New Haven Independent

Posted by: The Truth | December 15, 2009 7:31 AM

If you run a business in New Haven NOW is the time to get out. City taxes will be so high there will be no customers. Year on year on year of overspending has already put property taxes thru the roof.

Posted by: Bill | December 15, 2009 8:27 AM

Even though New Haven gets 50% of it's money from the state, it still can't stay afloat. I think it's a great idea. Stop the state subsidy and let New Haven become independent, make it's own laws, raise it's own taxes and then watch it sink under DeStefano's incompetent leadership.

Posted by: j | December 15, 2009 8:58 AM

Why stop there. How about a income tax on City residents?

Posted by: streever | December 15, 2009 9:36 AM

I personally can't imagine eating in Hamden because the sales tax is .5 instead of 1. New Haven blows away the surrounding cities. It's options for ethnic (thai, indian, mexican), fine dining (Bentara for instance), and it's pizza are superb, reasonably priced, and have great atmosphere. Why on earth would I eat at a chain restaurant in Hamden, pay the same or MORE, and get half the quality of food?

Posted by: tony | December 15, 2009 9:55 AM

The City used to get approx. 4.75% of what is now a 12% hotel tax back in the 1990's and when Rowland had his first "budget crisis" around 2002 the State took that away. The City used almost $1 million/yr of that money to subsidize the former Coliseum and the balance went to fund the Visitor & Convention Bureau. Now the State takes all the $ and has basically cut off all funding for the Visitor & Convention Bureau's. The idea had been the harder and smarter you work at attracting visitors to stay in the hotels and spend money in the local economy the more hotel tax the municipality would receive. Sort of sounds like an old fashion Republican idea - you know the harder you work the more reward you get but guess its just easier to use your larger muscle and dismantle good ideas. New Haven has a growing demand for hotel rooms and a local ability to add a small surcharge like most cities across the country do would not discourage visitors from staying in New Haven. The only problem would be if the State decided to take that away in the future.

Posted by: Darnell Goldson | December 15, 2009 10:00 AM

I've said it before, and I will say it again here. I am absolutely opposed to granting the city of New Haven the authority to levy an additional sales tax. What better way is there to chase business and customers out of New Haven to the surrounding towns than to increase taxes here. The people who be most negatively impacted would be the people without the means or ability to travel to those towns to shop, the single mother of four without a car (to name one example).

I would support forcing the state to split the hotel tax, even thought that would probably end up as a zero sum game, since the state would probably cut support in the same amount somewhere else.

The option that these tax and spend folks keep leaving off the table is simple, tighten the belt, stop spending. We do it in my household when times get tough, the city will have to learn to do so also.

I am writing a letter to the state delegation to voice my opposition to the local tax idea, as should you all.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | December 15, 2009 10:53 AM

I would support allowing New Haven to add a bed tax (better be capped) to the hotel bill in addition what the state collects. Visitors will have to pay. They don't come here for the food or the tourism (arts and ideas excepted) so it will be the parents of Yalies, visitors to the YNHH complex and others here on business. But there is no way a local sales tax across the board should be authorized for New Haven or any CT town/city.

New Haven's finances are in pitiful shape simply because it borrows and spends too much. Period. It has nothing to do with the state or with the economy. It's pensions are grossly underfunded and building extravagant schools instead of practical ones, has created a debt the city is not likely to get out from under for the next 40 years. The current deficit is just now causing the controller to rid the budget of frivilous spending - his words. I guess it was ok when times were better. Travel, private cars for city executives .. this is not the mark of a city tightening its belt or making any sacrifices.

Susan Bysiewicz: There is nothing creative about layering on taxes to citizens. It's a coward's way to support a government on steroids. The only creativity involved is the list of things these elitists want to tax. Last year, DeStefano floated the idea to tax the rain. That was his way of soaking the non-profits.

Posted by: Scot | December 15, 2009 11:01 AM

This is terrrible, scary, news. New Haven should NOT impose more taxes on their retail and restaurants. The city should be trying to attract people to come shop and eat in the city, not discourage them. I live in new haven but work in a suburb. I will definitely do my shopping in one of the other towns on my way home rather than in new haven if I have to pay a higher tax here. This is not fair to all the restaurant owners who are so key to our city's success. Why should they be put at a competitive disadvantage to restaurants in branford, guilford, etc that are just minutes away? The only reason I can imagine that Susan Bysiewicz would support this is because she doesn't live in new haven (I dont actually know this but am assuming). Nobody that lives here would support taxing new haven restaurants and retail. I would be a little more open to the hotel tax since I think a suburban hotel less easily substitutes for a downtown one (people aren't going stay in hamden over new haven to save a few bucks when they are doing business in new haven). But as far as retail and restaurants go, this is a terrible idea. Please don't do it.

