut is not a sanctuary state.

“There is nothing in our laws or statues that says Connecticut is a ‘sanctuary’ state. We are not. That is a meaningless term,” said Tong in a statement from May 2025. “It is the policy of the State of Connecticut to respect, honor and protect immigrants and immigrant families in compliance with the law. Trump’s own administration certified Connecticut’s compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 in 2017.”

Connecticut’s primary friction with federal immigration policies is the “Trust Act.”

The Trust Act limits the ability of local law enforcement to honor “detainer” requests from federal agencies — such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — unless the individual has committed a Class A or B felony or if a judge has issued a warrant. The Trust Act was originally passed with bipartisan support in 2013. It was expanded in 2019 and 2025 by State Democrats.

None of the bills explicitly define Connecticut as a “sanctuary” state.

Connecticut’s Trust Act

According to people familiar with the Trust Act, the original bill in 2013 gave local police departments the discretion to work with — or not work with — federal agencies. The 2013 bill was passed with bipartisan support. The 2019 amendment compelled local police departments to not work with federal agencies — including ICE specifically. The 2019 amendment passed on party lines with the majority of Democrats voting in favor and no support from Republicans.

Critics of the Trust Act say it provides legal cover for known criminals. In Stamford, an illegal immigrant named Edgar Ismalej-Gomez plead guilty to several Class C and D felonies related to the abuse of 2-year-old Liam Rivera. Ismalej-Gomez was released after serving 60 days of a five-year prison sentence. He was later convicted of additional felonies after Rivera was killed and buried in Cummings Park.

“Even if [local police departments are] confident that the individual is convicted of a crime, they can’t cooperate or communicate with federal authorities,” said State Senator Ryan Fazio in an interview with Feather Ruffler.

Fazio explained without the Trust Act’s 2019 amendment, Ismalej-Gomez would have been transferred to federal authorities and potentially deported after his first prison sentence.

Supporters of the Trust Act say it is consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s fourth amendment protecting individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. While an individual can sue a local police department for violating their constitutional rights, it is significantly more difficult for an individual to sue a federal agency — such as ICE — due to legal concepts like qualified immunity. The 2019 amendment to the Trust Act added the ability for individuals to take legal recourse for unlawful detainments motivated by coordination with federal agencies.

Is Stamford a sanctuary city?

In response to the federal government classifying states and cities as “sanctuary” jurisdictions, some political leaders have leaned into the definition — including Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam.

Feather Ruffler found no evidence Stamford has ever declared or denied a “sanctuary” status.

Mayor Caroline Simmons was a State Representative in 2019 when the Trust Act was expanded. However, she was absent the day of the vote.

Simmons attended an event in Latham Park on Sunday, Jan. 11 organized by Indivisible Stamford in response to the killing of Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.

“Say enough is enough,” Simmons said at the event, according to reporting from the Greenwich Free Press. “We refuse to be silent as ICE comes into our communities.”

Simmons did not respond to requests for comment regarding Stamford’s sanctuary status or to clarify her absence during the 2019 Trust Act vote.

Whether or not Stamford and Connecticut are “sanctuary” jurisdictions, critics of the Trust Act believe the public opposes “sanctuary” status.

“I don’t think Connecticut should be a sanctuary for people who are here illegally and have committed crimes,” said Fazio. “I think the vast majority of Connecticut residents would support ending the sanctuary policies — especially for criminals — ensuring there is rule of law in the state of Connecticut.”

“We have to be careful around the political messaging around [housing]. ‘Let’s build so much housing that the value of your home goes down.’ Not a winning message for the record,” said Rojas.

It’s the closest anyone will get to saying the issue of housing is divided by the “haves” and “have nots,” and our political system is built around serving the “haves” — people who have property and tend to be older and well established in life.

This is the emerging political divide in Stamford and across the United States. A division not by politics, but by generations. One generation has all the levers of government giving — or ensuring they get to keep — a lot of stuff. All the other generations are discovering they may never get the same.

Total Boomer Luxury Communism

The term being used to describe this system of government is Total Boomer Luxury Communism. It describes the consistent policy of extracting wealth from younger generations to benefit aging Baby Boomers. The term comes from “Fully Automated Luxury Communism,” which theorized a utopian Star Trek future where technological miracles provide luxurious living for all. The “Boomerism” variant keeps luxuries exclusive to one generation and lacks the ability to pay for them without taking from others.

