AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 11:10:31 AM

Title: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 11:10:31 AM
Just saw this story that might interest county collectors here: https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/Relics-of-CT-history-will-soon-see-a-new-twist-16693047.php

QuoteUnfortunately, county data is almost useless in Connecticut, because the groups of towns in the eight historic counties are not the same as the groups of towns in the regional entities we have today – nine planning regions represented by "councils of governments,"  or COGs. For example, historic Hartford County has 29 towns, while the Capitol Planning Region (also known as the Capitol Region Council of Governments) covers 38 towns.

In 2019, state officials petitioned the U.S. Census Bureau to designate the planning regions/COGs as "county equivalents,"  so data will be reported for the regional entities that actually use it.

The change is now in final review by state agencies. Barring a last-minute objection, it will be approved by the end of the year and go into effect in 2023.

FWIW, here's a map of the current COG definitions:

(https://portal.ct.gov/lib/opm/igp/org/cogs/rcogs.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: JayhawkCO on December 13, 2021, 11:17:34 AM
If I'm reading that right, I'd be going from missing 3 counties to only missing 2.  I'd also be gaining 2 counties. (5/8 vs. 7/9)
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

I think people need to assess what makes a county a county.  Does the Census...or judicial considerations?
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: 7/8 on December 13, 2021, 11:35:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

I think people need to assess what makes a county a county.  Does the Census...or judicial considerations?

That's for the Council of mob-rule.com to decide. :sombrero:
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on December 13, 2021, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on December 13, 2021, 11:35:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

I think people need to assess what makes a county a county.  Does the Census...or judicial considerations?

That's for the Council of mob-rule.com to decide. :sombrero:

I would think it would depend on what ends up being signed by the state on highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on December 13, 2021, 11:35:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

I think people need to assess what makes a county a county.  Does the Census...or judicial considerations?

That's for the Council of mob-rule.com to decide. :sombrero:

I would think it would depend on what ends up being signed by the state on highways.

That would be nothing.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 13, 2021, 12:47:02 PM
They should come up with better names if this going to happen.  These are too bureaucratic.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on December 13, 2021, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on December 13, 2021, 11:35:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

I think people need to assess what makes a county a county.  Does the Census...or judicial considerations?

That's for the Council of mob-rule.com to decide. :sombrero:

I would think it would depend on what ends up being signed by the state on highways.

That would be nothing.

Well, absent any signage from the state, I'd go by whatever the Census Bureau uses, and apparently they are going to convert to the new definitions in 2023: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ct_county_equiv_change.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 12:53:29 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on December 13, 2021, 11:35:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

I think people need to assess what makes a county a county.  Does the Census...or judicial considerations?

That's for the Council of mob-rule.com to decide. :sombrero:

I would think it would depend on what ends up being signed by the state on highways.

That would be nothing.

Well, absent any signage from the state, I'd go by whatever the Census Bureau uses, and apparently they are going to convert to the new definitions in 2023: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ct_county_equiv_change.pdf

Why would you go by the U.S. Census over the State's own courts?
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Scott5114 on December 13, 2021, 01:00:08 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 12:53:29 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on December 13, 2021, 11:35:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

I think people need to assess what makes a county a county.  Does the Census...or judicial considerations?

That's for the Council of mob-rule.com to decide. :sombrero:

I would think it would depend on what ends up being signed by the state on highways.

That would be nothing.

Well, absent any signage from the state, I'd go by whatever the Census Bureau uses, and apparently they are going to convert to the new definitions in 2023: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ct_county_equiv_change.pdf

Why would you go by the U.S. Census over the State's own courts?

Because clinching "Unorganized Bureau, Alaska" is fairly unsatisfying.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: GaryV on December 13, 2021, 01:03:15 PM
When doing genealogy, facts are generally noted as "Location, County, State" or the equivalent.  That's because many of the records are held at county courthouses - birth certs, marriage certs, death certs, wills, etc.

