New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 28, 2008 4:23 PM

Walker, Looney and Dyson...Hmmm This was important to the tax payers of New Haven. I realize it may not be as important as your special interests are but it is important to me and every other Middle income family that live in your areas!! Time should of been found for a short press conference. Sorry that is how I feel.

Posted by: Esbe | January 28, 2008 5:19 PM

This time it sounds like the lack of coordination really is the mayor's fault -- and it isn't very smart. (And regular readers will know that I am more than happy to critique our state delegation for failing to coordinate and help the city.)

With Rell as Governor, making progess on prison re-entry is much more likely than property tax reform. At least the DeStefano plan is an alternative to the all-too easy sounding 3% cap, which would require regular cuts in city services (since the prices paid for city services go up at more like 4.5% a year.)

Posted by: robn | January 28, 2008 6:34 PM

I don't care who informed who about what at what time....the mayor and our legislators MUST get together and come up with property tax relief and the legislators must show a united front in hartford. The recent NH reval with some owners seeing 80% increases is just unacceptable.

WAKE UP HARTFORD!!

Posted by: Darnell | January 28, 2008 7:01 PM

In 2006, Gov. Rell presented a budget that ELIMINATED the automobile tax, and reimbursed towns 100% costs associated with this tax. Mayor John DeStefano, running for governor, almost busted an artery fighting this proposed elimination of a tax. Fast forward to 2008. Gov Rell proposes a 3% cap on property taxes (which I do not believe is enough), Mayor DeStefano counters with a proposal twice as large at 6%. How is he representing the best interests of his constituents/taxpayers when he opposes these tax cut proposals? Why does he fight so vehemently against cutting taxes? Why hasn't he publicly responded to the WPCA foreclosure mess, which he is partially responsible for?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. He has become drunk on spending taxpayers money, and has become immune to the effect his spending has on the everyday citizen/taxpayer in New Haven. Perhaps it is because he doesn't have to drive his own car, therefore not needing to pay taxes, gas, insurance or other related bills. Since he doesn't gas up his own car, he probably has no idea how much it costs to drive to work anymore.

Instead of having press conferences to tell the legislators, over which he has no control, to cut taxes, perhaps he should have a press conference here in New Haven to tell the Board of Aldermen how he plans to cut our local budget, and the taxes that fund it.

Posted by: learn to read | January 28, 2008 8:09 PM

Darnell you need to learn to read man.
The mayor proposed capping taxes at 6% of you personal income. The Gov proposed not letting towns raise taxes more then 3% a year. Also the reason the mayor apposed getting rid of the car tax is it unfair to the middle class in that rich Greenwich folk drive multiple $80,000 cars where as a New Havenite may drive an 8 year old POS worth $10,000 so this would have been a boon for the rich and a bust for the middle class.

Also I believe the mayor drives his own Toyota Prius so unless the city pays the lease on that your pretty much wrong about everything.

Posted by: WEBblog 1 | January 28, 2008 8:49 PM

The important feature missing in this proposal is that the mayor continues to fail to demonstrate his commitment to tax reductions, by not first showing that he is willing to reduce his own spending, expenditures and debt.
Instead the Mayor continues to call on the state and the other 168 towns and cities in Connecticut to support the tax difference between 6% of the city's adjusted income and the total amount of money needed to fund New Haven's general, special and capital fund budgets, currently funded @$717.6M.
This type of proposal was soundly defeated by the state electorate during the gubernatorial election last year. The mayor's proposals including property tax reform was defeated by more than 330,000 votes. The states delegation knows full well that this proposal is (DOA) dead on arrival. They have subtely expressed their view in the comments above concerning their NO Show!
However, we cannot stop there, the state delegation must counter with a more realistic tax reduction proposal which must include reductions in state and city spending.

Posted by: eli | January 29, 2008 2:01 AM

A few things here, and i'll take my two tylenol p.m.s so i can fall asleep thinking about the state of our city.
1 - darnell, until you can give a good answer, a really good answer as to why that agency did so poorly under your stewardship, or a real viable candidate for mayor steps into the fray, this man will continue to rule new haven.
2 - DeStefano refuses to concede the gov. election and has created his own kingdom to oversee while he plots his matriculation to hartford, and the only people who actually seem to realize this are the properly elected state reps. (and senators)
i hated that movie with chris rock is president because it wasn't written or acted with any kind of effort, but there is a line where the candidate admits "i've been broke, i've been robbed and i've been high". I want that candidate

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 29, 2008 9:10 AM

learn to read
is right Darnell the car tax was not going to save anyone in our area any real money. That was a I high income tax break as stated by "Learn to Read"

But I do have to say that WEBblog 1 makes the most important point........ "tax reductions"!!!