Boomerism exists at the federal and local level. At the federal level, it’s debt. At the local level, it’s housing. We’ll get back to housing in a few paragraphs but let me give you context for where this term is coming from.

Russ Greene coined the term Total Boomer Luxury Communism (which I am short-handing as “Boomerism”) and the term has become a popular critique of both political parties’ failures to tackle budget issues.

The national debt has been a talking point for conservatives for decades and in 2024 national Republicans made a big deal about the national debt… then supported policies making it worse (tariffs, Big Beautiful Bill, kneecapping DOGE). “Boomerism” may come from the right’s ecosystem, but it shouldn’t be confused as a critique of “left” policies — or as a redux of the ordinary conservative argument “government spending is bad.”

Boomerism is defined by wealth extraction — taking tax revenue from younger generations to give government benefits only used by older generations. Government programs like unemployment and food stamps are not “Boomerism” because these programs are accessed — and paid for — by all generations. For many critics of Boomerism, the solution is not “cut all government spending,” but redistribute entitlements to support young families and business owners (who drive the economy that pays for these things).

Boomerism is programs like social security and Medicare.

The average American over 65 will receive roughly $25,000 in net federal benefits, while the average American between 18-65 will pay roughly $8,000 for those programs. And no, people have not “paid in” to these programs to cover their own costs — partly because taxes are not structured that way and partly because there are way more Boomers then any other generation.

These programs include ludicrous luxuries.

Medicare Advantage pays for membership fees at ski resorts and golf clubs. Social security gives twice as much cash to recipients as similar programs in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Some households can collect up to $117k a year for decades.

This isn’t “welfare,” it is subsidized wealth.

Housing is the “national debt” of local politics

At the local level, the “subsidized wealth” is property valuations of single-family homes and tax policies subsidizing their ability to stay in $1M+ properties.

In any free market, the existence of an expensive good creates an incentive for a person or business to provide that good. This is basic “supply and demand.” If a lot of people want a good and there’s not a lot of that good then the price of the good is high. If a lot of people want a good and you make a lot of that good very quickly, the price of the good goes down.

Local governments frequently can’t make a lot of housing because of what Rojas referred to in Stamford’s housing town hall as “a thousand vetoes.”

In Stamford, zoning board decisions are politicized, zoning board members receive political retribution for voting for lawful projects, and entire political factions are dedicated to pulling every alarm to prevent development.

This is frustrating on its own, but it is uniquely frustrating in Stamford because we’re not building housing just for fun but because the city doesn’t have sufficient revenue to pay its debt.

It always surprises me how many people don’t know this. Stamford is only pursuing a pro-growth housing development strategy because the city owes $200M.

This problem was discovered by Mayor David Martin in 2014 and at the time it was getting significantly bigger every year. The increase was so dramatic he had this bit during the State of the City where he would present the typical “increased costs” of the operating budget and board of education, then he’d have to change the scale of y axis of the chart to show the increase cost of pensions and other post-employment benefits (healthcare).

When Martin says “the failure to consider the future has really changed the options that we have as a community,” that’s him using consultant-speak to say “we screwed up our financials so badly our only option is growth.”

Quick aside…

The growing cost of pension and healthcare benefits is why the Martin administration preferred overtime over new hires. Each new hire meant more costs to that bright red line in the video above — which we were already behind on by a significant amount. As Martin says: “even if [these costs] were eliminated tomorrow, we would still have a huge unfunded liability.” Overtime looks expensive now but it is better than adding debt to be inherited later by the next generation.

For example, Stamford’s Police Department had a lot of overtime. This resulted in some cops getting a lot more money — not because their base salary was $250k but because they took a lot of overtime.

Hearst Connecticut ran a number of incredibly annoying articles about city salaries where the top 10 were almost always police officers. This motivated rhetoric about “highly paid government employees,” in service to a broader argument about property taxes being too high — as if overtime costs are the main driver of tax increases. They’re not. Debt is. The additional revenue provided by development is the only reason we’re not seeing double digit tax increases.

Martin began including a breakdown of overtime costs when his administration sent salary data to Hearst, but that caused a delay in providing the data. Hearst filed a FOIA complaint against the city over this issue and lost. As far as I know, Hearst stopped publishing these articles — thank God.

Anyway…

A pro-growth housing development strategy means more revenue for the city to pay debt. This debt was mostly accrued by paying benefits to Boomers.

