New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 5, 2007 8:41 AM

First Ed is right we need to say no to the airport. I am really glad his is standing firm on that. At a minum make it a Regional problem not just New Havens.
Ken Johnson brought up the fact that they (the alderman) can vote against the budget. Which means that they would have to go over it again.Which I think they should do. I think loyalties need to be put aside right now we can not afford them. Maybe in a few years when we are back on are feet your lobby groups or who ever it is can get what they need but not at this point in time.
They said that our want for things like police are why the budget went up. Well I think that the 2 mill we are giving extra to the police did not raise the budget 40 Million(give or take). I suggested it was time to bring the state in only to be cut off and told that it would be a really bad thing. I am sorry but our budget needs to be reviewed by people that do not have special interests. It needs to be looked over by someone that has no ties to New Haven. Or are we afraid of what would be found? (ok I am sure that is not the case) but there are way to cut this budget and guess what it will not be easy to do but this is where your jobs become work...sometimes you can't be everybody's friend sometimes you have to be the enemy. we need at least another 25 million cut off, or close to it.

Come on guys!! Get a few single mothers to look at the budget I bet they can cut the budget.

But you are the rep's and we are the people you owe us a second look at that budget!!

But thank you for that meeting it was all and all a really go thing. I do take pride in our Alderman and think we are lucky to have the ones we do!

Posted by: East Rock Resident | April 5, 2007 10:09 AM

First of all, I want to agree with CedarHillResident - the two aldereman that we have in East Rock (Mattison and Lemar)are two of the best in the entire City despite the fact that neither have acquired enough seniority to really be as effective as they could be - Mattison has been in office only 5 years and Lemar only 4 months! Just organizing this meeting, getting Mr. Smuts to come out and then being willing to take the heat for him after he left speaks volumes about how much Mattison and Lemar care about representing this neighborhood. I feel lucky to have Mr. Lemar as my alderman and I know many others feel the same about both him and Ed Mattison.

That being said, here are my ideas, most of which are unpopular - kill the airport, kill the elderly tax freeze, dont hire all these new cops and stop the school construction program - its too much! Alderman Lemar has told me that he plans to support the elderly tax freeze and the hiring of more cops - if you agree with me let him know and lets get him to stop the spending on the great policies that we just cant afford!

Overral, a great idea by our alders to put this special meeting together and it made me proud to live in East Rock and thankful for having Mattison and Lemar as our alders.

Posted by: Esbe | April 5, 2007 10:27 AM

The only fair solution for Tweed is for the region/state to take it over. The benefits of the airport are region-wide and New Haven is hardly the richest community in the area.

But opposition from East Haven will prevent any State or regional support. Yale and local businesses ought to kick something in, but it won't be enough.

The other side is that the airport is nearing approval for runway improvements and killing city support now might kill the airport forever, which is a very large long-term cost for the city and the region.

In the long run, higher revenues from new businesses and residents is the only solution to a spiral of higher taxes and lower services. An airport is one ingredient of future growth -- do we want to kill it off?

Posted by: an idea | April 5, 2007 11:23 AM

Although it will get some resistance, now is the time to begin looking at absentee owners, who make significant profit on the rental of their properties.

Many of these properties are located in areas of the city that have the lowest assessments due to the fact that they are in poor condition and not considered the most desirable neighborhoods unless you plan to rent to subsidized tenants.

These properties are poorly maintained, as evidenced by LCI's need to create a licensing program to find illegal units, or poorly maintained units.

These properties are generally in areas that demand the most of police, fire and emergency services, as well as housing the majority of students in our public schools. This is a system ripe for fiscal doom. Most of the money spent does not even come close to be covering the cost of services. This forces owners of property in areas that use far fewer services to pay far more on a proportional basis.