Posted by: A Voice | January 29, 2008 9:21 AM

LEARN TO READ: Your analysis of the vehicle tax elimination (based on the Mayor's position) is somewhat flawed. Let's look at this on the individual level. "Middle class" is in the eye of the beholder, based on the current presidential candidates' positions. So let's look at the "lower" class, or those people who are clearly having a rough time. They mostly don't own a home and are therefore exempt from the direct payment of property tax (except as reflected in their rent.) But they DO often own a car, however old and decrepit, and the elimination of the vehicle tax would DEFINITELY help them. As for the rich guys...many of them have their cars registered in the state where their second (or 3rd or 4th) home is, anyway. They also have high-priced accountants to maximize their write-offs, whatever they may be--extracting more tax from them would require a complete re-structuring of the IRS--beyond the scope of this one state issue.
My cars are fairly old--the newest is 2002, the other is "used" and 10 yrs. old, & our eldest child's (who needs it for college & work commuting) also used. Yet that $618.80 would have looked MIGHTY GOOD in my pocket last July and I'm "upper" middle class but still don't have extra money for fun vacations and such. How the Democrats manage to repeatedly defeat this measure defies comprehension!! I am convinced that most Connecticut Democrats are out of touch with reality, which is what happens when elected officials have been in power for too long. I know it's true of DeStefano, with his sanctuary city "manifesto" et al.

Posted by: on whalley | January 29, 2008 9:42 AM

That was a I high income tax break

Would anyone care to explain to me how killing the car tax wouldn't save me money? I make about 40K so if killing the car tax bill I have to pay is only to help the rich does that mean I've been rich this whole time? Here I am thinking I'm barely working class.

You understand how idiotic it is to say saving every car owner a bill only helps the rich, right? That is, unless ever car owner is rich.

Posted by: on whalley | January 29, 2008 9:44 AM

I have to add, not to mention that me saving that $150 every year is just slightly more significant than some guy making $250K saving $150 a year.

Who started this whole "cutting car tax only helps the rich" stupidity? It's completely contrary to logic and reasoning yet apparently some of you still believe it.

Posted by: Darnell | January 29, 2008 10:05 AM

Learn to read and Cedar - Let's see if I understand this, you say that you know longer have to pay taxes on your car, and you don't save money? In my world, when I don't have to pay the gov't, I have more money in my pocket. I like that. Now if the guy with an $80,000 car has more money in his pocket, good for him. If you want to keep living like a serf, and pay your dues to the lord in the castle, more power to you. I rather not owe the gov't forever for a car I bought and paid for. The point that I was making is that the Mayor opposes any proposal to reduce taxes. 6% is way too high while we continue to also pay a sales and income tax. I'd rather have the governor's proposal, and cap it at 3%, rather than the 9% the Mayor and the Board passed last year.

Eli - the rumor that the agency did poorly under me is a myth. When I took over the agency, it had a $1.3 million debt, I reduced it to $300,000 before I left. They did not have a personnel policy nor strategic plan, I led the Board to adopt both. I led two reorganizations. The finance dept did not have computers, they were doing all reports by hand. I led the reorganization of that dept. The Meals on Wheels drivers were paid under $6 per hour, I raised their salaries to over $8 per hour, and gave them benefits (including sick days and vacations, which they had not had). The energy workers were temp workers hired through an agency, paid $6 to $6.50 per hour. We were paying the agency $13 per hour. Again, I fired the temp agency and hired to staff on, raising all their salaries to over $8, plus benefits. The list goes on. Do you really believe that I made all those changes without making enemies? Don't believe what you hear from the politicians or the high paid staffers who were there for 20 years and did not like change. Talk to the line staff who did the work and appreciated the changes.

I AM PROUD OF MY WORK AT CAA, AND WILL DEFEND MY RECORD TO ANYONE. And I will during this campaign.

