.
Feedback

Holiday Shopping: Spending Limits For Kids’ Presents?

How much is too much to spend on children and teens? We want to hear your thoughts, Canton!

As the holiday shopping season goes into full swing, some people are maxing out their credit cards to pay for presents and others are setting budgets and sticking with them.

Scour just about any Facebook stream or stop in a local coffee shop and chances are you’ll hear parents debating the merits of setting spending limits. Or, you'll hear them lamenting about just how much they've already spent.

The ideas for a perfect limit do seem to vary rather greatly. Some parents say $100 per child is more than enough. Others tend to lean toward much more generous figures. After all, there’s nothing like seeing a child’s eyes light up as they unwrap gift after gift.

And that’s what we want to hear from you about, Canton. Do you set spending limits on the presents you buy for your kids? How much is too much? How much is too little?

And, where are you shopping this holiday season? Which local merchants do you plan to support?

Let your voice be heard by commenting below!

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Canton Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Larry Litton May 22, 2013 at 10:49 am
Well said Mr. Franks! A new town garage is needed, but not at that price tag. The town leadershipRead More needs to offer a far better option to the voters than this. I am also voting NO...
Wyatt May 22, 2013 at 05:13 pm
@Larry. Thanks for the reply. I don't know the details of these sites or why they weren't chosen butRead More I do have a few initial thoughts. First, one of the concerns of opponents of the Commerce Drive location is that the garage is a danger to nearby residents, children, bikers and seniors. Those concerns would still exist and would likely be worse in any of the 3 locations you mentioned. In other words, the same problems as the opponents raise now would remain. Second, River Road and Lawton Road are already designated for youth sports. Given the lack of flat land and the shortage of fields in Canton, I don't see how these fields would be replaced. Fields can be built at the River Rd and Lawton Road locations but not on Commerced River. As for the state-owned parcel, I think the state owns that as open space - not land for a town garage. Third, if the people on Lawton Road got so upset about the CVS, I could only imagine the uproar if the town garage is built there! Some don't even want the park! Fourth, I think there is some builout problems with lawton road regarding utilities which makes the site difficult to work with. (or so I read/was told) However, thank you again for the reply. the only real option besides commerce drive is River Road, but as I mentioned above, the opponent's concerns regarding safety would still exist and likely be even worse - right by the bike trail, kids in the area, near a major road, near homes. I don't think that site would satisfy them.
Larry Litton May 22, 2013 at 04:46 pm
You should know better than anyone Steve, but I'll be happy to list the sites for Wyatt. I know thatRead More you will dispute everything I am about to say Steve, but I don't believe as you apparently do that different opinions mean that one or the other has to be "garbage". 51 River Road is the obvious choice. I know there are concerns about the elimination of the softball field there, but it could easily be relocated to allow for using this location. The site is clear, level, centrally located, and already has all the needed utilities. It was also listed as the #1 potential location by Weston and Sampson in their 2009 study done for the town. 55 Lawton Road is also already owned by the town. I haven't seen any published numbers for site work at this location, but the land is flat and wouldn't need all the build up, fill dirt, and retaining walls that will be required on Commerce. Like River Road there are no wetland issues at this property, and the useable acreage at 55 Lawton far exceeds that of any of the other properties that were looked at. This would certainly insure more than enough room for future growth if needed. I know there has been much talk about using this site for additional athletic fields, but at an estimated cost of $1.1 million dollars how likely is it that this will ever happen? And even if the money did someday become available, there is plenty of land there to do both if the layout is done well. There is also another parcel on Lawton Road Road that is I believe state owned, but I haven't heard any discussion regarding it. I certainly believe this property merits consideration as well.
Steve Roberto May 22, 2013 at 03:06 pm
Hey Larry, Wyatt asked you for the other 3 sites. Lets hear your answer and why exactly you feelRead More they will work. The EDA has been saying garbage like that for over a year. The Board of Selectman asked them three times to share their data. Of course they delivered nothing yet continue to say there is a better way. They have had plenty of times to show a better plan.
Wayne Jekot May 22, 2013 at 01:31 pm
The real reason people are opposing this plan is a "not in my backyard" attitude--it hasRead More nothing to do with cost. If so many people in town were so concerned about wasteful expenditures, we would have heard them complain about $3.6 million for a track and field! When the "dumb" location argument failed to make headway, the opponents to the "dumb" garage plan, acting purely out of self-interest and not for the common good, switched to a financial argument. You can't fool me: I voted yes.
Wyatt May 22, 2013 at 10:52 am
@Steve. Kudos! Nice to see some common sense and decency. The actions of "Citizens for aRead More Better Canton" have been shameful to say the least - attacking critics, distributing misleading information and attacking the good people who volunteer their time to make Canton a better place to live.
Steve Roberto May 21, 2013 at 04:05 pm
It makes me chuckle when someone spends weeks mudslinging, finger pointing, and pot shotting untilRead More the targets of their harassments speak up and then they decide the game is over, well sorry, I have only just begun. I was sickened by the behavior of certain people at the town meeting scheduled to discuss this garage project. Most of them where given a script to read using lies and incorrect numbers to attack members of town boards and commission. They attacked the intelligence, ethics, and integrity of members of the Board of Selectmen, Board of Finance, Permanent Municipal Building Committee and project consultants. You have even managed to involve our neighbors from Barkhamsted in your May 15 Patch submission, referring to them as “Hairshirt wearing radicals who don’t wash their cars”, again full of incorrect numbers and misinformation. I am attending a Board of Ethics Meeting tonight to defend myself from mud slung on me by those finger pointers trying to distract from the facts at hand. These very same people told this town that they wanted a football field and they wanted a pool. They said that the folks in Canton deserved these things. They understood that these things came with a price tag and they were ready to pay it. Funny how the song has changed now that we have changed our focus to a much less glamorous project. Perhaps if we were proposing a hockey rink or an equestrian team $5.4 million wouldn’t be so much.
Wayne Jekot May 22, 2013 at 01:31 pm
The real reason people are opposing this plan is a "not in my backyard" attitude--it hasRead More nothing to do with cost. If so many people in town were so concerned about wasteful expenditures, we would have heard them complain about $3.6 million for a track and field! When the "dumb" location argument failed to make headway, the opponents to the "dumb" garage plan, acting purely out of self-interest and not for the common good, switched to a financial argument. You can't fool me: I voted yes.
Wayne Jekot May 22, 2013 at 01:32 pm
The real reason people are opposing this plan is a "not in my backyard" attitude--it hasRead More nothing to do with cost. If so many people in town were so concerned about wasteful expenditures, we would have heard them complain about $3.6 million for a track and field! When the "dumb" location argument failed to make headway, the opponents to the "dumb" garage plan, acting purely out of self-interest and not for the common good, switched to a financial argument. You can't fool me: I voted yes.
Solinsky EyeCare May 21, 2013 at 02:45 pm
We are located at 1013 Farmington Avenue in West Hartford. See you there!
Nancy May 20, 2013 at 09:32 am
Where are you located, Solinsky Eyecare?