No growth means inflated valuations for homes. That means triple digit returns on real estate assets primarily owned by Boomers. If the city provided more housing supply, the cost of housing — and inflated housing valuations — would go down. This would reduce the valuations of homes for the generation that already has immense wealth while providing real rent decreases for younger generations.

When politicians say “lowering housing values is not a winning message” that’s only true if the majority of voters have housing valuations to lose.

Millennials have the political capital to affect change

Stamford is at the ground floor of this political argument because of the recent re-election of (Millennial) Mayor Caroline Simmons and the massive turnover in the Board of Representatives has changed the generational dynamic of our political leaders.

The new board’s average age reduced from 58 to 52 thanks to the election of more Millennials (11 up from 6) and Gen Z (4 up from 0) while replacing Boomers (10 down from 16) and Silents (1 down from 3). Gen X maintained its level of representation. Many of these representatives are new to the board.

Both the old and new board are overwhelmingly Democrats, but the previous board was antagonistic toward its own Democrat mayor because housing is divided by generation — not politics.

The city’s recent political melees over the Glenbrook Community Center, the charter, and the master plan were all about housing. The tactics opposing housing prefer access to backrooms over the fairness of laws (hence the “Communism”). This is how the board blocked dozens of appointees and organized the most aggrieved property owners in the city to oppose housing.

Stamford’s Democratic City Committee (chaired by Gen Xer Robin Druckman) mobilized and ousted almost everyone associated with Boomerism in Stamford. The new board is mostly newcomers, but that doesn’t mean Boomerism won’t return.

It’s worth clarifying: “Boomerism” isn’t necessarily supported by every Boomer; not every Boomer benefits from “Boomerism”; and not all supporters of Boomerism are Boomers.

Anyone who owns property in Stamford has incentives to support the wealth extraction system associated with Boomerism. Politicians also have incentives to support wealth extraction — evident in the fact Mayor Simmons has already supported it in her first term.

Stamford’s wealth extraction of younger generations

Every 5 years, Connecticut municipalities perform a “re-evaluation” of all properties in the city. This frequently shifts the tax burden depending on how neighborhoods have changed since the last “reval.”

Stamford’s 2022 re-evaluation showed multifamily homes (such as apartments and condominiums) became less valuable while single-family properties (such as the typical home in the suburbs) became more valuable. This is consistent with development of multifamily properties and no development of single-family properties (produce more of a good = the value of that good goes down).

The revaluation meant single-family properties – predominantly owned by Boomers – would be taxed at a higher rate. Multifamily properties – predominantly owned by younger generations – would be taxed at a lower rate.1 An unacceptable tradeoff for Boomerism.

The city passed a proposal to delay the new tax rates — extracting wealth from the young to give more to owners of multi-million dollar properties. Textbook Boomerism. Approved and implemented by Simmons.

A similar dynamic appeared with the master plan. City staff proposed more housing in a district adjacent to downtown. Boomerism opposed it. Simmons caved.

That’s because Boomerism is popular. You don’t need to be a Boomer to support Boomerism, but for most of Stamford’s history Boomers were the largest voter demographic. That changed last year.

There are now more Millennial registered voters than any other generation.

The margin is thin and this has only been true for a handful of months, so we’re still frozen in the status quo.

The status quo is Democrats refuse to cut anything from government spending or control (such as environmental or equity assessments that often block housing development), and Republicans talk about literally limiting property taxes. Both political parties are designing policy around Boomers.

The only way to overcome these entrenched interests would be a local government detached from national politics, with a new board, and a leader with no threat of opposition. Simmons’ historic trounce of all opponents has delivered that circumstance.

Ironically, the previous board’s resistance to development by blocking all appointees to boards associated with development has gifted Simmons a rare opportunity. Simmons could completely redesign powerful land use boards simply because there are so many positions to appoint. According to Chief of Staff Bridget Fox, the city plans to submit more than 30 appointees in January.

These appointees could turn on the faucet of housing development and accomplish real rent decreases within the next 4 years. There is nothing stopping our newly re-elected mayor from addressing the number one issue for the largest voting demographic in Stamford.

The only question is if she is willing to mobilize a new voter base or rely on appeasing the old one.

CORRECTION 01/16/2026: This article has been corrected to reflect the most recent language of the proposed amendment on Jan. 7, 2026. A previous version of this article referenced the language of the proposed amendment submitted on Dec. 8, 2025.

