ONLINE FEEDBACK

Readers of the article “Stonington leaders criticize Malloy request for details on town’s surplus” Aug. 24 discussed town v. state, Democrat v. Republican.

“Good for you, gentlemen; well said! Towns that practice good financial management should not have to pay for those who do not. Eliminate the unfunded state mandates, adhere to the PILOT agreements in place and encourage regionalization and let our cities and towns rise or fall on their own merits.”

—Anniegurl

“This is just the beginning. No assets, public or private, will be safe in CT for the next 5-10 years until the structural budget issues are addressed. But Stonington residents should not get a complete pass on prudent financial choices. Putting a significant chunk of your personal assets in residential real estate in a flood plain? Not such a good idea. And their bad choices are subsidized by federal flood insurance. People on the high ground are subsidizing residents in Stonington Borough and Mason’s Island just as the fiscally sound towns are subsidizing the not so sound municipalities. Wait until FEMA goes bust. All those fancy houses aren’t going to be such a good idea when they have water in them.”

—Ed Planeta Jr.

“The state will encourage fiscal misbehavior. Towns will hold minimal savings knowing that the state will raid their coffers and cut back on state aid. What a sad state of affairs we are in.”

—Ralph.

“I guess the state now knows how much is in the surplus now... it’s right there in the article! 11.2 mil. “Unbelievable how responsible people get penalized and are expected to subsidize those who don’t seem to care about credit scores, medical treatment and retirement.”

—Wilbur