New Haven Independent

Posted by: Tim Holahan | April 24, 2008 12:31 PM

Many thanks to Paul Bass of the Independent for moderating and to the panelists for a frank and productive discussion.

I came away from the conversation with a clear sense that education is the most important topic in a discussion of New Haven's finances and government. It's the single largest piece of the budget pie, the expenditures on personnel and physical infrastructure are very generous, and by the measures we currently use, many of our students are not getting the education they need.

Mary and I are organizing another discussion, this one to include the Mayor and some of our state legislators, to talk openly about the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and what can be done to improve it. We will publicize this event widely and well in advance.

Anyone interested in participating or attending should email events@westvilledems.org to get on our list.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 24, 2008 12:42 PM

Thank you Tom and Mary for doing this...it was a great start. I enjoyed it. And many thanx to the Alders and Rob for coming to it.

I was so happy when George talked about the Middle Class in the city. What is the definition of Affordable Housing to Town Hall and related entities.
Is it affordable housing to the working stiff or is it subsidize "low income housing" it is low income housing. Is the city addressing the middle income community that is being push out??? And if not why?

The whole topic of the BOE was skirted for various reasons but is the one place I think we can do some house cleaning. And the idea of that whole thing being transparent is VERY IMPORTANT now a days!! We could drop the mill rate if we can just have more say so in that money's.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | April 24, 2008 12:45 PM

Lots of municipalities sell ads on their bus shelters and that's a pretty lucrative business. Advertising agency that gets the contract by competitive bidding could be constrained to abide by certain rules (e.g. size & acceptable content, keep busstops clean & free from grafitti) Why not? The buses themselves going through our neighborhoods (zoned against billboards) are literally moving billboards covered with ads some of which are not so acceptable!

How about using that long fence surrounding the "Shartenberg" project for advertising (proceeds to the city). After all the developers did get the site for $1. No doubt the sign will include the usual self- agrandizing "Project Board" advertising the mayor, aldermen, and miscellaneous governmental officials.

Is the Shubert doing as much as it can with what it's got? For instance, could the Shubert sell naming rights? After all, if you're paying a firm $400,000 PLUS without bidding or renegotiation (like Aramark)for running the place, they ought to come up with some innovative ways of paying the City back. For instance, could the theater be more intensively used? What about selling a series of vintage movies?

For what it's worth, I think advertising on recycling bins is a lousy idea. For one thing, who wants to advertise on trash bins? Also, the DPW guys bounce them off the sidewalks so much, they're practically all broken! Maybe some politician will be interested in naming rights to the trash bins.

I'd be happy with ONE senior center with a program focused on non-dementia ridden seniors with an IQ over 60. How about book discussions and some of those vintage movies? You mean we really pay folks $75,000/ year to run those places?

Posted by: on whalley | April 24, 2008 1:44 PM

Is the city addressing the middle income community that is being push out???

I supposed nows a fitting time to mention I got a better job in "Nampsha" and will be moving in May.

I get all smiley just thinking about CT shrinking in the rear view mirror.

Posted by: Tim Holahan | April 24, 2008 1:50 PM

A quick follow-up to my message above: you don't have to live in Westville to be on the WestvilleDems mailing list.

Anyone who's interested in our events should let us know at events@westvilledems.org.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 24, 2008 2:22 PM

on whalley!!!!!
really, you better still visit the independent! Congrate's!

Posted by: Gary Doyens | April 24, 2008 3:57 PM

It was a good first step to a little more discussion about the city's fiscal mess. But make no mistake, there are too few "leaders" willing to make the tough decisions to limit city government and in fact, roll it back to a smaller footprint than it currently enjoys.

In fact, the city administration believes taxes are too low not only here in New Haven but across the country, according to Rob Smuts. He thinks the tax take is way below other anglo-saxon countries like Canada and Western Europe and believes we could and should absorb more. Which is exactly why we have burgeoning city spending, debt, off book borrowing and unlimited and unaccounted for liabilities our children will be forced to pay.

They would rather keep spending, protect all the city jobs even if it means families in New Haven will do with less and in fact, be forced to make cuts in their budgets, the city-crats are unwilling to make in theirs. Nothing short of a tax revolt will force an elitist, bloated, unaccountable city government to trim its sails and to institute basic, fundamental management practices that would save taxpayers money. It's just to easy to blame the state and stand around with their hands out.

Posted by: Charlie | April 24, 2008 5:25 PM

Now that the city is actively hunting for PILOT relief, if they get more funds that will only postpone the budget cuts the city needs to implement. Gary Doyens has done a pretty good job of documenting where some of those cuts could happen so I won't re-hash them. One thing that is true, Connecticut doesn't need 165 six-figure school superintendents (and their underlying six-figure supports staffs). This is an incredible waste of money that can only be addressed by regionalizing the education system. We would alslo get the added benefit that DeStefano wouldn't be able to dump his cronies into the BOE budget whenever a "supporter" needs a job. But, my friends, that won't happen under Connecticut's historic tradition of local control.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | April 24, 2008 7:53 PM

Talk of a regional approach to governing is just lip service. Would it save money and be more efficient? Sure. Is anybody seriously proposing it at the city level and actively working on it with other towns and cities? There is no evidence of it.

Posted by: steve beck | April 25, 2008 6:59 AM

A regional approach to governing? Interesting.
Get involved with 1000 Friends of Connecticut. We have been a proponent of regionalism for a long time. www.1000friends-ct.org.

Posted by: dana b | April 26, 2008 1:43 AM

Memo to Gary Doyens:
Please run for mayor!

Posted by: Cordalie | April 28, 2008 10:57 AM

If Rob Smutts truly said, "In fact, the city administration believes taxes are too low not only here in New Haven but across the country, according to Rob Smuts. He thinks the tax take is way below other anglo-saxon countries like Canada and Western Europe and believes we could and should absorb more." He has got to know that medical care is given in return for those higher taxes. Not so in CT and New Haven!

Posted by: abg22 | April 28, 2008 12:32 PM

$75,000/year seems pretty out of whack. Isn't that more than public school teachers are paid? Is it really harder to plan 'programs' for octogenarians than to teach a bunch of teenagers in an underprivileged part of New Haven?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 28, 2008 4:41 PM

Cordalie

OMG I forgot about that comment! Thank you for posting it!!!!

I like the idea of regional. Is it something for the near future??? Is it something that needs to happen at the state level?? Their is no way the reigon would willfully work with us...it may end up costing them more in the end......hhmmmmm anyone working on it???

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | April 28, 2008 5:13 PM

Share your voice on the budget. Final public hearing, Tuesday, 4/29/08 @ 7pm, City Hall.