Thus I'm in the camp of "stick with the county per the court".
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 01:07:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

It's not that the state courts use the old counties as much as the state courts judicial districts happen to coincide with the traditional county boundaries.

In addition to keeping tabs of the counties I've physically visited, I also track which counties I've worked via ham radio.  The group that formalizes the rules for "county hunting" on the radio looks like they'll follow along with this change (although they do use Judicial Districts in Alaska rather than either boroughs or census divisions).
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 01:17:27 PM
Quote from: GaryV on December 13, 2021, 01:03:15 PM
When doing genealogy, facts are generally noted as "Location, County, State" or the equivalent.  That's because many of the records are held at county courthouses - birth certs, marriage certs, death certs, wills, etc.

Thus I'm in the camp of "stick with the county per the court".

For genealogy purposes in Connecticut, county is irrelevant.   Vital records are maintained at either the town or state level.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 01:07:14 PM
It's not that the state courts use the old counties as much as the state courts judicial districts happen to coincide with the traditional county boundaries.

This apparently is no longer true.   For example, Hartland is now part of Litchfield's judicial district despite being in Hartford County.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: oscar on December 13, 2021, 01:29:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

I think people need to assess what makes a county a county.  Does the Census...or judicial considerations?

The Extra Miler Club settled on county equivalents for Canada a few years ago. The one consistent thread was that courts were irrelevant there, though in Canada the court systems aren't tied to local/regional governments as much as in the U.S. For an extreme example, Nunavut Territory has only one courthouse, covering three time zones (the judges fly to and from outlying communities as needed). We used the territory's three administrative divisions (basically, territorial agencies with branch offices usually have one in each division not covered by the home office), which roughly coincide with the three time zones.

Also, the census divisions defined by Statistics Canada generally took a beating in favor of province-designated government entities. The one exception was in Newfoundland/Labrador. Only the Inuit-dominated Census Division 11 has a county-like regional government, and we stayed with the census divisions in the rest of that province for lack of a better alternative.

Other lessons from that project could come into play for re-dividing (or not) Connecticut, though none jump out at me right now.

I like the proposed Councils of Government-based definitions, since the COGs seem to be as close as Connecticut comes to regional governments.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2021, 01:00:08 PM
Because clinching "Unorganized Bureau, Alaska" is fairly unsatisfying.

But county line signs for the Unorganized Borough would be so cool! Right now there are no signs where you enter the Unorganized Borough, only where you leave it to enter an organized borough.

Some county counters treat the Unorganized Borough as a single unit, spread out over thousands of miles between Attu and Hyder. That's especially true for the ones who insist on visiting the county seat, only the U.B. doesn't have one, in keeping with its being so "Unorganized".
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: JayhawkCO on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on December 13, 2021, 01:32:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 12:53:29 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on December 13, 2021, 11:35:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
Courts will still use the old counties, per my understanding.

I think people need to assess what makes a county a county.  Does the Census...or judicial considerations?

That's for the Council of mob-rule.com to decide. :sombrero:

I would think it would depend on what ends up being signed by the state on highways.

That would be nothing.

Well, absent any signage from the state, I'd go by whatever the Census Bureau uses, and apparently they are going to convert to the new definitions in 2023: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ct_county_equiv_change.pdf

Why would you go by the U.S. Census over the State's own courts?

As someone traveling into the state from out of state, unsigned court jurisdictions really don't hold any meaning. If the state signed those jurisdictions, I'd be more than happy to use them, but in this case the state asked the Census Bureau to use the new boundaries so that signifies the state finds them more important than the court boundaries.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 01:51:09 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 01:17:27 PM
This apparently is no longer true.   For example, Hartland is now part of Litchfield's judicial district despite being in Hartford County.

