CRRA Rebuked: High Court Confirms Tow...

CRRA Rebuked: High Court Confirms Towns Were Overcharged

There are 15 comments on the Hartford Courant story from May 17, 2009, titled CRRA Rebuked: High Court Confirms Towns Were Overcharged. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

The state Supreme Court has landed a much-deserved $36 million slap on the face of a trash agency for overcharging towns to cover an illegal loan to Enron.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

Uriah Heep

United States

#1 May 18, 2009
What the Courant's editorial fails to mention is that the attorneys who represented the towns will receive approximately NINE MILLION DOLLARS ($9,000,000.00) of the $35+ Million Dollars court award. In short, who are the REAL winners in this expensive litigation, the towns' residents and taxpayers or the attorneys who are laughing all the way to the bank!
easy livin

Cheshire, CT

#2 May 18, 2009
this is a place i've never known before, it's called easy livin'.....

$9mil? cool.
Richard

Lincoln, NE

#3 May 18, 2009
How can it be that an entity of this nature has $220 million to lend?
smells rotton

Newington, CT

#6 May 18, 2009
Read why the CRRA has to over charge.

A Democrat State Senator grabbed almost a million bucks as the crra attorney while his towns were over charged. How can a State Senator be taking money from the states trash authority? Isn't this illegal?

http://headlesshorseman2008.blogspot.com/2008...
Justin

Fairfield, CT

#7 May 18, 2009
Richard wrote:
How can it be that an entity of this nature has $220 million to lend?
The CRRA got the $220 million from CL&P to cancel a long-term energy contract after the cost of energy plummetted in the late 90's and CL&P was forced to sell off its electrical generation facilities by the legislature. CRRA couldn't think of anything better to do with the money than to give it to Enron.
Common sense

Middletown, CT

#8 May 18, 2009
I gotta say that Uriah Heep nailed it. None of the member towns were damaged, or even claimed damages that were a fraction of the lawyers' fee.

It looks to me like a smart lawyer was scanning the news and saw a way to put millions of state money in his own pocket using the legal system. Good for him, bad for the rest of us.

As for the slanderous and libelous comments, they reflect the intellect of the commentors.
RISING STAR

Bloomfield, CT

#9 May 18, 2009
Uriah Heep wrote:
What the Courant's editorial fails to mention is that the attorneys who represented the towns will receive approximately NINE MILLION DOLLARS ($9,000,000.00) of the $35+ Million Dollars court award. In short, who are the REAL winners in this expensive litigation, the towns' residents and taxpayers or the attorneys who are laughing all the way to the bank!
I'd like to know which law office is getting $9mm and why that so bothers you. Wall Streeters have been walking away with millions for YEARS for nothing and there was no outrage...why all of a sudden?
The Clam

Meriden, CT

#10 May 18, 2009
The author has no idea of what they're talking about. Their side of this story is purely fiction. How can individuals that pay for a service pay twice be a fair and just verdict? I myself use the transfer station in which I pay a fee too. Not the town. The trash haulers pay a fee to the transfer station. How does the money going back to the communities seem fair. With my permit there is a record of all payees.

Now that it's over let's look at the parties involved. Two democrat selectmen. A town democrat committee chairman. His father the treasurer for the Gore presidential election. A lawyer that gives to the democrat party. A judge that was nominated by two democrat state legislators. Are we seeing as trend here? Both the Attorney and Gore treasurer were Yale college graduates, belong to the CT Bar.

Nine million dollars going to the lawyers. Even the Bar association thought the fees were outrageous.

Giving Hartford 3.5 million dollars and West Hartford to bastions for democrats seems peculiarly odd as well. Taxpayer receive a one time shot of revenue. The towns will spend it and the taxpayers will have to pay increased taxes to replace it in the next cycle.

Where is the outrage????? Hartford Courant writes about difference between MDC and CRRA as a distraction. Anyone that looks at the costs of legal fees will see exactly who benefits.
Insanity

Meriden, CT

#11 May 18, 2009
How is it that the Hartford Courant can print this on the front page and not allow the public the opportunity to see an opposing view? Are they part of the scam?
slapped on the wrist

Oxford, CT

#12 May 19, 2009
This is the same agency that pays Senator Gaffey a 100,000 a year to work part time. And everyone is surprised to see them get in trouble for making illegal loans and over charging member towns. They have redefined overcharging. And overpaying. This is a bastion for wayward dems with former Senator DiBella leading the way.
Change is in the Air

Southold, NY

#13 May 19, 2009
Uriah Heep....no doubt working for CRRA...or a disgruntled employee, pissed off that every judge in CT has ruled against them!

Hey CRRA, why stop now...your arrogance has no limits....appeal again....and cost the taxpayers even more...
Tom

Durham, CT

#14 May 19, 2009
slapped on the wrist wrote:
This is the same agency that pays Senator Gaffey a 100,000 a year to work part time. And everyone is surprised to see them get in trouble for making illegal loans and over charging member towns. They have redefined overcharging. And overpaying. This is a bastion for wayward dems with former Senator DiBella leading the way.
DiBella! That's the crook I was referring to above! Yeah, really sleazy guy, Feds kept trying to nail him, and Courant had a great photo of him scowling, looking like a trapped rat...
Ralphie

Marlborough, CT

#15 May 20, 2009
The Clam wrote:
The author has no idea of what they're talking about....
Now that it's over let's look at the parties involved. Two democrat selectmen....
Ooooooh those lousy Democrats! I knew they were to blame somehow, just like they're the cause of everything negative. Sometimes it makes me so mad my underwear gets all bunchy in the back!!!
The Clam

Meriden, CT

#16 May 20, 2009
People like Ralphie are soooo blind they don't consider that the money is coming out of their own pockets. Can you say PUTZ?
Ralphie

Newington, CT

#17 May 20, 2009
The Clam wrote:
People like Ralphie are soooo blind they don't consider that the money is coming out of their own pockets.
Nah, not so blind. I'm just not going to see everything as the fault of a political party. But then, you're more perceptive than most aren't you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barkhamsted Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Topless women weekend Jan '15 Ladonna C 1
shooting in the 1970's (Oct '12) Jul '14 Deb G 3
News Ridgefield looks to renewed Economic Development (Apr '09) Mar '14 Daniel 3
Election Who do you support for State Senate in Connecti... (Oct '10) Sep '13 Amado Sigurdson 14
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Connecticu... (Oct '10) Sep '13 Karena Krapp 20
News CRRA Ordered To Make Payouts To Towns (Dec '07) Sep '13 Dodie Winterfeld 12
News Polling Places (Feb '08) Sep '13 Rueben Rollings 9
More from around the web

Barkhamsted People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]