Posted by: Seth P. | December 15, 2009 12:20 PM

Municipalities should definitely have some control over the implementation of taxes. The hotel tax is a great idea. Besides, the people who come here are usually here for a Yale function or in the business capacity. They can afford it! How about holding Yalies accountable for their parking indescretions. Some schools prevent students from graduating for library fees. Why shouldn't unpaid parking tickets hold the same weight?

Posted by: Tom | December 15, 2009 12:49 PM

I don't know why everyone is so opposed to this idea. It's done in numerous towns and cities throughout the country without a problem.

Local governments are better than larger, less accessible, state governments at responding to local needs. New Haven, and the other 168 towns in this state should be given more flexibility on how they raise money so they aren't overly reliant on the property tax, which ends up all to often forcing people out of homes they have lived in all their lives and puts an enormous burden on the elderly, most of whom are living on fixed incomes.

A local sales tax in New Haven would put less burden on the residents and shift some of the responsibility to out of towners who enjoy our festivals, parades and other events or use the hospitals, schools, and other services here.

Obviously, this should be accompanied by a reduction in state (perhaps sales?) taxes. Right now, towns send their money up to Hartford so that Hartford can send it right back in the form of "aid".

Again, anyone who's traveled outside of the state knows that a local sales tax will not result in a city full of shuttered business or the sky falling in. If anything it would allow all towns, not just New Haven, to spend tax dollars on things their residents actually want rather than what some bureaucrat up in Hartford decides they need.

Posted by: Scot | December 15, 2009 12:52 PM

Streever, "I personally can't imagine eating in Hamden because the sales tax is .5 instead of 1."

What if it's a 1.0% difference? I eat out or get takeout, mostly in new haven, 5 or 6 nights a week. I also do a lot of my shopping in NH. Over the course of a year, 1.0% of all that money spent becomes significant to me. Significant enough that it will cause me to occasionally pick up my food or shop somewhere else. As I mentioned before I live in NH but work outside so its no skin off my back to pick up my sushi at sushi palace rather than kumo where I get it now, shop at Stop n shop rather than 360 state where I was thinking I would start grocery shopping, or buy my bike in the suburbs rather than at one of the city owned shops where I currently go. So I guess I respectfully disagree with your post. Besides, it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth when you get your check at the end of a meal to see you are getting nickel and dimed, it would be a constant reminder of the inflated tax.

Finally, it may start at .5 or 1.0% but what is to prevent it from going to 2 or 3% the next time the city has budget issues? I think it sets a bad precedent.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | December 15, 2009 2:28 PM

Tom:

You assume there will be a reduction in the state sales tax, aide, or that property taxes will be reduced or kept in check. The history, practice and resume of DeStefano and the BOA is that they will spend every dime they have access to, delay paying anything but the bare minimum on pensions and in the end, they will still come up short and blame the state. The whole ugly mess then repeats itself like a broken record or a stuck CD. To believe DeStefano will change his ways is like believing a leopard will change its spots. He is genetically incapable.

Posted by: Scot | December 15, 2009 4:07 PM

I dont disagree with the idea of letting municpalities do what they want with the sales tax earned within their municipality.

But as a New Haven resident, I just dont think the sales tax should vary between municipalities. Due to the economic structure of CT (large cities with more financial problems), almost certainly cities like New Haven would end up with higher sales tax rates than the suburban towns, which would be bad for business owners in New Haven, and discourage people from coming to live, eat, shop, play, or start a business in New Haven.

Posted by: The Count | December 15, 2009 4:39 PM

A hotel tax? Who can fly in here to stay overnight? And what if Windsor Locks DOESN'T impose a hotel tax, hmmmmmm?

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | December 15, 2009 8:53 PM

Bring back tolls. All the people who take the exit
pass New Rochelle exit has to pay a toll to new york Before they get to exit 3 which is the start of conn. put a toll booth there and we can make the money.

Posted by: Ned | December 15, 2009 9:20 PM

How about a tax on Tuition at private universities?

Posted by: Charlie O'Keefe | December 15, 2009 9:49 PM

Susan Bysiewicz is a very, very smart lady. To win as Governor she must keep the majority in CT happy. She can do this by reducing state income tax by putting the burden on the citys and towns. New Haven will need to find a cool $250 million from local taxes. What the State gives now. Yep. One quarter of a billion dollars.