I suggest a program that incorporates an overlay of police, fire and emergency services in various neighborhoods. It would alos look at students counts in these same areas. Then review the cost of services with the taxes generated by houses that are not owner occupied. These absentee owners should be subject to a base citywide mil rate (which would be lower in the program)and then have to pay an additional number of mils to help defray the cost. Say 3 to five mils. This would help the tax burden on city rsidents that own houses and tend to maintain them, which brings a higher assessment. This is essentially punishing people for taking care of their property and rewards people for neglecting them.
If an absentee owner was unhappy, they could always sell and maybe an owner-occupant would be found. The city could create a program to assist new owners. It is a misconception to think this would force the rents up on poorer families since the amount of rent paid for housing for qualified persons is established by teh section 8 authority. Other parts of the city have special servcies taxes, like the downtown special services, Whalley special services and others, so why would a special services tax be unfair in any area that deems it justifiable. Let's face it there is really no reason that we should allow people from all over the state and country to own property which they fail to maintain, fill with subsidized tennants, let it get rundown, pay the lowest amount of taxes when considered on a basis of taxes paid, income achieved and demand for services and not at least open a discussion about an alternative such as this.

Posted by: edwards street | April 5, 2007 12:55 PM

I'll begrudgingly agree with the above commenters about how great of an event this was and in thanking Aldermen Mattison and Lemar for hosting it. Rob Smuts is a hired gun for DeStefano, but he is a smart one who I was thankful came out and gave us this presentation.

I'll take issue with three things - First, Smuts kept blaming the state for not coming up with enough funds, Mattison echoed, Lemar asked a more poignant question which was never answered by anyone in the room - "what programs and services are we willing to see cut-back if we wish to make substantive cuts in this budget?" We all complain ans say the budget needs to be cut, but we never are willing to stand up and say cut spending on anything that we care about -I at least thought that Lemar's point was well placed about us determining what it is that we are willing to put up with in service reductions if the State reps don't come through with more money for PILOT reimbursements. I'm glad at least someone is looking past the posturing and the ideal and into the practical conversations that we should have.

Second point is that these three people are really smart, I felt like they could sit down in a small room and find some meaningful cuts to the budget if they didn't have to deal with all those social serivces and idiot alders who want special money for all their pet projects.

Third point - cut the airport! we don't need that stupid cesspool of an eyesore on our shoreline!

Posted by: Robn | April 5, 2007 1:51 PM

TAX CUTS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS IS NO SMALL PART OF OUR PROBLEM...

Discussing ways to reduce the budget are productive, but the budget increase, after inflation, only account for a very tiny amount of the pain currently being felt by residential property owners. The budget is only increasing 7%...not really far beyond the rate of inflation. If the budget increases 7% for each of the next 5 years, that only adds up to 35% (my apologies to compound interest freaks). So why are residential property owners seeing an average 80% to 90% increases in property taxes? One answer is that commercial property owners are getting a tax cut.

In 2005, commercial properties accounted for 36% of the grand list and residential property acounted for 46%. With this reval, commercial property will account for 34% and residential property 54%. The burden is being shifted.

To put it in real dollars, this year's general fund is $445M, where 43% ($191M) of the fund comes from property taxes. Under the old assessments, commercial property owners would be paying $68.8M and residential property owners would be paying $87.9M. Under the new assessments, commercial property owners are paying $64.9M and residential property owners are paying $103.2M. So commercial property is paying $4M less and residential property is paying $15M more.

If the state did not mandate a uniform mill rate for all types of properties, the burden could be distributed more fairly...Since residential owners didn't suddenly wake up on assessment day with gold-plated houses, that seems fair.

Call your alderman, call city hall, call your representatives. New Haven should not be shackled by a uniform mill rate that thoughtlessly raises residential taxes. The City of New Haven should be able to intellegently raise or lower taxes, not be forced to do so because of rigid math and overly simplistic legislation.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 5, 2007 3:15 PM

an idea

First the poorer areas where hit the hardest in the reassessments. Those areas are the areas that saw a 110% increase as to the 88% that other areas saw. The poor areas had no police for a long time so the crime got out of control, why because the cops where downtown guarding our most precious commodity...Yale students. And you would be surprised at how many section 8 people live in the better parts of town shhhh they would never tell you they are on it nor would there landlords.

