When Is Enough, Enough?

by Staff | February 27, 2008 10:13 AM | | Comments (2)

Andy%20P2ic%20with%20signature.jpgThe following opinion article was submitted by Andy Ross.

By Andy Ross

When is enough, enough? I have heard this question asked several times during the past few weeks in completely different venues in New Haven. At Mayor DeStefano’s presentation on his framework for the economic development of New Haven on February 13, someone asked him why there is not enough affordable housing in the city. The mayor respectfully replied that since New Haven has more affordable housing than any other city in Connecticut, he thinks that we do have enough.
On February 21, during its regular meeting, the Hill South Team management held a discussion about the need for more shelters for the homeless. This turned into lengthy discussions about the neighborhood, its challenges and its progress. There have been a lot of complaints from residents about the city’s decision to use the Truman School as a temporary facility for the homeless while students were on vacation for a week. Chairman Johnny Dye had invited several guests to the meeting in order to reassure the residents and for the residents to hear more about the options the city is considering to help control the problem. Residents voiced fears that the homeless would begin to hang around the school even when not being sheltered there, as is common in areas with other shelters, and they expressed their concern that the school had even been considered for a temporary shelter in the first place. One resident made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the homeless be housed temporarily in City Hall so that the mayor can see the extent of the problem.
Why is it that New Haven has to be the city that takes in everyone’s problems? The short answer is that this is what we have always done. The long answer, which I would like to address, is much more complicated and is in need of serious study and reform. Not only do we have numbers of homeless out of proportion to our population, but we have criminals who have been released from jail who are dropped off in New Haven because we are reported to have the facilities to handle them and because we in New Haven never say no.
I am not in favor of refusing anyone in a time of need. I believe that we have a moral obligation to help the homeless and others who arrive here to make it their home. However, we have to put pressure on federal and state legislators to ensure that each town takes its fair share of those who need help. Times are different than they were 20 years ago. There are more homeless, not less, more released convicts, not less, and it costs much more to care for them than ever before. New Haven taxpayers are paying many of these costs.
Where do we draw the line? When are enough affordable housing, homeless shelters, and other social and health agencies, enough? New Haven has plenty of skilled professionals to handle an abundance of services to the needy; they are people with compassion and understanding. I would like New Haven to continue to serve those in need, as is our tradition, but it must—I repeat, must—be done in a fiscally responsible manner that is also responsive to our needs.

Andy Ross
New Haven resident
612 Chapel Street
New Haven, CT 06511
203-641-4666
andy@andyrossgroup.com







Comments

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | February 27, 2008 2:33 PM

.....Standing up and clapping Andy!

It is not that we do not want to help but when the tax payers are not able to pay there own bill because there taxes have been raised to help the people in need you do have to question it. When library's and PLAYGROUNDS that the tax payers use are gone or neglected that seems to be again questionable to me. I realize that we have a moral obligation to help...but it is time for surround areas of the city's to start helping!! At least on a larger scale.

I realize yale pay in but not close to what there CORPORATION should be paying. what was there gain last year??

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work [TypeKey Profile Page] | February 27, 2008 9:14 PM

Andy's piece is really great! Without diminishing his message, I want to add a couple of thoughts. In the interest of brevity, I have to be somewhat simplistic.

Connecticut is balkanized with 169 communities each of which is like a separate country with home rule and almost unfettered ability to decide through zoning who will live there and what responsibilites residents will shoulder.

Before WWII there were about 9 old industrialized cities where structure and style were determined in the second half of the 19th century. These were the centers of population because that's where the jobs were. The old NY, NH & Htfd. RR was the most efficient inter-city transport and trolleys took care of intra-city travel. During & just after the war there was massive immigration of poor rural workers into Connecticut's cities; they wanted better jobs and lives.

After the war, in the 50's, everything changed. Everyone bought cars and better highways took almost anyone who cared and could afford out of the cities to the suburbs where locals imposed large lot, restrictive zoning(1-4 acres per single family dwelling). Industries moved out-of-state to places where land, labor and power were cheap. Retailers followed their customers to regional malls.

For all our towns and cities large and small, the major source of revenue is the ad valorem property tax. That's great for the small suburbs where high property values and rich residents painlessly produce more than enough income to cover the costs of relatively well-fed, small & affluent school populations and little non-taxable infrastructure (like hospitals & universities). The old cities where Grand Lists are relatively low are left to deal with the major problems of civilized society.

In the last 60 years, two governors tried to lead the state to a more equitable and fair civilization: Chester Bowles (1948 - 1950) and Lowell Weicker 1990 - 1994). Bowles was voted out after one 2-year term. Weicker chose not to run after 4 years (governors' terms were increased to 4 years in 1950). Those two were the exceptions. Other governors governed to get re-elected and did not seek any real change. The unavoidable fact is Connecticut voters have had several opportunities to elect more progressive governors and legislators, but when you boil it all down, the voters have proven time after time they like it the way it is!

Keep the faith!

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35