HARTFORD: Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz reported today that in the first half of 2009, 6,944 businesses shut down, setting a new record for the first half of any year since these figures were first recorded in 2000. This represents a 17% percent increase in the number of business failures from the first two quarters of 2008. In the second quarter of 2009, 3,467 filed papers to dissolve, just under the 3,477 to shut their doors in the first quarter of this year. Meanwhile, 6,937 new businesses incorporated between April 1st and June 30th of 2009, slightly less than the 6,941 start-ups in the first quarter. Business starts in the first half of 2009 declined 9.6% from 2008 figures.
\
JUST A FEW OF MANY BUSINESS/OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE
“Obviously, this is still a difficult economic climate for our state’s entrepreneurs, but we may be starting to see the recession bottom out,” said Secretary Bysiewicz, Connecticut’s Chief Business Registrar. “While 2009 may yet set the record for most business failures, it appears the severity of both the number of closures and the decline of new business start-ups is lessening, so I see this as a glimmer of hope for our economy. Connecticut’s small businesses still need our help now to reduce costs and create a more favorable climate for profitability, particularly in areas such as health care and utilities. We also need to continue to hold down unnecessary taxes and fees, and continue to offer financial incentives to enter new areas of business such as green technologies, life sciences, and alternative energy sources.”
The monthly figures contained in the Business Starts Index released by the Secretary of the State’s Office are available online at http://www.sots.ct.gov. The statistics show that in April 2009, 1,521 businesses filed paperwork to dissolve their company, followed by another 929 in May and 1,017 in June. Connecticut experienced a 13% increase.
Let's not dilute ourself's or be lead down the path that New Fairfield is not impacted by the general economy. The town should not spend the surplus [$950,000], rather these funds should be directed into a 'rainy day fund' ... tell me what your thoughts are?
