New Haven Independent

Posted by: on whalley | November 13, 2007 9:08 AM

""The public is up in arms," said caucus president and Hill Alderman Jorge Perez"

Really? But DeStefano won in a "landslide." So, is the public surprised by this? Were they not expecting DeStefano to milk taxpayers? Have they not been paying attention the last 14 years?

Why why why does this keep happening all over the nation? Why doesn't anyone vote then get all upset when they suffer the obvious repercussions?

I had a sad conversation with a roommate last night. He proved to be an obscenely uninformed voter who admitted not knowing anything other than DeStefano was a Democrat when he went to vote then admitted the only reason he went to vote at all was because I kept reminding everyone in the house to do so. This is the average voter. Uninformed, apathetic and yes people, those sappy idiotic campaign TV commercials actually do work! This same individual thought he couldn't NOT vote for a D because he was registered as a D. (banging keyboard with head) Sadly, I think he is actually an "above average" voter.

An article in the Yale Daily News mentions Jacqueline James' concern over how to "justify this to the taxpayers." Where was her concern for justification for every other expense this city fabricates? Justify the BearCat to me. Justify those damn bus stops not just to me but to every taxpayer local state and federal.

For all those partisan fanboys who sent around IQ charts of states after the 2004 election I'd expect New Haven voters to be a little brighter. At the very least to be aware of their surroundings. Or IQ apparently doesn't mean anything.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 13, 2007 9:40 AM

on whalley
I came across a few people who were told on the phone that day that "because you are a Democrat they could only vote democrat" mis-information. I told them they can write in Capitan America, if the mood struck them to do so. My neighbor who is up there in age said they use to do things like that in the south back in the 60's. you would think that 40 years later the voter would at the least know there basic rights.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | November 13, 2007 9:57 AM

If They Want A Raise Let Them Sit On A Jack!!!

Posted by: JSJ | November 13, 2007 10:40 AM

In August, the mayor's office issued a press release boasting of a >$1 million surplus. Hot on the heels of this announcement was an October NH Register article stating that the city has a $14 million shortfall to make up for the current fiscal year. Among the plans implemented to deal with this issue was a hiring freeze.

While everyone loves a raise, perhaps the best time for the mayor to request one is not when special measures have been put in place to cut expenses. I would urge the aldermen to pass on this request until the city's financial picture is rosier. I'm sure Mayor DeStefano will do fine in the meantime.

Posted by: East Rock Resident | November 13, 2007 10:41 AM

I can't beleive that the myaor has the nerve to ask for a $25,000 raise for next year - for what? I voted for the guy, but it was due to a lack of good option rather than love for him. If any of the following democrats had run, I would have voted for them instead - Looney, Staples, Harp, Walker, Perez, Lemar, Rhodeen, Pascale, Paollilo, Silverman, Sandman, Fernandez, Smuts. DeStefano, you are maybe the 15th best Democrat I can think of to be Mayor- all these other people are just too young or too scared to run against you. Leave soon before you get overthrown.

Posted by: kris | November 13, 2007 10:57 AM

The alderman should obtain info about the mayor in wallingford,Bill Dickinson.I know he has been the mayor for 24 years,makes 75,000 and has not asked for a raise in many many years (I dont know exactly how many) and he has no intention to ask for a raise either.Now that is a good mayor!Tell Destefano about him.

Posted by: Bruce | November 13, 2007 11:38 AM

I wouldn't have predicted that I'd be on this side of the argument, but I don't think this is such a big deal. It sounds like a huge raise when you lump it all at once, but really it's only about 4% per year. Considering that inflation is around 3%, he's really been losing money every year. However, it would be prudent for this request accompany an equivalent spending cut.

Posted by: watchdog | November 13, 2007 12:03 PM

The Mayor's request and justification that he deserves this raise due to the fact that the last time he received a raise was four years ago is flawed and disingenuous.
He received a raise in 2003 for 04-05. Therefore it has been two years that he has not had one. As far as the last two years go the Mayor submitted a request for a raise in 2005 for 06-07 and then withdrew the request citing he would not seek a biannual pay increase "in light of the city's finances and in light of the fact that taxes were recently raised." Read the Register Article from 2005 http://www.nhregister.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=15613243&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=8. Should he get a raise? Yes. What would be fair? The best barometer would be what the management employees got which was 4% for 08 and 4% for 09 compounded. That comes out to $124,384.00 that he gets starting January 1. It would make him one of the highest paid Mayors. As far as the City Clerk goes 2% for each of the two years is more than fair.

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 13, 2007 12:08 PM

I agree, when a business isn't doing well, it is hardly the time to start handing out raises - as nice as they are. I see no reason why this shouldn't hold true for City Hall - especially since the "money issues" were their own doing.

Posted by: robn | November 13, 2007 12:43 PM

The average rate of inflation over the past 3 years was 2.9%, so the appropriate raise which doesn't actually create a pay cut would put him at about $125,000.

Not that I wouldn't appreciate some salary freezes to offset my egregious property tax burden but I find it hypocritical that the black and hispanic caucus attack mayors salary given that Superintendant of Schools Reggie Mayo (who happens to be an African American) makes $184,000 without question.

