New Haven Independent

Posted by: WEBblog 1 | February 25, 2008 7:03 PM

This Corporation Council's nine page Memo summary below does not appear to be a qualified supported reason as to why this case should not be tested in the CT. State courts. The overriding fact here is that CSX did not appeal the issue of taxation to New Haven, the appeal was done by Nicesca who does not own the land, nor does he pay taxes to the State of CT. and is not registered with the state as a railroad company. So how would that be double taxation??

D. SUMMARY:
"Tax exemption in these three cases appears to be supported by the gross earnings tax paid by CSX to the state (and the specter of double taxation), the lease provision restricting the tenant's use to only railroad uses, the treatment of the properties by the North Haven Assessor and the City's Building Official, a site visit, and the broad language of state statutes and case law. We have examined the possible objections to tax exemption, and the tenant's application to DEP and the lease provision on taxes both have plausible explanations. The New Jersey cases from 2004 and 2005 do not deal with taxation at all, and the 2007 New Jersey case appears to distinguish those earlier cases and limit them to their unique facts. For the foregoing reasons, the three CSX properties warrant tax exemption, and a court, after trial, would very likely determine that to be so".

In addition, the below paragraph from the memo raises a pertinent question, but does not provide a pertinent answer.

"The lease of the properties in question requires that the properties leased by the tenant be "used exclusively for railroad purposes". Article 4 of the 1996 Lease agreement between ConRail and Nicesca provides in pertinent part: "Lessee shall use the Premises solely for a freight rail facility for the receipt and storage of rail cars, unloading of commodities...installation of tracks, butler type warehouse buildings, paving and grading and for no other purpose."

The 2007 New Jersey case relied upon by Amento to reach this conclusion is old and he has not been shepardized.
This memo does not reference any arbitrator or third party agreement to this decision.

I'm not convinced that this case should not go to the Connecticut state court.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 25, 2008 7:28 PM

I have a bigger question.... do we have any idea how many other people have been excused from taxes over the past decade?? Anyone know?? You know a half million here, and a half million there can add up. I to think that the state should look at this UNLESS.... this company has some plans to expand the use of this land REALLY soon!

But our real solution is to tax YALE. And yes there are laws on the books that can allow us to do this....well it is time to use them.

Posted by: Chris | February 26, 2008 9:12 AM

Can the City add this to the Payment in lieu of taxes (PILIOT)tally. Can we somehow get our full amount of PILIOT from the State? Are Anastasio's trucks paying City property tax or are they exempt too?

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 27, 2008 5:40 AM

From checking the tax collector's website, it appears the trucks are not listed. There seems to be a number of vehicles, appears to be trailers, but they are not charged, according to the website, any tax.

One comment about PILOT payments - out of all the comments by the mayor blaming anybody and everybody but his own spending and lack of ideas for an efficient city government, this whole discussion about PILOT payments is the among the most dishonest. First, PILOT goes up every year, not down. Second, PILOT was never designed to be a full reimbursement for anything - it's started out at 20% and went at one time as high as 77% according to Martin Looney, state senator. It's somewhere in the 50s now. But more property is paid under PILOT than ever before, and its expensive property too. In fact, on a square foot level, it pays more than property taxes.

It is highly dubious that 100% PILOT payments will ever happen.