CORRECTION 01/18/2026: This article has been corrected to specify the origin of the analysis of negative comments to land use boards. A previous version of this article credited Indivisible Stamford. Indivisible Stamford contacted Feather Ruffler and said they have no relationship with this analysis.

STAMFORD — A proposal to amend Stamford’s Board of Representatives public comment period has sparked opposition and debate over the constitutional limits of local governance and free speech.

The proposed amendment has not been discussed by the board or voted on, but the text of the amendment was added to the agenda for the Board of Representative’s Legislative & Rules committee. Multiple residents in Stamford have shared the text and published opinion pieces opposing the changes.

Since the public’s response, a newly proposed amendment was submitted on Jan. 7 that removed text that would’ve limited speakers to three comments per calendar year and prevented speakers from speaking on the same topic across multiple comments. However, text about limiting “disparaging personal comments” has not been removed and instead reworded to limit “personal attacks.”

The board’s rules on public comment already have some restrictions on speakers. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes and the president has “sole discretion” to “shorten or cancel” speakers’ time if their comments are “disruptive” or ”unruly.”

Repeat commenters “drown out” participation

The proposed changes come with the context of a historic landslide victory for re-elected Mayor Caroline Simmons. Simmons and Stamford’s Democratic City Committee Chair Robin Druckman organized a number of new candidates for seats on Stamford’s DCC and Board of Representatives that resulted in the removal of incumbents who opposed development in Stamford. This strategy from Simmons and her party are seen as a response to a number of highly visible proxy debates about development, including the Glenbrook Community Center, the charter revisions in 2023, and the 2025 mayoral election cycle — where all candidates opposing Simmons focused on development.

These proxy debates attracted the same handful of activists opposed to development.

An analysis shared on Reddit’s r/StamfordCT of public comments submitted on issues related to “land use” (a broad term for zoning, planning, and development) from July 2021 to September 2022 found there were a total of 264 statements of opposition submitted by 57 individuals. Of the 57 individuals, 14 individuals submitted 188 negative comments — 71% of all negative comments. Of these 188 comments, 40% of them were submitted by six people who were later selected as part of the charter revision committee that proposed changes that would make development in Stamford more difficult.1

Repetitive commenters may deter other voices.

“When the same people show up month after month to speak on the same topic — sometimes in increasingly belligerent or monotonous ways — it becomes easier for officials to tune out,” said former Board of Education member Versha Munshi-South in an opinion piece to CT Examiner. “It’s not because public input is unimportant, but because repetition can drown out new perspectives and reduce meaningful dialogue.”

Munshi-South’s piece said the proposed amendment “risks limiting discourse rather than addressing the root of the problem.” Munshi-South clarified in an email to Feather Ruffler she supports “reasonable procedural guardrails” such as setting expectations around civility and prohibiting personal attacks.

First Amendment protections of “personal attacks”

“Personal attacks” may be protected speech the board cannot legally prohibit. The latest version of the proposed amendment reads (additions are bolded):

The President may keep good order and decorum in any manner authorized by Robert’s Rules of Order, and, for the avoidance of doubt, may shorten or cancel the speaking time of any speaker during the public comment period if deemed in the President’s sole discretion to be disruptive or unruly. Personal attacks against Board members will be considered disruptive conduct and will not be permitted, whether or not the speaker states the name of the Board member.

“Granting a Board President the power to silence a citizen based on the content or tone of their criticism is a recipe for viewpoint discrimination and legal liability for the City of Stamford,” said Jonathan Saint Victor in an email submitted to the board. Saint Victor is one of several residents who submitted statements of opposition to the proposed amendment.2

Saint Victor’s comment is consistent with legal experts.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) — a nonpartisan free speech advocacy organization — warns government officials often attempt to disguise “viewpoint discrimination” as simple rules for decorum.

According to FIRE, the government can impose “time, place, and manner” restrictions to keep meetings orderly but they cannot silence speakers because their beliefs “cause offense.”

“Limiting people to three appearances per year and controlling which topics they may speak on strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, which exists precisely to protect speech that is repetitive, uncomfortable, or critical of those in power,” said Dennis LoDolce in an opinion piece to CT Examiner responding to Munshi-South’s piece. “This is not a question of etiquette or efficiency. There is no moral issue to debate: restricting lawful speech because it is repetitive or uncomfortable is wrong.”

The text limiting speakers to three appearances per calendar year has since been removed from the proposed amendment.