Esbe if the airport is such a must for the city let the people that will benefit from it save it. We have been saving it for so long!! It has to end. "In the long run" is now and it is still not up and running they need to find there own way now or they need to hit up the other citys that are benifiting on the backs of the POOR (because between the UI,Taxes and gas we are all now POOR ) tax payers of New Haven!!

It is all up to the alderman to go over that budget one more time and find things to cut!!! That is the bottom line!

If they let that budget go through as is they have done us all injustice for not making the tough decisions that would save us all from not being in the poor house that or moving out of "TAX HAVEN".

Posted by: charlie | April 5, 2007 3:43 PM

If people want to create a nice place to live, they need to be willing to pay taxes or become more involved in government. Nobody is going to provide you with anything for free. Either take matters into your own hands and do work to make the city a better place, or get used to paying high taxes so you can support the people who do. Otherwise, fine, cut taxes -- you'll have trash-filled streets and parks like New York City, crumbling school buildings like almost all the other cities in the country outside of New Haven, and a closed airport that will encourage your jobs to move out of town.

In the midst of the complaining, how about a campaign to make the tax system fairer, so that all the suburbanites who use our city for jobs and services pay their fair share of taxes?

How about a tax on New Haven airport embarcations - which would be waived for non-New Haven residents and tripled for East Haven residents - to help cover the cost?

Posted by: Esbe | April 5, 2007 5:10 PM

Robn is right about the commercial vs. residential issues. Even if the city budget stayed at the same level, taxes paid by households would have to go way up on average, because residential real estate prices have gone up much more than commercial, and the state requires a uniform tax rate across property types.

Again, the best solution is a fundamental change in the way CT funds its cities. We should fight for it, but it probably ain't gonna happen. Meanwhile, we have to find a way to increase our tax base.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 5, 2007 8:30 PM

charlie
First where do you live?? My streets are trash filled!!! I do go out and pick it up I need a second bin for my trash and one for the trash I pick up!! My area does almost all of its own cleaning we do not get the city like some areas do!

One woman made a good point at the meeting an education has nothing to do with how fancy the building is! Hooker was never in a great building yet all the kids that went there got a great education and it was a very desirable school to go to in this city Soo new fancy school have jack to do with the education. It is teachers and parental involvment! So why are we dumping so much into these schools??? we should of kept them small community schools!! Not giant monsters were your kid is just a number!
yes eseb we need to get the state to change and that is a fight I am willing to help with but ...here and now.... are the alderman going to let this budget go through as is??? I think they can do better they are going to have to step on some peoples toe and yes Johnny the puppet master may not be happy but if he wants his votes he needs to get that budget lower.

DO NOT LET THAT BUDGET GO THROUGH AS IS!!

and I still do not understand why they do not want to get the state in here to help...please can someone explain to me why. Ed said we are the only city left that does not have the state in it. Why would it be so bad??

Posted by: an idea | April 6, 2007 4:57 AM

The areas you refer to saw a big increase in value because many houses in 2001 were vacant and not livable. The real estate boom in 2003 thru 2005 saw many of the house totally renovated, so the value increase was justified. These areas still are the lower end of property value and absentee owners in these areas pay the lowest taxes and the areas get the highest amount of services. The breakdown of 27,000+/- parcels is 12% commercial, 8% exempt and 80% residential, The 8% account for approximately 50% of the gross Grand List, which hurts us. Commercial property on a national, regional and local level did not increase in value at the same pace as residential. This was mainly due to sub prime lenders in the residential market, where lending conditions are far more lax than in any commercial loan. I am very aware of where section 8 tenants are living and the percentage in what you refer to as the better areas is not even close to other areas that I would asume you consider lower quality. I know you comment often o the drug problem in your neighborhood and I would bet the houses the problem people live in are not owned by a person that also lives in the house.

There was legislation that would have allowed phase-in for residential, but not commercial. This would have helped New Haven, but it was not adopted by the State legislators. CBIA is a strong lobby for commercial, and residential has no voice in Hartford.

