New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | March 3, 2008 12:46 PM

How about using the solid waste sale to buy back the water authority. Sale of the water authority was the dumbest action in the history of New Haven. Water is the oil of this upcoming century and will be the focus of much political strife. Remember that control of water rights was central to Enron's plans.

Posted by: a lesser being | March 3, 2008 1:42 PM

He seems to make sense here, and I have no doubt that he is smart and capable as the CAO, but I've known him for three years and he's always come across as a smug, "I know things that you don't- if you were as informed/smart as I am, you'd agree with me but since your not, let me treat you in the most condescending manner possible" Yalie. That he treats Paul Bass and the BOA the same way is repugnant. Too many years under DeStefano has shaped his personality for the worse.

Posted by: Darnell | March 3, 2008 2:18 PM

Come on!!!

With all due respect to Smuts, who I respect and like, his and the Mayor's explanation for the transfer of garbage to an authority is a big shell game played on the taxpayers of New Haven. This is an attempt to erase debt from the city government ledger, transfer this debt to an "independent" entity, then increase the debt by bonding, or borrowing, and then transferring those funds to the city to plug budget holes. In the end, the taxpayer is not only stuck with the current debt, but now assumes additional debt from that borrowing. I've seen guys on the street corner playing this game, I never imagined that the city would become common hustlers too. The worst part is that on the street corner, I don't have to play. With the Mayor's game, I don't have a choice (unless I sell my house and move out of town).

Let's recap.

1. City has $17 million deficit, run up by our 14 year Mayor (Smuts says the buck stops with the DeStefano).

2. The garbage transfer station has been running multi million dollar deficits for several years (under thebuck stops here DeStefano)

3. The Mayor proposed creating an authority controlled by his 4 out of 5 appointments (the buck stops with DeStefano)

4. He then proposed transferring all garbage operations to the DeStefano controlled authority, along with the multi-million dollar debt.

5. Then the authority foolishly BUYS the garbage operation for $6 million or more dollars by selling bonds (borrowing) up to $11 million (if it wasn't controlled by DeStefano, they would not assume debt AND pay for this non profit operation).

6. The city takes the borrowed money received from the authority, plugs some budget holes, probably hires additional staff, and buys $4000 closets for the Mayor's office (the buck stops there).

7. In the meantime, the authority assumes $10-12 million in debt which we the taxpayers are responsible for paying off, which means our costs will rise (and you can bet on it). In additional, the Mayor now has another authority where he can dump his patronage friends and relatives off for jobs. Watch and see how many aldermen and family are hired there.

8. Tell me again, where does the buck stop, with DeStefano, or us taxpayers?

Posted by: darnell | March 3, 2008 3:11 PM

We know the problem, and now for some possible alternatives.

Do not sell, instead:

1. Renegotiate the contracts, if the contractors refuse, fire them.

2. Replace the staff who so badly mismanaged the operation in the first place.

3. Reduce expenses.

If the Board of Aldermen to do have the courage to oppose this proposal, then they should offer amendments to:

1. Deny employment at the authority to any relatives of New Haven officials (staff and aldermen) including mother/fathers, sisters/brothers, sons/daughters, neices/nephews, aunts/and uncles (you get my point).

2. Deny employment to any person who served in any capacity on DeStefano's plotical campaigns.

3. Deny employment to any high ranking city official.

4. Set the selling price at the cuurent operations debt (I have heard that it was somewhere around $2.5 to $3 million). Only allow bonding for that amount, and a couple million more for improvements.

5. Expand the Board of the Authority to allow for the election of Board members from the general population. This should be 6 or more seats, in order to maintain a majority of elected taxpayers on the Board.

I'm sure I'll come up with more, just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

If the Board does not

Posted by: Ian Christmann | March 3, 2008 9:03 PM

Last weekend I brought some old basement junk up to the transfer center to drop it off. Away it went into the dumpster where God only knows where it ultimately ends. While tossing, I was thinking about how some of the items were completely usable, just not by me. Why not have a take it or leave it covered area at the transfer center that local swap/antique shops or other residents could frequent for good stuff. If items are left for more than a few weeks, than the transfer center workers could then haul it into the dumpster.