And by the way, I have been broke and robbed (we'll talk about the high part later), so I should be your candidate

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 29, 2008 1:12 PM

learn to read put the car tax thing the way I see it. I pay what 100.00 a year in car tax. And so do many of New Haven residents. Most of us do not have cars worth more than 20,000. But the higher income people will save a large amount. I can't remember what was on the table at that time, but I remember I wanted property tax breaks which help the struggling home owners and have a trickle down effect with the renters. If you cut the car tax who is going to make up the difference. The property tax payers!
Not sure if the above is rambling but I has a home owner want the benifit of a home owner tax break not a car tax break

Posted by: king james v | January 29, 2008 1:26 PM

O.k. Darnell, i've got to ask - since you've put yourself out there and the question is going to pop up eventually.
Why ARE you no longer employed at the agency in question.
Also, how would you work with our state rep. differently than Johnny.
I'm open to any different candidate, and want a strong honest opponent to vote for, so good luck.

Posted by: on whalley | January 29, 2008 1:37 PM

if you cut the car tax who is going to make up the difference. The property tax payers!

Here's a wild idea: cut the spending.

Gasp!! Did he just say that?

I know it seems like forces in control are denying this course of action is an option but it certainly is an option. An option that is little exercised.

Posted by: robn | January 29, 2008 1:41 PM

Maybe I'm looking at this a bit simplistically, but hey wonks, tell me if my math or my logic is wrong.....

According to city-data.com (link below), the 1999 per capita income in New Haven was $16,393 and the population was 123,626. So that makes about $2B of income. If the mayor caps property taxes at 6% of income, then the sum of residential property taxes would be $120M. The governors proposal of a 3% cap would make that $60M.

At some point in the last budget negotiations, the reval'd residential property was worth about $3.4B (an assessment increase of 88% by the way...but I'll save that for another b$%tch session). At our current mill rate of 42.21, that $3.4B figure generates about $143M in property taxes.

So to make a long question short, did the mayor just create a $23M budget shortfall???? Did the governors proposal make an $83M shortfall???????
Do budget cutting proponents think that there is 16% or a 58% of fat that we can cut from the budget???
If not, how would the budget gaps be filled???

http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-Northeast/New-Haven.html

Posted by: Darnell | January 29, 2008 2:30 PM

King James,

I sued the agency for wrongful termination,and won (as reported by this site and the NH Register). As part of the settlement, I can not discuss the terms, but somehow they have gotten to the press (and not by me, I don't comment anonymously).

How would I work with our Reps? I would respect their opinions and come to agreement together. Before having a press conference on a leg. agenda, I would first develop that agenda with them. I would then give them more than a weekend and a cursory "invite" when scheduling said press conference. This press conference debacle is atypical of the way this administration functions with others. They don't play very well with others. I would.

On Whalley - I agree with you 110%, CUT SPENDING. That's what I do in my household when the income does not sufficiently cover the spending side.

Learn to Read - if you had been reading, you would know that the Toyota Prius is bought, paid for and owned by the taxpayers of the City of New Haven. So is the gas, insurance, parking, maintenance, and whatever else goes into driving that vehicle.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 29, 2008 4:37 PM

on whalley
Gasppppp!! I still here the echo of it....

They say there is nothing to cut. I see it in the DEPT of EDUCATION. Jeff and his group really need to fine tooth that budget list.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 29, 2008 4:37 PM

ps... and who in that dept gets payed out of the general fund... :)

Posted by: learn to read | January 29, 2008 4:59 PM

Here's how i see the car tax thing.
I live in NH I have an '04 mountaineer I think I pay close to $400 in Taxes. I have a rich uncle in Woodbridge who drives: an Audi a4, a corvette, a navigator and a mini cooper. If we both stop paying taxes on cars it benefits him a lot more then me. Plus now the state will have to collect more money to make up the difference. Sure id like to stop paying the car tax but people who make over 250k a year pay a disproportionately higher amount of tax on cars the people who make 50k and if they stop we (the middle class) will end up paying the difference. I would love to hear the other side of the argument though and republicans out there?

Posted by: king james v | January 29, 2008 6:27 PM

Thank you darnell, i had to ask if i'm going to vote for you. You are on top of my list so far.