Our economic development department has not generated any new commercial development unless it included a fantastic tax break under the deferral program and special agreements. In fact we have about $114,160,039 in assessed value that is not taxed equally due to the agreements for the 2006 GL. The simple fact is you can't have any sector paying far less in taxes than the cost of teh services provided without some owners paying far more for far less if you don't recognize this. I would think as an owner, in an area with many hoses owned by absentee landlords you would welcome the idea of having the profits from the most profitable houses paying a share proportional to the demand for services, especially since it would benefit you an owner occupant.

Posted by: ROBN | April 6, 2007 9:16 AM

To all,

I'm as unhappy as everybody about the tax increase and do agree with those that wish to eliminate the airport becuase its economic value is highly questionable. (Also questionable is its very existance, since BDL is closer to us than the airports for most metropolitan areas...NYC, Houston, etc.)

However, I disagree with the criticism of school construction program. The building stock for our school system was mostly built during WPA in the 20's or post war in the 50s-60s (80-40 years old). Old buildings are very costly to repair and, to a great extent, they were built without energy efficiency in mind. Energy useage is wicked expensive over time. This is a stitch in time.

In the case of Hooker, there was value to preserving the historic building and in the case of Wilbur Cross, there was a salvageable shell that could be made more efficient. In many other cases, the building stock was disfunctional on several levels. Supporting our teachers is important (disclosure...my parents were teachers) but we can't let our facilities degrade for another 50 years before we improve them.

PLUS ITS A GOOD DEAL. The state has been very generous in assisting New Haven to reconstruct our educational facilites. Check out electronic page 205 of the mayors budget and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Finance/pdfs/FY2007-08MayorsBudget.pdf

Posted by: Ned | April 7, 2007 11:10 AM

From the Yale Daily News:
"out of 30 New Haven school construction projects that have been assigned to architects, at least 25 are contracted to firms with employees who contributed to DeStefano's campaign. All told, architects working for firms affiliated with public school construction projects have contributed over $50,000 to DeStefano's campaign effort.

Executives for construction firms working on the school projects have been just as ready to fork cash over to the DeStefano campaign's coffers. At least four executives at the Fusco Corporation, which is responsible for six school projects, have each donated $2,500; three employees at A. Prete Construction, responsible for two projects, have done the same. Six companies responsible for construction on the vast majority of the school projects have at least one executive who contributed the legal maximum to DeStefano's campaign, bringing in over $30,000."
Here's the link: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/14913
That might explain, in part, the school construction orgy.
Also, Ed Mattison's characterization of taxpayers' legitimate concerns about the larcenous tax scheme, as "bellyaching" didn't win him any points with me. Cut the airport, eliminate LCI, eliminate the "youth" commission funding - isn't getting ripped off by them once enough? If you can't provide for your own children, barring some unforseen circumstances, they're your problem. Also, there seems to be lots of wishing going on: if the state would only pay more, if suburbanites could be taxed, if Yale paid more, if commercial property could be taxed more - blah, blah, blah, blah. How about the city spending less? New school buildings haven't improved IQ's or graduation rates. Do you think the new hire cops are going to go into the neighborhoods that are paying for them, or the neighborhoods that are sucking up services?

Posted by: robn | April 9, 2007 1:49 PM

Hey Ned,

Heres a crazy idea...maybe architects and constructors like to build new buildings and renovate old ones becuase what they do to feed their families is replace or fix old buildings which are falling apart....like say..40-80 year old buildings.

Maybe since some of those people are also long time New Haven residents, they share the vision that the future of our city lies in the education, rather than the neglect of its youth. Maybe they also believe that better schools are attractive to a stable base of taxpaying homeowners who want better schools for their children.

In any event since all school projects are competitively bid in New Haven, where's the quid pro quo? Did the donations closely precede the contracts?