The extent of the first amendments protections for offensive speech was litigated in the 2011 Supreme Court case Snyder vs. Phelps. The defendant Fred Phelps was the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church which organized protests to coincide with funeral services of American soldiers who identified as gay. These protests included picket signs that read “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for 9/11.” The court ruled speech made in a “public place” on a “matter of public concern” cannot be limited even if it is offensive, outrageous, or the cause of emotional distress.

“As a Nation, we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” said Chief Justice John Roberts in his opinion to the court.

The City of Stamford’s law department has not issued a formal legal opinion on the legality of the proposed amendment.

How do you know what the public thinks?

The analysis of repeat commenters presents the view that repeated comments can skew perceptions on the public’s support of policies. For example, if repeat commenters submit hundreds of statements against development but a mayor who is not against development wins in a landslide.

LoDolce said he agrees with Munshi-South that meetings should be efficient and respectful, but disagrees that repetitive comments devalue public comments.

“Elected officials are expected to weigh many inputs: data, surveys, elections, outreach, and expert advice, not just who speaks at a meeting,” said LoDolce in an email to Feather Ruffler. “To someone who sees this as a problem, I would say the solution is better judgment and broader outreach, not restricting access to public comment. Limiting who can speak because their participation might ‘skew perception’ shifts responsibility away from decision-makers and onto residents who are simply exercising their rights.”

Feather Ruffler reached out to members of the Legislative & Rules Committee to identify the author and motivations of the amendment, but did not receive a response before publication of this article. However, the discussion at the meeting where the amendment was proposed can provide insight into its purpose.

The amendment was first introduced at the Legislative & Rules Committee on Dec. 23. The committee voted to hold discussion on the amendment because the committee had already spent several hours discussing another amendment to board rules limiting the speaking time of board members. The discussion of that amendment mentioned the goal of reducing the length of public board meetings — which frequently go on for four or five hours.

Both LoDolce and Munshi-South said they agree long meetings or complex rules can create barriers to public engagement.

“Many residents are deeply invested in local issues but are effectively excluded by time, format, and process,” said Munshi-South in an email to Feather Ruffler. “Meetings held on weekday evenings, limited speaking slots, and a culture that rewards familiarity with procedure all favor a small, consistent group of participants. That dynamic can look like disinterest, but it’s more accurately a question of access and design.”

“Most residents are focused on their jobs, families, and day-to-day responsibilities, and local government often doesn’t rise to the top unless an issue directly affects them,” said LoDolce. “Stamford actually has a fairly strong track record when it comes to access because residents can attend meetings in person or on Zoom, send emails, make phone calls, and reach out to elected officials in multiple ways. The mechanisms are there, but many people only become active when something meaningful or impactful brings them into the process.”

Both had their own recommendations for how to better solicit public opinions.

“One idea worth exploring is hosting civic engagement night classes, where residents can learn more about Stamford’s government, how decisions are made, and how the voting process works,” said LoDolce. “Increasing civic literacy can help people feel more confident engaging when issues arise.”

“Boards should be clearer about which decisions are genuinely shaped by public input and which are largely driven by legal or regulatory requirements,” said Munshi-South. “Not every agenda item offers the same opportunity for public influence, and being transparent about that distinction would help set realistic expectations and build trust.”

The Legislative & Rules committee’s next meeting is Jan. 27 at 7pm. The public can attend committee meetings but cannot speak unless invited by the committee.

STAMFORD — High-ranking state Democrats detailed the friction stalling housing development in Connecticut at a housing town hall hosted at the Stamford Government Center on Tuesday night. State Senator Majority Leader Bob Duff and State House Majority Leader Jason Rojas were the primary participants for the event hosted by Indivisible Stamford.

The town hall focused on House Bill 8002 — the second housing bill proposed by Connecticut’s legislature after Governor Ned Lamont vetoed their first attempt — but shifted to a broader conversation about systemic hurdles stalling housing development in Stamford.

Stamford housing data

State Senator Patricia Billie Miller opened the forum by laying out housing data for Stamford.

“According to the Partnership for Strong Communities […] a person needs to earn $50.54 an hour to afford a home here. Keep in mind that the minimum wage just went up to $16.94 cents,” said Miller. “The data also indicates market rents [are] $2,200 for a studio and $4,400 for three bedrooms or more. [In] Stamford we have just over 55,000 units of housing, and out of that 7,900 are affordable.”