Posted by: Darnell | January 29, 2008 7:45 PM

Cedar,

The Bd of ED wants to hire an aide to lobby in Hartford, the Mayor already has a person in Hartford, the BOE is part of the city budget. That is the first place you cut.

Posted by: on whalley | January 29, 2008 8:37 PM

@ L2R

So....it's okay for me to suffer this bill as long as some rich guy suffers more?

And no. The tax revenue doesn't have to be made up anywhere. The taxing entity can learn to live without. I have to keep my thermostat at 50 and eat rice so can Johnny D. This city, this state and this whole *expletive* country needs to tighten that belt a dozen or more notches. Cancel every program and let the infrastructure rot and collapse for all I care. It would be worth living like an animal in a cave if it would mean that somebody somewhere would learn so damn fiscal responsibility.

As long as there is a damn bus stop in this city worth more than twice my house this municipality has no right to extort a dime from me.

Posted by: Darnell | January 29, 2008 9:44 PM

On Whalley,

YOU are my hero.

Posted by: A Voice | January 30, 2008 12:39 AM

One factor not mentioned here...the "big picture." The vehicle tax is a REGRESSIVE tax, in that it impedes economic progress. For instance, some people (at least before the economy tanked) avoid buying new cars in favor of less expensive used ones in order to lessen the yearly tax burden. I've heard this from many people. That means that the car sales industry is being hurt by this tax. The even bigger effect, though, is being felt in the overall state economy. When businesses look at CT as a possible place to to relocate to, what do they see? A pretty state that taxes everything but the breath you take! My relatives in Florida can't BELIEVE what we pay. These taxes, taken altogether, have a huge negative impact on our economy----an economy that could be producing much higher tax revenue if the climate (& I don't mean the weather) were different. The psychological disincentive of having to continually pay for a car that you already bought is huge...as I believe someone already commented. The dollars and cents aren't even so much the issue here, as much as the vision of what COULD be if certain tax conditions were changed....& the vehicle tax is a BIGGEE.

Posted by: on whalley | January 30, 2008 7:59 AM

A pretty state that taxes everything but the breath you take!

Give it time. I'm sure there's some carbon tax being tossed around that will account for exhalation.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 30, 2008 8:10 AM

Darnell
I would cut the PT jobs out of the GENERAL fund. yes I would the glorified positions that have no real purpose in our school system.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 30, 2008 9:40 AM

A Voice
Can I ask how many cars in your house and what year and make?? I think it makes a difference to the stuggleing family in the here and now.
I think that "learn to read" last comment hit it on the head. We the lower and middle will be paying more in the end if this happens. The only people that I see benefiting from this is the higher income people. Where property tax breaks will help alot more moderately income people. Now maybe I am wrong, but that is how I see it.

on whalley
I am feeling ya. I do think in times of trouble all belts must be tightened. Just like we the people must do, so must the city and state. We can not increase our budget it must be decreased and all community's must get out of there houses and help with the short coming that will result in those cuts. We can not expect the same services if we cut the budget. We have to all work together in our areas to take up the slack if the city did that. Is your community willing to do that. Are other community's willing to do that?
My community has been for many years. Well up until now because we are finally getting help.
I am glad the city is sending people to Hartford I HOPE IT IS AN ARMY OF PEOPLE. It is worth the time and effort if we can get the cash Hartford is short changing us. So I am very happy that this is happening on a grander scale than usual

Posted by: on whalley | January 30, 2008 10:12 AM

@CHR

I don't really care if my community is willing to do that. My "community" and their uncanny ability to be bought by politicians making ridiculous promises without giving any way to reason or logic is why we're in this mess to begin with. I don't want help. What I want is to be left alone. My "community" can go on doing what they've always done but I want out.

I want to opt out. Secession. I want the liberty I've been promised. I want 5 acres and to be forgotten about. Instead I am subjected to mob-rule a.k.a. democracy and frankly the mob is full of slothful morons and sheep.

I can make it really easy for everyone to be happy. Personal secession. What's so hard about that? Me and mine gone and separate.

That is the only way I'll see satisfaction. I was born about three hundred years too late it would seem.