Posted by: ned | April 10, 2007 8:46 AM

Hey Robn, you seem to be either really naive, or a shill for the city government. Don't give me the guilt tripping, communitarian B.S. If the contracting process is so clean, why then the need for political donations? The city doesn't have any "youth", some of the citizens do - and they want money. The "stable base of taxpayers" will slowly be eroded by their fellow citizens who don't seem to understand that my bank account is not a well of money to be sucked dry and pumped into a lousy school system, and bloated city budget. Which thieving,loudmouth alderperson was it who was recently sentenced for stealing money meant to be spent on the "youth" of the city? How about this gem, from the Hartford Courant: "Kevin Miller, who began work as principal of East Hartford High School in January, had been the subject of four investigations by the state Department of Children and Families during the previous four years while working as a principal in New Haven." Had enough? here's more after the link:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/oig/fraud/Jan07/pihinv15.cfm

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 10, 2007 10:56 AM

ned I am loving you!!

Buildings do not make an education!! That is the reallity of this!! Teachers and Parents working together do! Small Class rooms do!! I bet the small charters have more success than the larger schools and guess what they do not have the fancy buildings the books and equipment that the big schools have and YET......the kids are learning more!! WHY!!

Posted by: robn | April 10, 2007 1:49 PM

Hey ned,

No naivte or shilling. I believe that public education can make a huge difference in peoples' lives. I received its benefits, as did most other citizens, and I don't think its fair to rescind its benefits to today's children. I'm not saying that facilities are more important than teachers, I'm saying that its hard for teachers to do their job in decaying facilities its hard (and, in the long run, expensive) to manage those decaying facilities because of their inefficiencies.

You're link to HUD reports on fraud within the housing authority is interesting, but is it relevant to New Haven Public Schools? Does your mention of one corrupt former principal mean that there is endemic corruption within the school system?

To Cederhillresidents point about charters; I'm really not familiar with the track record of charters in New Haven, or their relative facility size and expenditures. I do know that excessive profit taking and high failure rates have occurred often enough in the charter school industry to be worried about its wholesale replacement of traditional public schools.

But back to the root issue of money...please look at the budget page 205. We've gotten generous assistance from the state to rebuild school facilities and its a really good deal in the long run.

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Finance/pdfs/FY2007-08MayorsBudget.pdf

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 10, 2007 6:51 PM

Robn
Ok I think I miss described, here are a few examples of schools that had little, but yet were A+ on the teaching out of the 49 schools New Haven has here are a few good ones Jepson, West Hills, Cold Springs, Co-Op, Sound, and Hooker (which my Uncle was Principal of for decades). For years these schools were small schools that had little money coming in and yet they were the schools that everyone wanted there kids to go to. It was the teachers!! and Parents that found the time to be part of it.

$1.2 billion construction and renovation program that is a pretty big number. If I recall it started out a good thing but now with state and federal cut backs we are in a bit of a jam...I could be wrong. How much of this 1.2 are we paying for Anyone Know??

I was at a meeting recently it was about the police budget and the Chief admin. said "We need to give them the apparence that there are police" and guess what that is what these fancy schools are "the apperence" that the education is better.

Second, I see the budget I am aware that the state helped pay for it!! But look for the page (because I am not sifting through 500 pgs) that shows the loans we are paying back for the part that the state did not pay for!! I bet you thats a nice chunk of change every year!!! nothing is free! If you think it is I have some nice swamp land in "staven" for ya right near the airport.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 10, 2007 6:56 PM

ps Robn
Its not personal I love your posts! I learn from them :)
Peace Love and Happiness

Posted by: robn | April 10, 2007 7:49 PM

Cedarhillresident,

Backachya man. I don't think I'd want to live in a place other than the Have' becuase its here (and the NHI) where such lively debate is possible.

My apologies, but I think that the budget electronic page 205 I cited is total capitol projects and not just schools. On electronic page 209, school construction is broken down. I'll have to admit, the numbers for this year look attractive, but they don't quite add up horizontally and I'm not sure why. Here is this year's quote for schools and on its surface it seems like a good deal.