Miller framed HB 8002 as “just a roadmap” to provide regionally planning for housing in Connecticut.

Rojas said the most important component of HB 8002 is it strengthens municipalities’ ability to plan for housing.

“I think it creates stronger partnerships between the towns and the state but also allows our Councils of Governments to play a stronger role in trying to support our municipalities, many of which on the smaller side,” said Rojas. “I’m guessing Stamford has a robust planning department, but many of our communities around the state don’t. They simply don’t have the person power to engage in updating zoning regulations — not an easy thing to do.”

Councils of Government (COG) are regional organizations made up of elected officials from municipalities in their covered region. COGs provide technical expertise on a number of issues. Stamford is a member of the Western Council of Government — or “West COG.”

Duff said a key component of HB 8002 was its response to Lamont’s veto of HB 5002.

“The governor was very clear he wanted towns to take the lead,” said Duff. “So in our bill, […] that’s what we have as our state policy.”

HB 8002 provides incentives for towns to build housing rather than mandates.

“The proof will be in the pudding if communities do build housing like Stamford and Norwalk are,” said Duff.

“A thousand veto points”

Rojas referenced regulatory structures acted as an impediment to housing in Connecticut.

“We haven’t allowed enough housing to be built and that’s part of the challenge that we’re facing here. It all comes to a head where demand is far outstripping supply,” said Rojas. “I’m sounding like what a Republican should be talking about — reducing regulations, allowing the free market to respond to demand, but instead it’s Democrats taking up the mantle of trying to loosen up all those regulatory structures.”

Rojas’ comments suggest Connecticut Republicans no longer support free market policies — a claim backed by events in Stamford. In 2024, Republican Zoning Board Member Rosanne McManus received a vote of no confidence from Stamford’s Republican Town Committee for voting “in favor of zoning text changes contributing to over development.” McManus responded to the vote by changing her voter registration to unaffiliated.

Votes of no confidence are just one of what Rojas’ refers to as “veto points.”

“There are a thousand veto points to getting a unit of housing built,” Rojas said in a post-event interview with Feather Ruffler. “I know it’s not the sexiest solution to what is a very serious problem, but I think it’s actually being honest and real about how we address housing costs. It is reducing regulations, reducing burdens that are placed on people who build housing. The government [is] placing additional burdens on those owners of that property that inevitably pass along to the end user.”

When asked if housing economics follows supply and demand — the principle that providing more of a product innately reduces its price — Rojas said “Yes.”

“I do believe [supply and demand],” said Duff. “But we’re 100,000 units short of where we need to be so while we’re building housing, we’re not building it at a fast enough pace to necessarily have the biggest impact that we need to move prices.”

Growth Mandate

Duff and Rojas referenced the “pace” of housing development can cause problems for Connecticut communities. One problem is the divergence of incentives for renters and homeowners. The nonprofit organization Strong Towns argues America is in a “housing trap” where any policies addressing housing affordability also decreases the value of homes. For many American families, a home is their most valuable financial asset.

“We have to be careful with the political messaging around that,” said Rojas. “’Let’s build so much housing that the value of your home goes down.’ Not a winning message for the record.”

Strong Towns recommends “bottom up” housing reforms to address affordability without devaluing single-family homes. These reforms include deregulating zoning laws such as maximum units per lot, setbacks, and parking mandates. These policies have been implemented in states such as Montana — suggesting housing development has bipartisan support.

“[Housing] is more partisan in Connecticut, because if you look at red states they’re advancing a lot more aggressive housing reforms than blue states are,” said Rojas.

Duff suggested Connecticut’s housing policy has broader implications beyond more places to live.

“You got to grow or you die,” said Duff. “We can’t grow more jobs; we can’t grow our tax base if we don’t build more housing.”

What can ordinary people do?

Halfway through the event, the moderator posed the question: what can constituents do to support more housing?

“Have relationships with your legislators, talk to other legislators form other parts of the state, be a presence,” said Duff. “It’s really hard to get through big bills like this bill through the legislative process. You can only do it when you have the public behind you. […] When there’s a zoning proposal to build apartments or something else, the only people at those meetings are the people who say no. How about a couple people actually show up and say yes?”

“Forums like this are one of the important things you can do,” said Rojas. “Asking your legislator what’s actually in the bill as opposed to relying on an anonymous Facebook page is probably one of the best things you can do.”