When I look at my map, if I live in New Milford, CT or Danbury, CT, or even New Haven, CT or Bridgeport, CT, places like Chappaqua, NY, Poughkeepsie, NY, or Newburgh, NY are geographically no further to me than places like New London, CT, or Norwich, CT. If I look at a map of population density for Connecticut, it seems that the bulk of the population lives closer to the border with New York than the border with Rhode Island. We didn't include Connecticut with New England because, at least to me, it would be a stretch to assume that someone in Maine wants to follow things in Connecticut. While we commonly see Connecticut as part of New England for historical and tourism purposes, my experience is that the state has far more in common with southern New York than it does with New Hampshire. Of course this is not an exact science, but the decision was made based on many unscientific processes including traffic patterns and, frankly, message board activity. Does a guy in Putnam, CT potentially suffer from this arrangement. Yes he does. But at the same time far more guys living in Greenwich, Stamford or Torrington are likely to benefit from it. I'm sorry if some of you think this is a wrong move on our part, but we think it is worth a shot. We have been wrong, of course, about lots of things over the 12 years we've been doing this but these kinds of things can be reversed if necessary. For now, I'm taking a wait and see attitude.
|