New Haven Independent

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | March 12, 2009 8:48 AM

It would be great to have the airport succeed. I think most people agree on this point. Previous testimony indicated that there is much room for increased fees. Tweed charges a lot less then other regional airports for landing fees etc...

The issue is that Tweed previously reported that they made major cuts this past year but had a deficit of $320,000 in operating expenses. Of this, they came to the BOA for half, $160,000. If they cut as far as they could and were short, $320,000. We should expect this to be the case, if not worse, next year. The state cut $570,000 MORE from next year which means an operating deficit of $890,000. Thats a big number on top of our $550,000 regular subsidy (not to mention the millions in money we borrow for capital expenses). Where is the shortage money going to come from? Our new Mayor's Budget does not address this even though the City's budget came after the Governor's announcement. I was late to the meeting last night so I am not sure if anyone addressed this HUGE problem next year.

Posted by: allanbrison | March 12, 2009 11:56 AM

Many of the business leaders that came to lobby last night for the Tweed subsidy, neither live nor pay taxes in New Haven. One particularly enthusiastic advocate lives in Branford and works in West Haven.

Does anybody find it ironic that residents of other towns should come to the town with the lowest average income, the highest mil rate, and possibly a lower per capita rate of use of the airport, begging for money? Have any of these folks ever gone before their own town councils asking for Tweed money? I hope so.

I hope, for example, that the gentleman cited above lobbies as vigorously in West Haven and Branford as he did last night in New Haven.

I hope, as well, that North Haven resident and Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce President, Anthony Rescigno, lobbies as vigorously before his own town council in North Haven as he does here in New Haven.

As far as I know, not one of these other towns, has ever contributed to Tweed.

I've even heard that the airport's General Aviation hangers generate tax revenue, but this revenue doesn't go to New Haven, the town that subsidizes the airport, but to East Haven, a town than does not.

Before I can vote for a Tweed subsidy I need to see the other towns in the region pitching in. I would suggest that city and airport officials indentify Tweed users in these other towns and organize these folks into a lobbying effort before these other towns.

I would want to see this lobbying effort to be commensurate to that which they organize here in New Haven.

Allan Brison
Alderman, Ward 10, East Rock

Posted by: Steve | March 12, 2009 12:36 PM

This is like George Bush's funding for the Iraq War. Never done on the books. It is always easier to just comeback and ask/take more.

Let's see, if the " Business Community" doesn't come up with matching funds then they have "Egg on Their Face" and we have $320,000 of more Tax Burden. No Big Deal Right!!

Sounds like you could save 3 Teachers or 2 Cops or 4 public works employees but your choice is to add to this worthless pit!!

Johnnie and Cronies Keep On Spending!!

Posted by: The Count | March 12, 2009 12:42 PM

I believe in my heart of hearts that the Board of Alderman don't want Tweed to fail. We've lost too much already: our minor-league sports teams and our colisseum, for starters. To close Tweed would send a message to the rest of the country that we have given up. That we'll limp along, dependent on New York's and Hartford's economies. "Welcome to New Haven, a suburb of Hartford." Has Bridgeport's lot improved since Sikorsky lost all commercial air service? Has New London fared better, swapping commercial air service for a hoped-for cruise-ship trade? Manchester, N.H. and Providence, R.I. proved they don't need Logan Airport as their "front door." Westchester County is even closer to the New York airports than Tweed, and fully HALF of their passengers are from Connecticut. If Mayor DeStefano wants to keep Runway 2/20 at 5,600 feet, then so be it, but it must be the FULL 5,600 feet. That means NO obstructions on EITHER end of the runway (ala Orange County Airport in California). I'm putting my faith in the Airport Authority's "The Time Is Now" proposal. If the Bradley "miracle" is all that great, then let's apply the same operating efficiency to Tweed. As Winston Churchill once said, quoting Longfellow, "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job."

Posted by: anon | March 12, 2009 2:18 PM

i agree the count. having a good tweed is crucial to new haven economy, and the broader region as a whole . can't the other towns just over rule east haven? the place seems to be a swamp of racist cops anyways.
it is really important.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | March 12, 2009 3:51 PM

The Count:
You make me positively weepy with emotion in reading your missive. When I found my smelling salts, I came to my senses. Nobody has suggested Tweed should fail. At the same time, nobody at the city or the Tweed Authority has taken the time to seriously assess the facts either. The same people who can't balance a checkbook are the same ones giving us legal advice. They just spout nuclear options from a layman's understanding of what would happen if it shut down.