Before you attack me for race baiting please note that I've only stated the facts.

Posted by: concernedinnewhaven | November 13, 2007 12:48 PM

What is all this talk of only a 4% raise. People, this is a $25,000 raise PER YEAR, for TWO years, for a total of $50,000. Now, just for the sake of argument, we used your rational that he did not receive a raise for 4 years (when he was gone running for Gov) and we said that this raise was for those years plus the next two (equaling 6 years), this would still be an over 7% per year. If you folks think that an elected politician should get a cost of living raise (which I do not) then this raise should not be more than 3% PER YEAR.

I do not believe that while my taxes go up, he should be getting a raise. But since it appears that there is no stopping this thing, I would argue that he should not get a cost of living increase for the previous years, but instead for the next two, at 3%. Therefore, the total rise should be $7,000, to $122,000.

Posted by: on whalley | November 13, 2007 12:48 PM

@EAST ROCK RES

You can't pull a lever (or bubble in a circle) unless there is a (D) next to the name?

That's the number 34,567 thing that's wrong with America(ns).

You'd suffer horribly just to save face with some political affiliation? Madness. Like the woman who refuses to leave her abusive husband because "he'll change" or "he loves me." Simple madness.

Posted by: observer | November 13, 2007 12:54 PM

"Bruce's" argument is faulty at best. Raises are not managed retroactively unless it is part of a collective bargaining agreement and there is an expired contract. Two comments, then a question: People like DeStefano go into politics for the power not the money, he nows that going in. His pay should not be larger than Bridgeport or Hartford. Both those cities are bigger and their problems are similar to New Haven's. So a 3-4 percent raise seems in order. Question: Do we get a rebate for the two years he spent running for Governor? After all, he was well paid during that time when he was absolutly ignoring the city!

Posted by: Daniel Sumrall | November 13, 2007 1:01 PM

100,000 is more than enough for any mayor and to demand more especially from virtually unpaid elected representatives (BOA get like 2000 in a year I believe) is not only greed but also a slap in the face.

Why not tie the mayor's salary to the city's median family income? According to the New Haven Public Schools' demographics page, this would be $35,950. When the median family income goes up, the mayor's pay goes up. A simple, common sense plan.

Posted by: Jon-Jay Tilsen | November 13, 2007 1:08 PM

The mayor should be compensated at a rate comparable to the rate provided by similar cities. Compensation should be determined by the office, not the popularity of its current occupant. It should not matter, for this purpose, whether you approve of the mayor. It would be best if the salary were set for the next twelve years, subject to CPI adjustment, thereby de-politicizing the pay issue.

Posted by: robn | November 13, 2007 1:24 PM

A reconsideration of what I wrote before....if the mayor sacrificed pay raises for four years to acknowledge the city's budget duress, then it shouldn't be considered a loss and shouldn't be recouped. It might be appropriate though, for the mayor to ask for an annual pay raise that keeps up with the rate of inflation...starting this year.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | November 13, 2007 4:27 PM

I do not believe the Salary of the chief executive of any city should be based in part, or in whole on the salary of another Mayor in whatever city in the state or U.S.

The City charter is a self-serving tool, which allows the mayor to set the salary without qualifications. The Human resources department should have prepared a full report outlining the justification for the request. Tina Burgett did not do so.
Another issue to consider is that in Feb 07, Burgett requested a salary level increase to $125,000/yr. for the all executive staff members.

The Finance committee recommended and the BOA approved the request without debate. Now the BOA is pigeon holed into determining what salary and justification should be used for quantifying the salary request, which wil have to exceed $125,000.

In as much as the mayors request for a $25,000 raise to cover the previous four years is concerned, this is a faulty request and should be denied based on the fact that the charter allows the Mayor to make a request each year, however, he, nor Burgett did so. It is not as if the Mayor made the request and was denied by the BOA each year.
Additionally,the mayor was AWOL for three of the past four years while drawing a salary of $115,000. He came back to work in 2007, spent much of the year running for Mayor, that would only leave this year performance as the true performance indicator.

In conclusion, it is the BOA who contributed to making this out of control cash monster, and therefore it is they who must justify the way out>>>>>>>>>>>$$$$$.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | November 14, 2007 7:28 AM

King John loves talking about social justice -- his proposed salary increase is on par with the average per capita income for the county.

Posted by: new haven taxpayer | November 14, 2007 8:56 AM

STOP THE RAISES IN NEW HAVEN

Sign the online petition today

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/StoptheRaisesinNewHaven/

Posted by: bjfair | November 14, 2007 1:05 PM

People in New Haven are struggling due to the high tax burden. Many have lost their homes and had cars taken from them because they can't afford property tax and the mayor wants more money. He already gets a free car with free gas.Is there any end to his greed? He also gets to ignore the citizens of New Haven whuile working on a plan of gentrification and still he has the audacity to ask struggling citizens to give him more so he can continue the quality of life that most citizens in New Haven can only dream of having. Robn, you are so right. How can several of our schools be on the national list for failing while the man in charge rakes in nearly $200,000 a year and noone questions that.. I refuse to give my hard earned money to a greedy administration as well as pay hefty annual pensions to dirty cops. I am leaving here as soon as my lease is up. This city makes me sick and with the voting record here I don't expect it to change.