FWIW, a map of Connecticut's judicial districts: https://www.jud.ct.gov/directory/maps/JD/default.htm

While Middlesex, New London, Tolland, and Windham Counties coincide with current judicial districts, the boundaries of the other four traditional counties are now semi-irrelevant for the courts.  You can see parts of county boundaries preserved, but the fragmentation in Fairfield County and the introduction of discrete districts for Waterbury and New Britain messed with tradition.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: JayhawkCO on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: JayhawkCO on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Scott5114 on December 13, 2021, 04:06:01 PM
I remember reading on one of the sites of Old Roadgeek Canon–I'm thinking it was somewhere on mob-rule but it could have been on the Extra Miler Club's site, but I can't find it now–that stated their suggested rule for county splits was, if you visited the territory that remained in the old county, you get credit for only that old county. If you visited territory that ended up in the new county, you would get credit for both counties (because you visited the land that is in the new county and you also visited the jurisdiction that at the time covered that land and but now no longer does).

This would seem to imply that in the event of a complete boundary redraw, land visited would govern, and the lack of continuity of jurisdiction would be irrelevant. Taken to its logical conclusions, continuity of jurisdiction as the governing factor could lead to absurd results anyway, such as a clinch depending on things like whether a city-county merger was legally implemented as one government subsuming the other, or both being discontinued and a new government entity being formed with the same jurisdictional boundaries as the old one. That level of rules-lawyering is horseshit, so if I had visited Connecticut, I'd be filling in my mob-rule map based on "I was on X road before the redraw, and it is now in Y county, so I am marking that as visited".
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on December 13, 2021, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

This is how I look at it: Specific to Connecticut, there are no longer formal county-level subdivisions. To hold to the true definition of counties, you had to visit Connecticut before 1960 or else you've never been to any counties in Connecticut. What has existed since 1960 are county-equivalent subdivisions that happen to be identical to the counties that used to exist. When you've documented your travel since 1960, you've documented which of these areas you've been to. What is happening is that the Census Bureau and others are changing the boundaries of their county-equivalent subdivisions at the request of the state. Since there weren't really counties before this change, I'm clearly in the camp of counting the new areas as visited if you've ever visited any portion of that area before the change.

Now, if a state with actual counties were to split a county into two, creating a new county with a new county government and a new county seat, I can see not counting visiting that area before the county existed.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:20:18 PM


Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

Yep.  Have to go back and revisit Connecticut to clinch the new counties.

Last time you were in CT, you clinched the old counties.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: JayhawkCO on December 13, 2021, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

This is how I look at it: Specific to Connecticut, there are no longer formal county-level subdivisions. To hold to the true definition of counties, you had to visit Connecticut before 1960 or else you've never been to any counties in Connecticut. What has existed since 1960 are county-equivalent subdivisions that happen to be identical to the counties that used to exist. When you've documented your travel since 1960, you've documented which of these areas you've been to. What is happening is that the Census Bureau and others are changing the boundaries of their county-equivalent subdivisions at the request of the state. Since there weren't really counties before this change, I'm clearly in the camp of counting the new areas as visited if you've ever visited any portion of that area before the change.

Now, if a state with actual counties were to split a county into two, creating a new county with a new county government and a new county seat, I can see not counting visiting that area before the county existed.

I look at it that if I've been present in a place, I've "clinched" being there.  If a county splits, just like Scott said above, if I haven't been anywhere in the new area, I haven't been to that county. 

If Wales secedes from the U.K., despite me having been to the U.K., I will not have been to Wales because I've never been to Cardiff, Swansea, or any other Welsh city.  If Scotland secedes, I have been to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, and multiple other Scottish cities, ergo, I've been to Scotland.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: JayhawkCO on December 13, 2021, 04:21:21 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:20:18 PM


Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

Yep.  Have to go back and revisit Connecticut to clinch the new counties.

Last time you were in CT, you clinched the old counties.

As we do quite often, we will agree to disagree.  Next thing you'll be telling me is that if a city builds a new road somewhere, I haven't actually been to that city because the city itself has changed.  I don't go down that rabbit hole of pedantry. 
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: formulanone on December 13, 2021, 04:22:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:20:18 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

Yep.  Have to go back and revisit Connecticut to clinch the new counties.

Last time you were in CT, you clinched the old counties.