I love the Churchill qoute of Longfellow, but fear your wistfulness for Tweed concrete may have fogged your eyes - Tweed never asks for the tools. It always asks for money and therein lies the problem. They have the tools. They have the airport. They have to get off their backside and level the fees necessary to pay for it. And they need to go somewhere else besides the beleagured citizens of New Haven to fund it.

A couple of other points:
1. Brison is dead on - if its a regional asset, the region should support it. Boosters that show up here and live elsewhere - I'd have thrown them out of the meeting if they came without a check.

2. This $160,000 is not budgeted and therefore should not be spent. Tweed was told months ago to trim. They failed to trim or adjust finances enough to make ends meet. Sorry. You should have been better stewards.

3. Anybody who thinks the recent improvements or any other stimulous spending improvements are going to bring other airlines here for the long term are wishing on a star and blowing smoke up our collective asx. Not happening. Ask Tweed what prospects, exactly what airlines say they will come here once all the construction is done and the money is spent, and taxpayers are on the hook for even more grant money.

4. I'm glad Yale U and YNHH play large roles in supporting Tweed - they should. They directly benefit. I don't benefit and neither does 99% of New Haven taxpayers. In fact, Tweed makes it so I can't benefit and they have no intention of me being able to fly out of there. It's a business airport. Those who use it should pay for it. Better yet, let North Haven pay for it. Half their name is right.

5. Bottom line: I'm really sick of Tweed and the repetitive, endless, loopy discussions about it. I've never seen a field re-plowed so many freaking times. This vote is what I expected. I'm just glad I didn't waste my time sitting through another hours long meeting with an outcome that was signed, sealed and delivered before the first Tweed huckster began his repetitive testimony. Taxpayers lose again. I'd like to be the fly on the wall when one of you in the braintrust look the food service employee in the eye and say her job was worth sacrificing so doctors at YNHH or the visiting professors at Yale can park cheap and not have to drive an hour to an airport. The peoples' representatives have spoken again.

Posted by: Patricia Kane | March 12, 2009 4:23 PM

Brison's observations are right on!
Let Yale and the businesses that benefit bail out the airport. On the state and local level the subsidies seem to be from the bottom to the top. Enough.

Posted by: anon | March 12, 2009 4:29 PM

City Hall Watch, Tweed will benefit NH taxpayers when it goes through its significant expansion this year (due to the runway extensions paid for by the Feds) and 10s of 1000s of jobs start coming to town.
Even ppor old East Haven will benefit.

Posted by: good job | March 12, 2009 5:13 PM

good job Mr. Bisson. You nailed it. Now let us see NHI get answers from the administration. The mayor and his spokesperson comment often. I call on them, Perez, Goldfield, Smuts & Bonnano (the new couple) to respond in this forum. We all know John has shut comments down unless approved by his mouth pieces. Please NEW HAVEN just get John and his appointments out. I personally dealt with the city budget for years and trust me I left New Haven after being a department head because of the corruption. I also notified and have and will continue to work with the US Atty office. New Haven Partitions you are on notice!

Posted by: City Hall Watch | March 12, 2009 6:49 PM

Anon:

From your keystrokes to God's ears - 10s of 1000s of jobs - huh, I think you should look up St. Jude and start praying...The Patron Saint of Lost Causes may be your only hope.

Posted by: norton street | March 12, 2009 11:52 PM

regionalize the country. new haven needs to absorb souther hamden, west haven and east haven. get people out of their cars and air travel will explode. cars are the problem. they are not scaled for cities, they belong in the rural not the urban (not in excessiveness, a moderate amount of cars is fine). suburbs must be absorbed by cities and the ones that cant need to be destroyed, and their materials used to rebuild the cities. there should be urban and rural no mutant in between. all the problem of this country revolve around the suburb and america's obsession with growth and expansion.

Posted by: nfjanette | March 13, 2009 12:12 AM

Aldermanic President Carl Goldfield said he trusted that the business community would follow through. "There will be egg on their face" if the matching $160,000 doesn't materialize, he said.

"Trust, but verify". It's hard to believe a group of attorneys on the board was willing to hand-wave over this point without something in writing.

Posted by: robn | March 15, 2009 9:36 AM

If alan brison is correct about aviation hangers sitting on East Haven property and being taxed by that town, I find it outrageous. Since those building facilities and equipment only exist becuase of the airport, they should be taxed in New Haven or walled off at the border. If this is true its a tax dodge plain and simple and only happens because our city government allows it to.