Posted by: New Havener | November 14, 2007 6:33 PM

Only in a one party town could a mayor receive a pay increase greater than inflation after raising taxes by 20%,having crime issues and the police department engulfed in a scandal, and being absent from the job while making a failed attempt to run for Govener.

Maturo and Koptez raised taxes and scandals.

Posted by: downtown fan | November 14, 2007 7:50 PM

It's "business unfriendly" to oppose putting a liquor store on the Green? Not every business is a good business downtown...and anyone with an understanding of leasing, economics and business development knows that a liquor store moving into a prominent, lucrative location owned by an ABSENTEE LANDLORD is a recipe for disaster. For those who think this is just New Haven trying to say no to an unassailable martyred small business owner, think again: this owner had to be CONVINCED not to sell nips, loosies and anything else that would boost his bottom line at the expense of the health and well-being of downtown. His business sold those items at his former location, and there's no guarantee that he won't do the same thing in this new location...as soon as enough time passes for officials to turn their attention away from the restrictions they placed on him.

The real losers here are the surrounding small businesses that have invested their blood, sweat and tears into making Chapel Street a more inviting place with a more lively mix of uses and retail concepts housed in buildings with renovated facades. This property owner, the descendants of the Malley's family, have owned this set of buildings for decades and invested nothing--not one dime--in the Chapel Street facades during that entire time. The City has had to beg the owners to do something--anything--to renovate these buildings. Despite the fact that small businesses have suffered here for decades due to poor management and neglect, the City agreed to give the Malley's family money to renovate part of the Temple Street facade, all in the name of supporting the businesses that were locating there. But for all of New Haven's efforts to bend over backwards for small business, people seem to criticize the City (on this message board and elsewhere) for being business unfriendly. It's just not true.

In this case, bad judgment won out. Putting another liquor store sets a bad precedent and is not just bad public policy, it's bad for anyone who wants to see New Haven attract the kind of retailers that every one of us needs to have a sustainable, interesting urban neighborhood.

And for every person on this message board who complains that you can't even buy pots and pans, underwear and a reasonably priced pair of shoes in downtown, remember that every storefront that becomes a liquor store is another place that potentially could have sold something New Haveners truly need. City Hall knows that, the Town Green Special Services District knows that, and most reasonable human beings know that. Not all small business is good for New Haven and good for surrounding business, and no one should mythologize the martyred liquor store owner. He could have found another location downtown that would not have required a variance. His triumph is a loss for downtown and our neighborhood. Thanks, BZA.

Posted by: herzliebster | November 14, 2007 9:20 PM

it would be prudent for this request accompany an equivalent spending cut

The problem with that is that then mayor gets more while services to citizens (that's what "spending" is) get less.

The free-car-free-gas perk is a significant one in today's economy. Free gas neutralizes one of the major factors in the increased cost of living. Seems to me that a 4% or 5% pay increase ought to be enough. Pay the mayor too little and that becomes a disincentive to for people to seek elected office at all (maybe that's why the mayor of Waterbury has held office for 24 years @ $75,000 pay); pay too much and people seek office for the wrong reasons.

The Board of Aldermen deserve a major pay increase, for the above reason.

Posted by: James | November 15, 2007 9:58 AM

Once again I'd like to point out that Smith's raise is even more ludicrous at an average annual percent increase of 6.8 percent per year, retroactive. 30.4 percent taken as a lump sum. What has Smith done to deserve such a raise?

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 15, 2007 12:41 PM

Here's a better idea - The mayor doesn't need a car with the insurance, overhead and gas - this is at least a $12K a year perk. End it. And, give him no raise. With the average New Haven resident at $35,000 - a $115,000 a year is good enough. The real work is not done in his office anyway.

Take these savings, and find some other money, and pay every alder $10,000 a year as compensation. They are now paid $2,000. In exchange, they would have to attend every BOA meeting and their comittee meetings too - failure would result in a pro-rata deduction unless excused by the chairman; and every one of them would be barred from working directly or indirectly for the city as either a consultant, part time employee. They could not work for any agency that gets money fromt the city.

That means, no HANH or school board employment; no parking garage employment; and so on.

This would encourage a truly independent board, end conflicts of interest perceived and real; and insure that they are making the kinds of decisions that are in the best interests of all of us.

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 16, 2007 1:08 PM

"He could have found another location downtown that would not have required a variance. His triumph is a loss for downtown and our neighborhood. Thanks, BZA." (downtown fan)

Regardless of your position whether the liquor store location was appropriate, it is not his "triumph" that is a loss for downtown and our neighborhood, it is how he triumphed that is a loss for all of us. Not only is it hypocritical of the City, but it is very revealing as to how the City really operates. How important was it really to not have a liquor store located there? Apparently not as important as hiring the right person.

Gary Doyens, I agree with all of your last post.