What if I mix the jar of Litchfield County dirt with the Hartford County soil? Does that count?
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:22:23 PM


Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

This is how I look at it: Specific to Connecticut, there are no longer formal county-level subdivisions. To hold to the true definition of counties, you had to visit Connecticut before 1960 or else you've never been to any counties in Connecticut. What has existed since 1960 are county-equivalent subdivisions that happen to be identical to the counties that used to exist. When you've documented your travel since 1960, you've documented which of these areas you've been to. What is happening is that the Census Bureau and others are changing the boundaries of their county-equivalent subdivisions at the request of the state. Since there weren't really counties before this change, I'm clearly in the camp of counting the new areas as visited if you've ever visited any portion of that area before the change.

Your conclusion is the exact opposite of what your argument supports.  New county equivalents means having to go back and clinch them.

This is not a mere boundary change, but whole new divisions being created with new names and structures.

Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:22:52 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 13, 2021, 04:22:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:20:18 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

Yep.  Have to go back and revisit Connecticut to clinch the new counties.

Last time you were in CT, you clinched the old counties.

What if I mix the jar of Litchfield County dirt with the Hartford County soil? Does that count?
You madman!
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:23:41 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

This is how I look at it: Specific to Connecticut, there are no longer formal county-level subdivisions. To hold to the true definition of counties, you had to visit Connecticut before 1960 or else you've never been to any counties in Connecticut. What has existed since 1960 are county-equivalent subdivisions that happen to be identical to the counties that used to exist. When you've documented your travel since 1960, you've documented which of these areas you've been to. What is happening is that the Census Bureau and others are changing the boundaries of their county-equivalent subdivisions at the request of the state. Since there weren't really counties before this change, I'm clearly in the camp of counting the new areas as visited if you've ever visited any portion of that area before the change.

Now, if a state with actual counties were to split a county into two, creating a new county with a new county government and a new county seat, I can see not counting visiting that area before the county existed.

I look at it that if I've been present in a place, I've "clinched" being there.  If a county splits, just like Scott said above, if I haven't been anywhere in the new area, I haven't been to that county. 

If Wales secedes from the U.K., despite me having been to the U.K., I will not have been to Wales because I've never been to Cardiff, Swansea, or any other Welsh city.  If Scotland secedes, I have been to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, and multiple other Scottish cities, ergo, I've been to Scotland.
Cheater.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 13, 2021, 04:23:56 PM
The beauty of this whole discussion is that Rothman's rules are no more or any less valid than jayhawkco's, mine, oscar's, or anyone else's. It makes for fun arguments though.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: formulanone on December 13, 2021, 04:25:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:22:52 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 13, 2021, 04:22:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:20:18 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

Yep.  Have to go back and revisit Connecticut to clinch the new counties.

Last time you were in CT, you clinched the old counties.

What if I mix the jar of Litchfield County dirt with the Hartford County soil? Does that count?
You madman!

I am not responsible for any hydrogen ions that are released in the process.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on December 13, 2021, 04:25:22 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:22:23 PM


Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

This is how I look at it: Specific to Connecticut, there are no longer formal county-level subdivisions. To hold to the true definition of counties, you had to visit Connecticut before 1960 or else you've never been to any counties in Connecticut. What has existed since 1960 are county-equivalent subdivisions that happen to be identical to the counties that used to exist. When you've documented your travel since 1960, you've documented which of these areas you've been to. What is happening is that the Census Bureau and others are changing the boundaries of their county-equivalent subdivisions at the request of the state. Since there weren't really counties before this change, I'm clearly in the camp of counting the new areas as visited if you've ever visited any portion of that area before the change.

Your conclusion is the exact opposite of what your argument supports.  New county equivalents means having to go back and clinch them.

This is not a mere boundary change, but whole new divisions being created with new names and structures.