I can be entirely self-sufficient until the tax man comes to punish me for having property. At which point the government reserves the "right" to confiscate my entire life or shoot me. Have you seen the IRS agents training? What business do tax collectors have running around in body armor with sub-machine guns? If you saw them drilling you'd swear Koresh just owed some back taxes.

It's entirely my fault. I was born in a feudal country in a socialist-at-gunpoint state in a corrupt town run by mobsters. Why doesn't DeStefano just kick in my front door, slap my wife around then demand "protection" money?

This nation was lost the moment Washington took up arms against those Pennsylvania farmers.

I'm glad we're bankrupt as a nation.

Posted by: A Voice | January 30, 2008 10:45 AM

CEDARHILLRESIDENT: My car info was in a much earlier post (see above.)...no "mid-life crisis" cars here, that's for sure! My understanding of Rell's proposal was that there would be no increase in property tax as a result of the car tax elimination. She has recently hinted that she is going to propose it again and everyone knows she is advocating a "cap" on prop. tax increases... am I mistaken, or wouldn't her cap interfere with New Haven's planned increases and lower them? All I know is that for 25 years I have been having a hard time coming up with extra money in July and I can't, for the life of me, imagine why CT residents have tolerated it for so long.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | January 30, 2008 10:47 AM

Those of you who think car taxes are no big thing need to stand in the tax collector's line a couple of times. There are more people in line with little ability to pay those taxes than you may think. Many of them are caught up in the whole morass of owing taxes on a car long ago junked or sold and because they tend to move alot, did not get the tax bill. Under state law, tax collectors are not even required to send one bill, let alone several.

The car tax should be elminated because it is regressive and unnecessary. When you buy a car, you pay sales tax. That should be enough. If cities and towns managed their finances properly, they wouldn't need this revenue. In as much as the state would use excess tax revenues to reimburse the towns and cities 100% - there was no reason not to pass this and give everyone some tax relief. The homeowner's tax credit should have been saved as part of this package, and budget increases should be capped if not by 3% then something close to it. In New Haven this year, spending increased by more than 8% - the mayor got a $16,000 raise, Super Mayo is going to get a new car and now they want to hire a lobbyist with money they "found" in the budget in addition to $60,000 for a search for a new chief cop. There is no adult in charge of spending and keeping the city on track financially.

Would ending the car tax also provide tax relief for the rich? Sure. So what? As a percent of their income, the taxes they pay on their expensive cars are nothing and if it really mattered, they wouldn't buy those cars. But for working families, the $400 - $500 is alot of money especially when married to property taxes on our homes. There are more working families than rich in this state.

Until we have a mayor who puts taxpayers first, the only conversations the mayor will have with the state is how he can get more money out of those state taxpayers - ah, that would be us again.

Posted by: A Voice | January 30, 2008 12:06 PM

GARY: Well said!

Posted by: robn | January 30, 2008 6:39 PM

Yeah. all good points, but (whether or not you're running for public office) can somebody answer my previous questions? If the mayor caps property taxes and thereby decreases tax income by 16%, where is the money going to come from? If we took it all out of education it would cut 1/4 of the school system. Is that what's being suggested as realistic?

Posted by: A Voice | January 30, 2008 10:11 PM

ROBN: My reading of the above article (which is awfully confusing) is that the shortfall in collected taxes would be made up by the "state"...it doesn't say which dept. I didn't see a figure of 16% anywhere ... it says he doesn't know how much that would be and has asked the state to come up with figures. By my calculations, my family's prop. tax would actually go UP under DeStefano's plan ... assuming the 6% cap would be the actual figure, rather than less than 6%. Where does he get these half-baked schemes from, anyway? (That is, proposing something without first doing the homework.) This looks like another attempt at "regionalism", which is a euphemism for "socialism" where the supposed "haves" of the small towns subsidize the "have-nots" of the cities, thus creating even more resentment and class-warfare than there is now. Wasn't PROPERTY TAX originally based on the actual value of the PROPERTY, rather than INCOME? This sounds suspiciously like the old "rent-controlled" apartments of New York City. I think we need more complex thinking on some of these issues ... by the way, why is DeStefano trying to tell the whole state what to do? Did he miss the memo on the last election?

Posted by: Gary Doyens | January 31, 2008 5:07 PM

Robn: This is a long answer to a short set of questions. I'll try to keep it a little entertaining, and if your eyes don't glaze over first, it should answer your questions.