Total City(BONDS): 36,279,879
Total State: 91,148,667
Total Federal: 10,050,000
Total: Redesignations: 264,054
Grand Total: 137,742,600

Posted by: The budget is projected | April 10, 2007 8:57 PM

Don't look at the budget and think that is assured funds. The State has been cut back funds every year, but we, as well as all municipalities do not know how the State will ammned the money they pay. The budget is the best case scenario. Historical reimbursement is far more relevent and would show the sqte does not meet the statutory requirement. A small sentence in the CGS allows allocation based on funds available, and New Haven does not, or has not for at least five years received anywhere close to what the budget projects. It's a shell game. I know I was a major palyer for years in budget and finance.

Beautiful, outrageous buildings do not mean eduaction. In fact if you research you will find that in Kansas, back in the early 80's equal funds were given to two scholl districts. One built great new schools with all the bels an whistles, but ended up seeing no increase iin student performance. The other district made the schools that existed, at least habitable, and used the additional funds for community outreach. In that district score increased by 75%. The story is we need to wrk with the parents to teach the value of education, and understand that the value of education is not ini bricks and mortar. The mayor did sell the city contracts to contributors. Like it or not that is the truth, but the law as it stands makes that OK. The only people who suffer are the kids, parents and community.

Posted by: Ned | April 10, 2007 10:41 PM

Is there some reason that the city had to spend more, on school construction, than what the state offered to pay i.e., was there some requirement that the city had to pay a certain amount of money, to receive money from the state? If the state gave the city $800 million, why was there any need to spend more? Either way, New Haven taxpayers are stuck with the bill - which is unaffordable. Also, I hear that there is not enough money, in the school budget, to pay for books (anyone have the scoop on this?) The examples of the corruption, which are endemic to New Haven, and the essence of politics everywhere, do not make me want to pay any taxes. How much of the money in the school budget even goes to teaching kids, as opposed to huge salaries to alleged child abuser/administrators? In addition, clueless statements, to the effect that "businesses will just absorb a tax increase, they don't really care" made by Ed Mattison, at the East Rock tax meeting, a few weeks ago, seem to indicate that some Alderman live in an economic fantasy world, where businesses don't care about taxes - and there really is a Santa Claus too. Are these people all closet communists? Nothing is stopping Mr. Mattison, et al. from taking vows of poverty and redistributing their own wealth (where is their solidarity with the proletariat?) - running dogs! Where can I get one of those LCI 100% forgivable "loans"?

Posted by: Ned | April 11, 2007 8:03 AM

In addition, the "elderly tax freeze/deferment" scam that the Board of Finance is apparently going to pass discriminates against gay couples, who, under federal tax law, are not treated equally with heterosexual couples. Read about it here: http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/04/040907tax.htm

Posted by: Westvillian | April 13, 2007 9:45 AM

Can someone tell me why we need the airport? I fly pretty frequently and continue to do so regularly from Bradley, which has continued to grow and remained price competitive. For Northeast corridor travel, presumably Tweed's strength, I take Amtrak or MetroNorth. So who needs Tweed? I suspect the biggest users would be those in Eastern Connecticut looking for an option other than Providence or Bradley, in which case the adjacent county should pick up some if not most of the tab. With I-91 running directly past Bradley and into New Haven, Tweed is a complete waste of money. It does not contribute to our economic development in any way. In brief, it Tweed closed the next day, it would hardly be missed.

Posted by: Westrockcairns | April 16, 2007 3:08 PM

I believe one of the most useful things to be dealt with in the Mayor's Budget for 2007-08 would be to put a freeze on all taxes for homeowners with the requested taxes called for in this budget payable upon sale of the home. The other thing would be a more realistic assessment process - I don't know about you, but my home assessment doubled and I live next to one of the newly built, multi-million dollar edifices to New Haven Public Education which features a daily garbage and recyclables pickup sometimes starting at 2:30 a.m. The only hope I would have of selling my home is if somehow a prospective buyer doesn't notice the giant salmon-colored, landscape deteriorated, monstrosity next door that features parents who think it is okay to park across my driveway when I need to leave for work, and teachers who stand at the end of my drive, on the other side of a stand of trees, and smoke. Personally, I sent my kids and grandkids to private school, both elementary and prep school.