The new divisions don't really have new structures though. They're just grouping towns differently. It really is just a mere boundary change, and really it's arbitrary as to whether the Census Bureau or mob rule or anybody else adopts those changes.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:27:35 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 13, 2021, 04:23:56 PM
The beauty of this whole discussion is that Rothman's rules are no more or any less valid than jayhawkco's, mine, oscar's, or anyone else's. It makes for fun arguments though.  :popcorn:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51745089283_371fd2dd16_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mQx7gM)
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:28:49 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 04:25:22 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:22:23 PM


Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

This is how I look at it: Specific to Connecticut, there are no longer formal county-level subdivisions. To hold to the true definition of counties, you had to visit Connecticut before 1960 or else you've never been to any counties in Connecticut. What has existed since 1960 are county-equivalent subdivisions that happen to be identical to the counties that used to exist. When you've documented your travel since 1960, you've documented which of these areas you've been to. What is happening is that the Census Bureau and others are changing the boundaries of their county-equivalent subdivisions at the request of the state. Since there weren't really counties before this change, I'm clearly in the camp of counting the new areas as visited if you've ever visited any portion of that area before the change.

Your conclusion is the exact opposite of what your argument supports.  New county equivalents means having to go back and clinch them.

This is not a mere boundary change, but whole new divisions being created with new names and structures.



The new divisions don't really have new structures though. They're just grouping towns differently. It really is just a mere boundary change, and really it's arbitrary as to whether the Census Bureau or mob rule or anybody else adopts those changes.

They are called Councils of Government and therefore are indeed councils of the individual governments.  It is not just a boundary change, especially when you take into account all the name changes occurring because of this.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 04:31:12 PM
I've been to all of Connecticut's towns.   I'm comfortable claiming credit for whatever divisions might be defined for CT...although I probably will take a quick lap around the state in January 2023 just to be certain.  ;)
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: JayhawkCO on December 13, 2021, 04:35:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:23:41 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

This is how I look at it: Specific to Connecticut, there are no longer formal county-level subdivisions. To hold to the true definition of counties, you had to visit Connecticut before 1960 or else you've never been to any counties in Connecticut. What has existed since 1960 are county-equivalent subdivisions that happen to be identical to the counties that used to exist. When you've documented your travel since 1960, you've documented which of these areas you've been to. What is happening is that the Census Bureau and others are changing the boundaries of their county-equivalent subdivisions at the request of the state. Since there weren't really counties before this change, I'm clearly in the camp of counting the new areas as visited if you've ever visited any portion of that area before the change.

Now, if a state with actual counties were to split a county into two, creating a new county with a new county government and a new county seat, I can see not counting visiting that area before the county existed.

I look at it that if I've been present in a place, I've "clinched" being there.  If a county splits, just like Scott said above, if I haven't been anywhere in the new area, I haven't been to that county. 

If Wales secedes from the U.K., despite me having been to the U.K., I will not have been to Wales because I've never been to Cardiff, Swansea, or any other Welsh city.  If Scotland secedes, I have been to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, and multiple other Scottish cities, ergo, I've been to Scotland.
Cheater.

At least I'm not counting county roads on my "Lowest Number" count.  The audacity.  :)
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 04:35:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:28:49 PM
They are called Councils of Government and therefore are indeed councils of the individual governments.  It is not just a boundary change, especially when you take into account all the name changes occurring because of this.

The COGs have been around for many years (although they do have an unfortunate habit of evolving over time).   The actual change here is that they're going to be recognized as the de facto counties they are, rather than the official counties that were abolished many years ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:51:46 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 04:35:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:23:41 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 13, 2021, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:44:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.

Well then you're saying despite me having been to Connecticut (multiple times), since all of the counties are going to change, I will have been to Connecticut but have been to zero counties.  I'm choosing to not recognize Schrödinger's Connecticut.

This is how I look at it: Specific to Connecticut, there are no longer formal county-level subdivisions. To hold to the true definition of counties, you had to visit Connecticut before 1960 or else you've never been to any counties in Connecticut. What has existed since 1960 are county-equivalent subdivisions that happen to be identical to the counties that used to exist. When you've documented your travel since 1960, you've documented which of these areas you've been to. What is happening is that the Census Bureau and others are changing the boundaries of their county-equivalent subdivisions at the request of the state. Since there weren't really counties before this change, I'm clearly in the camp of counting the new areas as visited if you've ever visited any portion of that area before the change.