First, the 1999 numbers you reference are 9 years old - per capita income at least in theory, should be somewhat higher now although with rising poverty, foreclosures and closing factories in New Haven, that may not be the case. Second, the mayor's FUBAR plan for property taxes capped at 6% of family income means a lot of folks in New Haven will be paying substantially more than their already overtaxed households are today. East Rock, Westville, Beaver Hill, Wooster Square and downtown residents where incomes tend to be higher will see skyrocketing increases. Property taxes that are already high at $5,800 for a 1800 square foot house in Westville, could easily be looking at $10,000 or more. Investment real estate downtown will see ballooning taxes as well to make up for those families with smaller incomes. Remember the elderly tax freeze? It shifted $3 million in tax payments to working families. Under the mayor's 6% rule, tens of millions in additional taxes could be shifted to us again because the elderly and others with $50,000 in income, would be capped at $3,000 in taxes even though they live in a house that used to generate more than that in property taxes. It's another layer of income tax and one of the sorriest public policy initiatives I've ever seen. It really is emblematic of the wasteland of ideas coming out of the DeStefano Administration.

On the other hand, the governor's proposed 3% cap is on the amount of the annual property tax increase only and is NOT tied to income. What she's trying to do is get cities like New Haven to control their spending. (I know, when pigs fly...)Last year, the mayor added nearly $30 million in spending increases - double the previous several years of around $14 - 15 million annually.

I believe the 3% in property tax growth may be hard to achieve - but beating this year's 8%+ number is a piece of cake. It's really a question of controlling spending - limit growth in core areas and eliminate the never ending proliferation of new initiatives for which there is no long term revenue to pay for it. Going after grants that pay for year one, and then lock in or encourage the city into multi-year sustained programmatic costs that are not covered is quite frankly, just stupid. It may be good for the firms advocating those grants, or for the direct beneficiaries, but its fuel for tax increases and forces the city into programs it neither does well nor are they part of its core mission of education, safety, quality of life or economic development.

In the end, it spreads city revenues a mile wide and an inch deep not providing enough dollars in any department to accomplish its tasks well. This vortex then leads the city into questionable business practices because its appetite for revenue is so insatiable. Building non-taxable, but PILOT eligible structures on potential Class A real estate while bitching about PILOT payments; leveling building permit fees in excess of what it costs to execute and monitor construction projects in New Haven (watch the Madison lawsuit on same subject in which the town is likely to lose - such an outcome will force New Haven to lower its fees and send millions of dollars in expense now paid for with excess fees, over to working families.) Don't forget construction projects with such long term payouts, the net effect will be like a pimple on the axx of an elephant. The revenue needs also forces the nuclear option of threats of foreclosure, collection agencies and the Taxman's favorite "Boot" to capture the last couple percent of tax delinquents owing $500 on their car.

Examples: The assault vehicle grant pays for the equipment - we pay for the gas, the insurance, the training, the maintenance forever on a vehicle we've never demonstrated the need. $1.5 million in deluxe, custom designed and heated bus stops was paid for with transportation grant money and we now have exposure for higher utilities, maintenance and insurance premiums for these mini-houses. The Fake Trolley with fewer and fewer riders even though its free, costs $380,000 a year. To save a failing ride, the city layered on another level of property taxes to parking lot owners and wants to expand the service. The City ID program is paid for the first year only at a grant cost of $230,000 + dollars and now the community services department is trying to build the case for sustainable even though they promised last year they wouldn't if they didn't have outside funding - a program which provides extremely limited services to less than 4% of the city's population and that includes those with political or philosophical agreement with the city ID but are not part of the target group for which it was designed and implemented.

