Celebrating the obvious in a 28-page study aimed at political candidates, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities proclaimed late last year that Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven and Waterbury are poor and have special needs and thus a special claim on state government’s resources.No one would dispute the poverty. But the report’s argument for pouring still more money into those cities was weak. Yes, the cities are home to many property tax-exempt institutions like colleges and hospitals, and state financial grants don’t fully cover the tax loss. Tax exemptions and inadequate state reimbursements cost the four cities at least $115 million each year, the CCM report says. But then, colleges and hospitals are major employers and spenders, hardly economic burdens at all. Further, the four cities get hugely disproportionate state and federal grants for education and income support for their residents. Would those cities really be much improved demographically if they were to divide another $115 million each year, maybe $30 million each? Or would most of the new money just be absorbed by the compensation of city employees?Yes, as the CCM report notes, the cities are full of nonprofit social service agencies ministering to the poor. But those agencies don’t cause poverty or strain municipal budgets; rather, they are just manifestations of the poverty already present.The four cities, the report adds, have more crime, more former offenders, more medically uninsured people and more people with bad health, as well as horrible educational performance by local students. But the report fails to note that all those circumstances long have drawn disproportionate state and federal government aid without much result.As the state and federal governments themselves do, the CCM report implicitly assumes that government cannot alleviate poverty, just administer it. Even if that assumption is granted, couldn’t government at least do something about the concentration of poverty in the cities, as by arranging inexpensive housing in the most exclusive suburbs? But the CCM report makes no mention of housing, perhaps because dispersing the poor would be too difficult politically. After all, people, including the poor themselves, move to the suburbs precisely to escape the pathologies of poverty. Nobody wants to live among former criminals, whose recidivism rate may approach 70 percent, or send his children to schools dragged down by kids who are at best neglected and at worst abused at home.Having given up on alleviating poverty, having no interest in ascertaining why public policy has failed to alleviate it and having gotten comfortable with the business of administering poverty, Connecticut long ago settled happily for poverty’s concentration. As the CCM report notes, “Connecticut as a whole has the third lowest poverty rate in the nation for families, 6.7 percent. However, the poverty rates in Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven and Waterbury for families are at least twice as high as the state average.” CCM sees this data as evidence of failure. But most Connecticut residents — those people who don’t live in the cities — may see this data as evidence of success.CCM isn’t likely to persuade them otherwise with the pious old nonsense of the conclusion its study draws. “The health of our central cities, their suburbs and the state are linked,” CCM Executive Director Jim Finley summarizes. “Despite tough fiscal times, state government has a moral and economic imperative to provide increased assistance to Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven and Waterbury. They are regional hubs for economic development, health care, and culture. If these hubs fail, the suburbs around them will also founder. As go these cities, so goes Connecticut.”Of course, Connecticut’s experience has been exactly to the contrary: that the poorer the cities are, the richer the suburbs are; that nothing done in the name of alleviating urban poverty has worked; that the suburbs lately have succeeded in economic development far more than the cities have; that the police in the cities can keep sufficient order around the facilities suburban residents really need, if not in city residential areas; and that cable television, CDs and DVDs supply culture far more conveniently than cities do.No, the only people who need Connecticut’s cities are the poor, and nobody yet has published the report about how to get them out of poverty. Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester.
Latest News
Greg Fricke and James Boehmer, co-owners of Peggy Mercury in Kent, recently launched their first fashion line, “Imaginary Concerts.”
Provided
Fricke and Boehmer are not there to stock their shelves with the same products customers find at standard makeup retailers. They’re there to help customers find what works for them. That usually means asking customers about themselves and learning about their beauty habits, skin, style and the way they like to present themselves. Fricke and Boehmer believe it’s their job to help customers bring out the qualities that suit them and determine what works best for their look.
So much of the Peggy Mercury world is about emboldening people to become more creative, and possibly bolder, versions of themselves. Some of this comes through the store’s creative collaborations with artists, designers and stylists.
It’s part of an ethos that encourages them and their friends to use the shop as a kind of laboratory, trying out new creative experiments without knowing how they might turn out. Whether in fashion, painting, fiber arts or photography, the projects almost always turn out marvelously.
A line of sterling silver charms they sell started as a small project by their friend Nolan Percival. In the beginning, the pieces were for close friends and loved ones. But Boehmer and Fricke encouraged Percival to get a little more serious about the project and create a whole line for the store. Today, it’s one of their top-selling collections.
Classic styles, bold colors, and creative concerts make up the “Imaginary Concerts” line at Peggy Mercury.Provided
“Imaginary Concerts” has the duo taking their own advice.
The project started as a way for Boehmer to connect with his mother, who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Taking old concert shirts from his own collection, Boehmer and his mother began cutting out the graphics with the idea that they would make a quilt together. Unfortunately, she died before they could complete the project in 2025. The pieces, which were ready for production, were put on the back burner as Boehmer and Fricke dealt with their loss and the whirlwind of projects that never seemed to cease at Peggy Mercury.
But the harsh winter of 2026 presented an opportunity to take some time and focus on themselves. Part of that meant revisiting and redefining the concert T-shirt project. This time, instead of looking to the warmth and comfort of a quilt, they turned to another passion — fashion.
Taking a page from their own book, they wanted to create something that felt comfortable to them. They took two disparate loves — one rooted in simple preppy style, with clean lines and classic silhouettes, and the other in the nitty gritty worlds of punk rock and pop — and blended them together to create something entirely new. Pulling from the staples of vintage Brooks Brothers and Charvet collections, they applied the graphic elements with bold stitching reminiscent of punk jackets of the ‘70s and ‘80s, but with a much more sophisticated air.
But the remixing isn’t just the pairing of prep and punk. The pieces are not canon. They take liberties with the realities of concert tours, combining one band’s dates with another band’s logos, mixing them all up until the reality is lost and imagination is the only truth.
Shirts from Peggy Mercury’s first fashion line, “Imaginary Concerts,” hang on display.Provided
Adding to the mix is an element of perpetual creativity. Art can be messy, both figuratively and literally, and many of Fricke and Boehmer’s artist friends carry evidence of their work on them at all times. As a nod to these tireless creatives, the duo added haphazard splashes of bright color, giving the line an even more distinctive feel.
For them, “Imaginary Concerts” passes the “Peggy Test.” The mythical Peggy Mercury is a fictional figurehead for the company, a character who thrives on creativity and change. The name, much like the clothing line, is a mixture of interests: Mercury is a planet, a deity and an elusive, transformative element, while Peggy is the wonderfully stylish and boundary-pushing Peggy Guggenheim.
Everything Fricke and Boehmer put in their store has to pass this test: Would Peggy Mercury approve? For their first collection, the answer is a resounding yes.
Peggy Mercury is at 9 Maple St., Unit 2, Kent.
Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.