Now, if a state with actual counties were to split a county into two, creating a new county with a new county government and a new county seat, I can see not counting visiting that area before the county existed.

I look at it that if I've been present in a place, I've "clinched" being there.  If a county splits, just like Scott said above, if I haven't been anywhere in the new area, I haven't been to that county. 

If Wales secedes from the U.K., despite me having been to the U.K., I will not have been to Wales because I've never been to Cardiff, Swansea, or any other Welsh city.  If Scotland secedes, I have been to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, and multiple other Scottish cities, ergo, I've been to Scotland.
Cheater.

At least I'm not counting county roads on my "Lowest Number" count.  The audacity.  :)
On this, we are united.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 04:35:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 04:28:49 PM
They are called Councils of Government and therefore are indeed councils of the individual governments.  It is not just a boundary change, especially when you take into account all the name changes occurring because of this.

The COGs have been around for many years (although they do have an unfortunate habit of evolving over time).   The actual change here is that they're going to be recognized as the de facto counties they are, rather than the official counties that were abolished many years ago.
Right.  They won't actually be county equivalents until 2023.  Until then, they are not.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 05:05:33 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2021, 04:06:01 PM
I remember reading on one of the sites of Old Roadgeek Canon–I'm thinking it was somewhere on mob-rule but it could have been on the Extra Miler Club's site, but I can't find it now–that stated their suggested rule for county splits was, if you visited the territory that remained in the old county, you get credit for only that old county. If you visited territory that ended up in the new county, you would get credit for both counties (because you visited the land that is in the new county and you also visited the jurisdiction that at the time covered that land and but now no longer does).

This would seem to imply that in the event of a complete boundary redraw, land visited would govern, and the lack of continuity of jurisdiction would be irrelevant. Taken to its logical conclusions, continuity of jurisdiction as the governing factor could lead to absurd results anyway, such as a clinch depending on things like whether a city-county merger was legally implemented as one government subsuming the other, or both being discontinued and a new government entity being formed with the same jurisdictional boundaries as the old one. That level of rules-lawyering is horseshit, so if I had visited Connecticut, I'd be filling in my mob-rule map based on "I was on X road before the redraw, and it is now in Y county, so I am marking that as visited".

It's worth remembering also that for most of us county-collecting is a personal goal.  There aren't any official rules other than the ones we set for our individual quests.  Consider the number of folks who don't consider themselves as having visited a jurisdiction unless they've visited the capital/county seat, or unless they've transacted business there / who don't count just having "driven through".

I have the same recollection of the old canon about how to count counties.  However, I've chosen not to follow that rule, and instead go by where have I actually, physically been.   My original visit to Boulder County, Colorado was limited to that part which is now found in Broomfield County.  Thus when Broomfield was formed, I counted Broomfield and needed to go revisit Boulder.

Contrast that to county-hunting on amateur radio, where we go by county names (since it's not practical to have precise geographic coordinates for every contact, and since there is a formal award requiring documentation involved)....and in 2023, I'll have to start all over again with Connecticut county-equivalents.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: formulanone on December 13, 2021, 05:05:39 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 04:35:29 PM
At least I'm not counting county roads on my "Lowest Number" count.  The audacity.  :)

Them's fightin' words! Just remember that Colorado is flatter than Alabama...

(But not really.)
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Scott5114 on December 13, 2021, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 13, 2021, 05:05:33 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2021, 04:06:01 PM
I remember reading on one of the sites of Old Roadgeek Canon–I'm thinking it was somewhere on mob-rule but it could have been on the Extra Miler Club's site, but I can't find it now–that stated their suggested rule for county splits was, if you visited the territory that remained in the old county, you get credit for only that old county. If you visited territory that ended up in the new county, you would get credit for both counties (because you visited the land that is in the new county and you also visited the jurisdiction that at the time covered that land and but now no longer does).