You could cut all the consultants that are tucked away in city government - traffic and the biggest one of all - education. Many of these people are double dippers - fake retirees who come back as "consultants" and pretend not to be employees so they can still collect a paycheck and pensions too. Automobiles - Unless there is a direct, demonstrated and cost basis for a city car or truck, employees should be reimbursed for mileage. This includes the mayor and the Superintendent of Schools. The same for cell phones etc. There should be one lobbying effort on behalf of the city - right now, we pay or will pay with the NH BOE lobbying position, in excess of $350,000 even though key Democratic leadership in the state is centered in Milford, Hamden and New Haven all with a vested interest in maintaining our gravy train in Hartford. Police overtime and having the largest police force of any city in the state is just silly when so much could be done with better management, technology and accountability for community policing results. I have to believe fire department costs could be pared as well - every call to the fire department causes a fire truck and an ambulance to roll even though 80% (according to the mayor) of the calls are medical emergencies only. Quite frankly, the city's unions including teachers, fire and police are all going to have to contribute to the solution and this should be addressed in new collective bargaining talks. The city is barely funding pension outlays now and there is a looming unfunded liability of several hundred million dollars. The era of 14 - 16% pay raises for the mayor and department heads should be gone. This is only a short list.

The bottom line is the city needs to focus on core services and then do those services right and first class. The city cannot be all things to all people and it cannot function as a safety net for every ill afflicting society. There are non-profits who provide those services already and well I might add, including prisoner re-entry. The city should help, should be a conduit for grants to these non-profits but it should not be directly involved. These people have the expertise. City government does not. There is only so much money you can rip out of the hands of working families before you bankrupt them or all they do is work to pay property taxes, fines and fees while looking over their shoulder to make sure the WPCA or city is not foreclosing on their house, or towing away their car.

Posted by: joshua jones | January 31, 2008 10:31 PM

This the usual game. Get everybody fightin over a no issue. It done matter what the tax is o ho gets hit. The poor done have no money to give. The rich do. So yo want somthin done yo got to tax the rich. if I had the money to get done the things I wanted I would not complain about tax. I just done have the money. I alwys be poor an I noe it. But I try to be happy. Rich man never happy cos he always scard o losdin money he done need. It all a load o BS

Posted by: robn | February 1, 2008 1:18 PM

AV and GD,

I came up with the 16% bedget deficit figure, based upon last know census data (1999) for per capita income and this years budget (i was hoping that somebody would check the math). Nevertheless, I believe that we're all zeroing in on some significant wildcards in Mayor D's formula.

... whether the mayors "6% of income" creates a up-to-and-not-to-be-exceeded "cap" or it creates a new way of estimating property by income and not property value?

...does the cap create a budget deficit?

I was assuming it was a cap and that if your property is worth less, you pay less....creating a deficit...but I don't know for sure.

In either case, there is the possibility that people with valuable homes but small income (such as a retired person who has paid off their mortgage, or a wealthy person who lives off of capital gains from investment) will pay much less than they are now and that might not be fair. (this is an additional revenue hole I didn't consider earlier).

Posted by: A Voice | February 1, 2008 4:51 PM

ROBN: After all these years, I have grown very cynical about New Haven politics and think we are right to be suspicious of what this may bring. I can envision a scenario similar to what you suggest; i.e. the loss of tax revenue when people have valuable properties but low income. Since the proposal is a "statewide" cap, I can even imagine a 10-acre farm in, say, Greenwich, where the owner (who may have inherited it) falls upon hard times and this relatively large source of revenue comes off the tax rolls almost entirely. With regard to the "cap" on higher income owners...not to be paranoid or anything...I can even imagine this scenario: an owner is paying maybe 3 or 4% of gross-adjusted at present. Then the Mayor monkeys around with the mill rate, causing the new tax to reach around 8% of this person's income. So he magnanimously announces that you won't pay more than 6% because of his generous "cap." This is how the Board of Aldermen already works...when the Mayor proposes something high, they amend it down slightly and pass it ---getting to claim they "opposed" the Mayor (to their wards), while all along colluding in such a way as to make everybody come out smelling like roses.
One more thought in case anyone is still reading this: when I moved to NH I was told (as everyone is) that the only way your vote will count is if you register "Democratic." Well, I've finally seen the futility in that and after a sojourn into "Unaffiliated" land, have taken the plunge and registered "Republican." I really believe that there should be a strong movement in this city to recruit Republican converts, if only for a time (since you can always change), so that there could be even the slightest glimmer of hope for a truly alternative mayoral candidate. Democrats would finally have to sit up and take notice of disgruntled constituents if there were a sizable number of opposition voters.
That's my two cents.

Posted by: Common Sense | February 1, 2008 6:24 PM

It sounds like Gary Doyens has laid out a nice platform for political discussion. He's got my attention. Go for it.