New Haven Independent

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | May 20, 2009 4:30 PM

I think I'd like the Mayor to move out.

Posted by: anon | May 20, 2009 4:43 PM

Of course staying in NH would save them money. Not to mention what the employees save. Studies show that when corporate firms move to the burbs, nobody benefits on their commute time or cost except for the CEOs.

Posted by: Tessa Marquis | May 20, 2009 5:25 PM

UIs argument for moving seems to be Parking and something about the sequencing of the traffic lights.

I live in Milford. The woman across the street works at UI in New Haven. She takes the bus. No parking problem and no car accidents on I 95.

And I'll bet she doesn't even notice if the traffic lights are coordinated to the flow. I'll bet she is reading a book on the way to work. Or partaking in danger-free texting.

Posted by: anon | May 20, 2009 5:30 PM

Tessa, do you think UI expects the taxpayers to shell out even more so that employees can get to work? E.g., the new train station in Orange, new bus services to get out to the farmland that they are paving over?

Posted by: John | May 20, 2009 5:34 PM

Proving once again that deregulation and privatization do not always do things in ways that ultimately benefit the consumer.

Posted by: Esbe | May 20, 2009 5:41 PM

UI execs forgot the part where they run a regulated public monopoly, subject to a politically influenced rate-setting process. They have already lost a bunch of money for their shareholders because of their political bumbling and they are determined to lose more.

The great majority of public utilities are not stupid and therefore put their headquarters in the central business district of the largest city in their service region. This follows from [i] their actual natural self-interest in the economic well-being of their service area and [ii] the political reality of not wanting to seem to be opposed to said economic well-being.

UI execs delight in sticking their fingers in the eyes of New Haven rate-payers; their shareholders (who employ them) pay the price for their childishness.

Posted by: Two2Three | May 20, 2009 5:54 PM

Time for the state to take over UI. Overall, publicly-owned utilities are more efficient, charge less and don't ride roughshod over the public. Deregulation was UI and CL&P's game. The public lost out. Moving its HQ to Orange is another grab for our wallets. The UI bosses are willing to talk about the cost of its offices after the decision has been made to move and we are stuck with the cost.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | May 20, 2009 7:32 PM

And DeStefano's numbers should be solid because he knows how to balance a budget, right?

The bit about driving a Jaguar to work is a deceptively attractive argument. Its easy for the mayor to point this out now that he is driving a (taxpayer purchased) prius, or focus, or whatever it is these days. What was it prior to that, some SUV, which was still in service after he swapped for something greener, it just wasn't in use by him.

I don't care if a top exec drives to work in a jaguar or a rickshaw, if that is his preference. Would that change if UI stay put in New Haven? NO, but apparently the mayor would be willing to give him a parking spot for it, gratis, to seal the deal.

Nice of the mayor to produce a 20 year cost analysis for UI. Where is the City's 20 year cost analysis? Other municipalities produce projected budgets 2 to 3 years out. When will those be released to the press for New Haven?

The mayor is using these press conferences as a bully pulpit to shame UI into "staying put" instead of moving in to "brand new luxury offices". I'm certain UI execs are capable of basic addition and multiplication and have run their own numbers.

Instead of pointing fingers at Jaguar driving execs, DeStefano should be focusing on creating a dialogue to understand what would make downtown New Haven a desirable location for a large (for New Haven) company to "stay put". What would the compelling arguments be? I can't think of many myself. Anyone putting "mass transit" on the top 5 reasons is both naive and unrealistic. Simply put, CT Transit is (on average) for people too poor to own their own car. Who else would wait 20 minutes for a bus that takes longer to get to it's destination than it would take to drive? Unless you have that type of time to kill.

Posted by: Doriss Day | May 20, 2009 8:00 PM

Will somebody please put a sock in DeStephony's mouth? Bloomy never saw a microphone or a camera he did not love. It's for the Children, and the People deserve better?!?

Posted by: twothirds | May 20, 2009 8:25 PM

This hazardous waste site has been hazardous for how long? Didn't the local authorities have some perogative to sue UI to make sure the area was safe before they gave it away. Doesn't the local government have the right of eminent domain = sieze the property and clean it up. It looks as though as long as the UI was willing to pay local taxes this mess to went uncleaned-up while children lived in the area. Money talks doesn't Johnney. If Blumenthal and Rosa has some sense they'd cut this joker lose. He'll bring you guys down. We all know you're backing him.

Posted by: Charlie O'Keefe | May 20, 2009 9:06 PM

Looks like Blumenthal is going after Dodds seat in the Senate. Mayor Destefano sees an opportunity to get out with him before the city collapses. All I want to know is how much my electric bill will go up with all these shenanigans.