This would seem to imply that in the event of a complete boundary redraw, land visited would govern, and the lack of continuity of jurisdiction would be irrelevant. Taken to its logical conclusions, continuity of jurisdiction as the governing factor could lead to absurd results anyway, such as a clinch depending on things like whether a city-county merger was legally implemented as one government subsuming the other, or both being discontinued and a new government entity being formed with the same jurisdictional boundaries as the old one. That level of rules-lawyering is horseshit, so if I had visited Connecticut, I'd be filling in my mob-rule map based on "I was on X road before the redraw, and it is now in Y county, so I am marking that as visited".

It's worth remembering also that for most of us county-collecting is a personal goal.  There aren't any official rules other than the ones we set for our individual quests.  Consider the number of folks who don't consider themselves as having visited a jurisdiction unless they've visited the capital/county seat, or unless they've transacted business there / who don't count just having "driven through".

I have the same recollection of the old canon about how to count counties.  However, I've chosen not to follow that rule, and instead go by where have I actually, physically been.   My original visit to Boulder County, Colorado was limited to that part which is now found in Broomfield County.  Thus when Broomfield was formed, I counted Broomfield and needed to go revisit Boulder.

Indeed. I tend to follow the laziest interpretation of the rules as possible, since for me the goal isn't necessarily bragging rights as it is simply tracking the places I have and haven't experienced firsthand. If I feel like I got some kind of firsthand experience with a county, I will count it, even if its boundaries change later on. Going back to a far-away region I've already been to, and seeing the same thing that I saw before, just because the state decided to redraw its boundaries sounds boring, so I'm not going to do it.

Likewise, I don't follow the rule some people do that mandates a stop or a transaction somewhere–a buying a candy bar at a gas station in Deer Antler County is going to be no different of an experience than buying one back home, so I don't waste time with that. (I will grudgingly admit that people who have the "must visit county seat" restriction have a point, since the county seat is usually the most interesting town in any given county, even if I don't follow that restriction myself.)

I don't just follow this philosophy in travel goals, for what it's worth. For example, there's a video game I consider myself to have 100%ed, although one of the levels I've never technically completed. I had the level more or less beaten, but a glitch blocked my way and made the level unwinnable. I just looked up a level code to skip to the next level, because as far as I was concerned I had done all the things to successfully solve the level and I was not going to experience anything new or interesting by starting the level over again so I could beat it to the game's satisfaction.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Molandfreak on December 13, 2021, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.
So if somebody had been to Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota before 2015, would you say "nope, doesn't count, you've been to Shannon County, South Dakota" even though it's the same county?
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 13, 2021, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 13, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
So basically if Oscar speaks, we listen.  I just got two more counties. :)
Not if you haven't visited them since their formation.  You can't visit something that doesn't exist yet.

Meh, if I've been to a town and that town is in a county, I've been to that county.
The county will not exist any longer, so no dice.  You visited something that will no longer exist.
So if somebody had been to Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota before 2015, would you say "nope, doesn't count, you've been to Shannon County, South Dakota" even though it's the same county?

Sure.  Why not?
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2021, 09:32:06 PM
To make it easier, I'd just name them as counties.  Obviously, the Tolland and Windham names would have to be retired, as they are now part of the same area as another city that serves as a county's namesake.  Here's what I'd go with (new names in italics

Northwest Hills: Litchfield
Capitol Region: Hartford
Northeastern: Putnam
Western: Greenwich
Metropolitan: Fairfield
Naugatuck Valley: Naugatuck
South Central: New Haven
Lower CT River Valley: Middlesex
Southeastern: New London
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 09:58:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2021, 09:32:06 PM
To make it easier, I'd just name them as counties.  Obviously, the Tolland and Windham names would have to be retired, as they are now part of the same area as another city that serves as a county's namesake.  Here's what I'd go with (new names in italics