What does this mean. If the State sales tax can be kept at 6% I think the local sales tax would be about 18%. So 24% to 25% on everything.

The reality is New Haven is surrounded by other citys with bigger financial problems. Business wont move to Hamden or West Haven or East Haven.

IKEA will go. Walmart will close. They have bigger and better stores in cheaper towns like Milford, Orange and Guilford. Visitors will come here once and realize that a 10 day stay in Cancun or Venice or Paris is cheaper than 2 nights in New Haven. Less crime too.

To Mr Streever. You wont be eating cheap in New Haven no more. A 15 or 20 mile drive to McDonalds is the best you can expect.

Well, thats my take on it. I'll be interested to see what all the high flyin Yale academics have to say. Will they even be here in 5 years.

Posted by: streever | December 16, 2009 11:28 AM

Charlie,

I'm not understanding what you're saying. Do you honestly think we'll be in a situation with an 18% sales tax?

The numbers being discussed are .5 to 1%, so I'm not sure how you came up with that.

I think the likelihood that we'd have an 18% sales tax is roughly equivalent to having a zombie apocalypse.

Cities all over the country & world have local taxes. It's hardly destroyed Montreal, for instance.

Posted by: Idea | December 16, 2009 11:54 AM

IN CT municipalities cannot tax intangibles that do have value. To explain...We can't tax a McDonald's based on a franchise value, only on the building and business assets. Therefore if Joe's hamburger joint has the same type of inexpensive building as McDonald's then Joe pays similar property tax. However, the owner of McDonald's gets the benefit of advertising and mass purchase power. The franchise rights have value and the state should allow those intangible's to be valued for ad valorem purposes. I don't think every chain store or restaurant will exit New Haven or any town especially if the tax is State wide. Second make the motor vehicle tax equal across the state and collected by DMV at registration. Use historic records to determine the % of revenue each town has relied on from MV and use any excess to apply to the state budget mess. Why should a Westport resident only pay a fraction of the tax a Bridgeport resident pays assumingthey drive the same car

Posted by: Ned | December 16, 2009 8:05 PM

Enough with the tax increases. I don't believe that the city is going to spend any extra income any more wisely than they do now. Eventually I'm going to be taxed out of New Haven. How about ending the trillion dollar wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, stop building military bases and imperial embassies all over the world. If you want to tax something, legalize pot and tax it. Crown St. could use some Dutch style "coffee shops", the crowds would certainly be more mellow, and the money saved on police and prosecutors would fill the budget hole.

Posted by: Consti2amend | December 19, 2009 1:59 AM

How about stopping the "compounding" of municipal employees OT work being added to their retirement benefit package? Why NOT have them get their retirement based on BASE SALARY! Also, why do we let municipal employees "save" their sick/vacation days for years? Do they retire with those days paid at their current "value"? And NOT at the value of when the vacation/sick time was accrued?
I say, we ONLY allow them to have AT MOST, 2 years of sick/vacation time on the books. This means that IF you are "entitled" to 4 weeks of vacation and 10 days of sick time, you MAY only have 8 weeks of vacation on the books as well as 20 sick days! NOT the "thousands of hours" we hear about on the news when someone leaves their job {i.e. LEO's, FD members, teachers, etc.} I cannot do this in the "private sector", so why can they do it in the "Public sector"?
Just raise our taxes?? We are getting fed up with this!
Also, how much money do YOU take out of OUR taxes to "support" our "sister cities"? Maybe it's time to tell them they are on their "OWN"! You know, "tough love" within the "family".
Also, let's look at the number of city cars out there! Does everyone who has one REALLY need it? And where are they parked at night, or at least after their "shift" is over?
Also, when I started in High school, there was ONLY 1 Guidance counsellor in the HS. After my 4 years there, we had 4 PLUS a team leader. Oh, I almost forgot, Originally the GC shared a secretary with the school office. But again, there was 3 when I graduated! Is it AS bad now, OR worse? Why such an influx of middle management? With ALL of their worthless pay AND benefits! Who's looking out for we, the TAX payer?

Like I have posted before; My taxes went UP 20-25% In the past 12 months! WHY? I added some ceiling fans and a few outlets, is this the justification for the increase? I have NOT added any square footage to the house! AlSO, Just how did the "tax man" know about those ceiling fans and outlets anyway?

So is this going to be a case of political "rape me, I'm yours" taxes?