Posted by: Streever | May 20, 2009 9:19 PM

I'm sorry, but this is posturing. The reason UI is leaving is because their abatement ran out.

Tax abatements are bad for any municipality. It was the prior administration which screwed this one up, but let's all be real about it. This was a screw up we made, & hopefully, won't make again.

I'm sorry, but if you say to me, "Hey! We'll let you earn money for free for 20 years! No catches!" Yes, I'll take the free $$$ for 20 years & then leave at the end. I'd be an idiot to do otherwise.

Meanwhile, we have people earning 234k a year and chairing Democratic town committees telling reporters they plan to price-fix & bid-rig. I'm sorry, but we have some current problems to deal with before we posture & pose over other issues.

Posted by: Bruce | May 20, 2009 9:31 PM

TWO2THREE: Deregulation was actually Enron's game. They were the one's that led the charge across the nation. Thanks for the higher rates, guys. Actually, UI is not really even "deregulated" in the general sense of the term. The deregulated part (generation) was taken out of their hands in the 90s.

Posted by: Charlie Pillsbury | May 20, 2009 10:18 PM

Good story with lead picture of two powerful Democrats - Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. & Attorney General Richard Blumenthal - and one powerful Green - Paula Panzarella of the group Fight the Hike.

Congrats, Paula! Keep up your good work.

Posted by: Streever | May 21, 2009 9:26 AM

Been Called Worse:
It was an Escalade. Pretty much going from one extreme to the other. I wouldn't attack anyone for their choice in vehicle, I think that's a low blow, especially from an elected official.

What bothers me about this is the personal & mean-spirited tone of it all. I don't like UI--it is over-priced, & I'm glad people are standing up to it, but at the same time, I don't think it needs to be so mean-spirited. We don't need to scream & point fingers.

So much could be done by sitting down & talking. When that fails, I guess you can yell to show you are sincere, but I'd really rather we just go the diplomatic route the whole way.

Posted by: robn | May 21, 2009 9:39 AM

I'd be interested to see how UI execs react to this. (can they react or are they gagged by the SEC because of their stock offerring?...if the latter, very clever move on the part of the mayor.)

The mayor critiquing formula only works if the two major numbers (mortgage and rent) are accurate.

Mortgage : If UI isn't financing the deal and paying cash instead, then the mayors mortgage number might be cut in half, making the move to Orange seem like a good deal.

Rent : If the rent isn't a fixed long term lease or the average of a 20 year escalation, then that number could go up, making the move to Orange look like a good deal.

If the numbers are accurate, whatever you think of the mayor, he's owed a debt of gratitude and both taxpayers and shareholders should be very angry.

Posted by: Westvillian | May 21, 2009 10:15 AM

Streever and Bruce both have really good points. DeStefano and others seem to be ignoring some relevant points that don't back up their agendas. Generation of electricity was deregulated in the 90's. Now generation and distribution are separate, making things much more complicated than most people realize. When generation rates go up, UI gets blamed, though they have nothing to do with it.

Not that UI is blameless, as Streever points out, they're a company trying to maximize profits. Now that New Havens sweet tax deal is running out, they're going to look elsewhere for a new deal. That's what companies do.

UI currently has 3 local offices (New Haven, North Haven and Shelton) so part of UI's plan is to consolidate. Business can obviously be run more efficiently when all employees are in the same place. I doubt those cost savings are part of DeStefano's "new math."

Why does he think that being so contentious is going to get UI to stay in town? So they can put up with his bullying "press conferences" anytime they do something he doesn't like? I hope they don't cave to his immature, unprofessional behavior. They're a business and they have the right to operate like one. FYI, we can all change our electricity carriers if we don't like it. They're a business, we're consumers and we can take our business elsewhere if we so choose.

Posted by: Westvillian | May 21, 2009 10:31 AM

ROBN, What the mayors "plain facts analysis" fails to take into consideration is the fact that UI currently pays rent on THREE facilities (New Haven, North Haven and Shelton) and will be consolidating into ONE building. I'd like to know if DeStefano is just ignorant of that fact, or if he's knowingly misleading the general public for his own purposes...

Posted by: Wow! | May 21, 2009 11:02 AM

Can't someone run against Johnny? Are the citizens of New Haven so apathetic or thick-headed that this loud-mouthed bully is going to continue to be re-elected as mayor? This city is becoming more of a third-world banana republic by the day. And you can't keep on blaming the state and federal governments for New Haven's problems...