Northwest Hills: Litchfield
Capitol Region: Hartford
Northeastern: Putnam
Western: Greenwich
Metropolitan: Fairfield
Naugatuck Valley: Naugatuck
South Central: New Haven
Lower CT River Valley: Middlesex
Southeastern: New London
No.  The COGs are what they are.  No changing the names willy-nilly.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Scott5114 on December 13, 2021, 11:05:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 09:58:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2021, 09:32:06 PM
To make it easier, I'd just name them as counties.  Obviously, the Tolland and Windham names would have to be retired, as they are now part of the same area as another city that serves as a county's namesake.  Here's what I'd go with (new names in italics

Northwest Hills: Litchfield
Capitol Region: Hartford
Northeastern: Putnam
Western: Greenwich
Metropolitan: Fairfield
Naugatuck Valley: Naugatuck
South Central: New Haven
Lower CT River Valley: Middlesex
Southeastern: New London
No.  The COGs are what they are.  No changing the names willy-nilly.

Northwest Hills: Antillinois
Capitol Region: Shirley
Northeastern: Southwestern
Western: Green Witch
Metropolitan: Shadyfield
Naugatuck Valley: Rothman Commemoratively Renamed County
South Central: Green Witch 2
Lower CT River Valley: Metalsax
Southeastern: Kind Of Middle Aged London
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2021, 11:05:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2021, 09:58:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2021, 09:32:06 PM
To make it easier, I'd just name them as counties.  Obviously, the Tolland and Windham names would have to be retired, as they are now part of the same area as another city that serves as a county's namesake.  Here's what I'd go with (new names in italics

Northwest Hills: Litchfield
Capitol Region: Hartford
Northeastern: Putnam
Western: Greenwich
Metropolitan: Fairfield
Naugatuck Valley: Naugatuck
South Central: New Haven
Lower CT River Valley: Middlesex
Southeastern: New London
No.  The COGs are what they are.  No changing the names willy-nilly.

Northwest Hills: Antillinois
Capitol Region: Shirley
Northeastern: Southwestern
Western: Green Witch
Metropolitan: Shadyfield
Naugatuck Valley: Rothman Commemoratively Renamed County
South Central: Green Witch 2
Lower CT River Valley: Metalsax
Southeastern: Kind Of Middle Aged London
Then again, those I can accept.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: hotdogPi on December 14, 2021, 07:28:09 AM
Get the state some revenue: Dunkin County.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: SectorZ on December 14, 2021, 07:50:52 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 07:28:09 AM
Get the state some revenue: Dunkin County.

For the love of God don't say that out loud and give them any bright ideas  :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 14, 2021, 08:05:19 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 14, 2021, 07:50:52 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 07:28:09 AM
Get the state some revenue: Dunkin County.

For the love of God don't say that out loud and give them any bright ideas  :-D

God forbid we rename the Southeast Pfizer County :ded:
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: SectorZ on December 14, 2021, 11:31:19 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 14, 2021, 08:05:19 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 14, 2021, 07:50:52 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 07:28:09 AM
Get the state some revenue: Dunkin County.

For the love of God don't say that out loud and give them any bright ideas  :-D

God forbid we rename the Southeast Pfizer County :ded:

That's OK as long as we get the Supreme Court to take the name away from them thru eminent domain.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: bandit957 on December 14, 2021, 03:17:09 PM
Apparently, the Connecticut portion of Long Island Sound is not part of any town. Will it be assigned to a COG?
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 25, 2021, 09:37:48 AM
Tell me they're not actually going to do this? I grew up in New Britain (Hartford County) and stay in Middletown (Middlesex County) now. The only county sign I've ever seen here is when crossing from Bristol (Hartford County) west into Plymouth (Litchfield County) via CT Route 72.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: yakra on January 18, 2022, 01:41:28 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2021, 09:32:06 PM
Obviously, the Tolland and Windham names would have to be retired, as they are now part of the same area as another city that serves as a county's namesake.
Don't tell Maine.
Title: Re: Connecticut "county equivalents" Probably Changing in 2023
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 18, 2022, 06:48:32 AM
As a former urban planner who worked with Census data, these changes make sense (hence the names). Otherwise, it makes little sense.