I just hate tossing usable stuff at the city's expense.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | March 3, 2008 9:05 PM

This is a scam and it is bad public policy. First, it's not really selling anything - it simply is transferring publicly owned assets into another entity that the mayor controls and then authorizes it to use the good credit of the taxpayers to borrow money from the bond market to then give to the general fund. If it was a real sale, the new entity would use its own authority and creditworthiness to borrow money. It can't, it doesn't. It's a scam.

In the end, taxpayers will pay through taxes or fees for another $10 million in debt - used to plug a budget hole now the mayor is unwilling to admit he caused and unwilling to fix because that would require real leadership, integrity and honesty. He'd rather put political expediency ahead of the public good. It's shameful.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 4, 2008 8:07 AM

I really hope they re think this. Rob was but up to comment on it because he is the nice guy and we react better to the nice guy. The reality there are other ways to close this gap than to sell off one of our few assets that are left. I fear this sale will cost the tax payer long after the mayor is gone. This is a quick fix to avoid the cuts that really need to be done!

Ian Christmann
I always wondered why we did not do that? It could save some large money and help the enviorment!

Posted by: winfield | March 4, 2008 10:22 AM

Back in the days of Ella Grasso the legislature was "bonding the debt" which is selling bonds to cover the state deficits. This is along the same lines, but worse because the state didn't have to spin off departments. What goes after this for next year's deficit, the PD? BTW, this isn't really a good time to be selling municipal bonds, is it?
Otherwise, I'm with Darnell.
Ian C - Why didn't you take your stuff to any of the several non-profit second hand stores in the area?

Posted by: Ned | March 4, 2008 10:44 AM

If you hate tossing stuff at the city's expense then don't. http://freecycle.com/
Bargain News
Goodwill
I can see the lawsuits now by someone who gets injured scavenging at the dump.
don't accumulate junk that you don't need in the first place.
don't keep electing people who have an intimate relationship with your wallet...

Posted by: Gary Doyens | March 4, 2008 11:06 AM

This came from the NH Register this morning and is proof at least some of the aldermen need to spend more time with the details of this shell game:

"Several aldermen said the spin-off would be a way for the city to avoid incurring millions in additional debt for capital investments needed at the transfer station at 260 Middletown Ave."

Wrong: The borrowed money $10.5 million would be borrowed with the full faith and credit of city taxpayes. If there is a deficit, if the new authority is unable to meet its payments - who do you think is going to be asked to pony up? Uh, that'd be us. It's just off the books borrowing.

"City officials pitched the plan as a way to make the solid waste operations more efficient and more cost-effective. The authority would also expand the recycling program, and process all commercial waste produced in the city."

What is holding the city back from doing this already and why hasn't it been done already? Is it a way to get around the unions, work rules and poor management? What exactly makes this model more efficient and therefore a revenue generator as Alder Shaw suggested?

"It's a win-win," said Alderwoman Ina L. Silverman, D-25. "We have a huge financial hole to fill. But we are not selling off assets because we're keeping it." The authority's assets would still belong to the city under the plan."

Only a lawyer could thread the needle so well and reliably repeat the talking points: You're right, you're not selling, you're transferring assets into an authority designed to be a pass through for borrowed funds to plug a budget hole created by overspending. Does it not make sense to bring your expenditures in line with your revenue?

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | March 4, 2008 3:52 PM

Another issue this video raises is the way we do our budget. We are so DEPENDENT on the state for money but we guess what they will pay us each year because we do the budget before the state does. We need CHARTER REFORM so that this doesn't keep happening. We had a shortfall last year, this year is 17 million. As dependents, we cannot do our budget before the state.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | March 4, 2008 5:03 PM

Create an authority to own the asset; bond on its "revenue;" use full faith & credit of the City so investors will buy the bonds at something near a reasonable rate. This is definitely not a new plan. New Haven has used it many times -- the first, I believe was to build the Coliseum. 40 years later, after refinances, New Haven Taxpayers are still paying off the bonds on that one!

Yes JEFFREYKEREKES we do need charter reform -- badly! We need a non-partisan city government, a smaller (say 12) full-time, staffed council instead of the Board of Alders, with mayor and council elected for 4 years AND a somewhat weaker mayor.