Posted by: ParkStTaxPayer | May 21, 2009 11:48 AM

ditch UI and buy your electricity elsewhere! They own the distribution network, so they'd be who you're gonna call if there's an outage, but buy cheaper electricity from another company; it's often cheaper!

See: http://www.wattsnewct.com/consumers.html

and for clean energy for your home/business TODAY:
http://www.ctcleanenergyoptions.com/options.htm

I buy my electricity from Sterling Planet, whose electricity sources are: 5% Connecticut small hydro, 15% New England small hydro, 30% Northeast regional wind and 50% new national wind. I'm supporting renewable energy growth in New England, and I rent my residence in New Haven!

Posted by: robn | May 21, 2009 12:36 PM

WESTVILLIAN,

Interesting point. Even more interesting is that on PDF page 100 of UI's annual report found here...

http://www.uil.com/

...they list their 2007 and 2008 lease payments for Church Street at about 10 million bucks per year.

So either....
1)..i'm reading the report incorrectly..
or
2)..payments for multiple years were, for some reason bundled..
or
3)..UI is misleading its investors..
or
4)..the Mayor is misleading taxpayers..

hmmm?

Posted by: norton street | May 21, 2009 3:45 PM

off topic:
streever,
are you trying to say that an escalade is on one end of the spectrum and a hybrid is on the other end?

a more accurate way of looking at it, is that an SUV is an F-, a Honda Civic is an F and a hyrbid is an F-. That means that walking is like an A, biking is a B+, electric trolleys are B-/C+ and a regular bus is about a C/C-.

Posted by: norton street | May 21, 2009 8:57 PM

*hybrid is a F+*

Posted by: robn | May 21, 2009 10:27 PM

back on topic,

the more that I think about it (it being page 100 of UI's PDF annual report which lists 3 annual rent payments of $10M for church street) if the mayor happens to be telling the truth with his numbers, then theres a 23 million dollar hole in UI's annual report.....hmmm?

Posted by: Bruce | May 22, 2009 9:44 AM

How are we supposed to check the mayor's math if there are no sources or justifications for any of the numbers?

Norton Street, Bicycling is actually more fuel-efficient than walking so I would switch those two grades.

I agree with Streever and BCW that these public attacks and mean-spirited tones are disturbing. I understand UI has already broken ground on the new facility -- is it really feasible to have them stop? This move has been pending for several years now.

I suspect there is more going on than meets the eye. This kind of negativity and public pressure is often used to gain some concession on another front. I am reminded of the New Alliance hijack of New Haven Savings Bank. Public pressure boiled to a head and the mayor stepped up to negotiate a community benefits fund worth tens of millions of dollars. The hijack was inevitable but the bank needed to save face. The mayor (and others involved) used this pressure to benefit the city. I would not be surprised to see a similar deal with the UI move. Maybe he's just trying to pressure UI into maintaining its community programs which are currently in jeopardy (also worth tens of millions of dollars, I believe).

Posted by: anon | May 22, 2009 10:20 AM

Norton Street, according to Sightline, it's more like this:

Pollution per mile (on average)

SUV 1.8
Car 1.5
Prius/Camry/Insight Hybrid Car 0.8

Bus 0.5 (maybe a bit less if totally full)
Carpool with 4 people 0.4
Rail 0.4 (maybe a bit less if totally full)

Bicycling or Walking 0.005

I'd give bicycling or walking an A+; bus, rail and carpools a D-; and the others an F.

Posted by: robn | May 22, 2009 1:32 PM

Boys,

Snap out of it. We're onto what could potentially be a juicy scandal....a big mystery about UI's actual rent payments. Release the hounds!

Posted by: Bruce | May 22, 2009 4:30 PM

Speaking of bad math, the mayor's staff needs to check that spreadsheet. The total cost over 20 years is $123,125,700.00 not $132,486,436 as stated.

Multiply the recurring costs by 20 and add the non-recurring costs.
$5,959,635.00 X 20 years = $119,192,700.00
$119,192,700.00 + $3,933,000.00 = $123,125,700.00

I apologize for not catching this sooner.

Posted by: ROBN | May 23, 2009 9:29 AM

BRUCE,

Good catch. It also looks like Chrissy shorted the UI total by $2,120,092. Still, if the rent numbers are correct, there is a $31,552,440 delta over 20 years....a "stay-put-savings" still bigger than UI's published "move" savings.

Thus we're left with the mystery of the rent numbers in the annual report that I linked to earlier...and if you haven't caught it yet, the reason those numbers are there is becuase one of the building owners is on UI's board. Its CYA for conflict of interest accusations by stockholders.