New Haven Independent

posted by: Funky Chicken on September 1, 2010  8:36am

In a perfect world I would agree with the sentiment of the drafters of this ordinance, but as a New Haven taxpayer, I for one ask that this be voted down. This is for all intents and purposes a tax increase, for it forces the jobs that we outsource to give up the savings we recognized by outsourcing the job. This costly mandates puts in place an additional burden on us taxpayers.

I feel that a real discussion needs to be had about the dollar value of any position in the work force. The way I understand the way city employees are compensated now is that any job regardless of what the private sector is paying will get a cost of living increase each year depending on what the local union negotiated. The question I would like to hear answered is at what time do we say that a job is not worth more then X and regardless we are not paying more.

I hate to say it but I can’t afford to pay for anyone’s grand vision anymore we need to find ways to cut our employee expenses not increase them.

posted by: Yalie troublemakers on September 1, 2010  8:37am

Introducing this legislation during a recession and after the expression of despair among many taxpayers is just crazy. Typical of clueless Yalies ... to try to shove this down the throat of New Haven residents. I propose they spend more time at Yale and less time meddling in city affairs.

posted by: Doug Hausladen on September 1, 2010  8:57am

With regard to the City Youth Director’s point, would the legislation carve out employees that are hired for only seasonal work? Using a 90 day application?

I am not sure that would have the desired effect for summer workers for the Parks Department though.

posted by: Mike Jones on September 1, 2010  9:04am

Yalie Troublemakers, whoever you are:

I’m not shoving this down anyone’s throat; there was a five and a half hour public hearing last night and there will be plenty more to come. You can take those opportunity to proactively meddle in your own city’s affairs, and evaluate the arguments on the merits.

And Funky Chicken, I respect your thoughtful opinion. Yes, this does decrease the some savings that we could gain from privatizing jobs. But you could gain a far more substantial savings by reevaluating excessive administrative salaries and inefficiencies than you could by paying a custodian $12/hour instead of $17. And if you’re comfortable with your taxpayer dollars being used in that regard—to gain savings by first reducing the salaries of those who make the least—then feel free to lobby your alderman. There are valid arguments to that effect; I happen to respectfully disagree.

As a Yale student, I obviously have a very different constituency than every other alderman in the City. I’m sensitive to the implications of that. But I work hard, and I try to do my job well. And I’m hardly clueless. If you have objections, feel free to lobby your alderman or debate the idea instead of denigrating me.

posted by: Nobody Special on September 1, 2010  9:13am

I bet they could afford it if the cut just a few more administrative jobs in the city.  Maybe the mayor could take a pay cut and a little more pressure could be put on Yale to increase their contribution.

Letting people slip back below the poverty line will just hurt the economy even more, considering the majority of our economy is based on consumer spending.

posted by: Threefifths on September 1, 2010  9:17am

posted by: Mike Jones on September 1, 2010 10:04am
Yalie Troublemakers, whoever you are:

Are you in skull and bones?

posted by: Let's Get Real on September 1, 2010  9:26am

Mr. Jones:

The country is in a recession, and unemployment is in the double digits. According to the NY Times, local governments had to cut 102,000 jobs over the last three months; 48,000 in July alone. Add to this the fact that the city just went through a very painful period of evaluating every possible expenditure covered by taxpayers to try to balance the budget. That exercise revealed to us just how little fat there is to trim in the budget. New Haveners from all walks of life came before the Board of Aldermen and testified about the real daily struggles of trying to make ends meet in such a challenging climate, and of the dire consequences of tax raises.

So my question is this - why would this ordinance make any sense at this point in time? When everyone is struggling? Where would the city find the required $13-30 million dollars to cover your grandiose idea? This in theory is a noble idea, in practice it makes zero sense. 

What about spending some energy thinking about creative ways to generate additional revenues for the city?

posted by: Townie on September 1, 2010  9:34am

For once the mayor seems to be on the right side of the argument. The cots would be too high. If janitors and other city workers/city contractor workers, cannot make ends meat by doing their job than they should get a second job or consider changing careers. Government dependency is not a solution to the inequalities of our economic system. It only places a greater share of the burden/costs on the shoulders of those who own property and those who earn a salary above the median.
To compare New Haven to Hartford is ridiculous, Hartford is a city that is dying a lot faster than New Haven, and I am sure their new expansion will only speed the process.
Keep the wage as it is. or lower it to the state level, lower property taxes and end the pseudo-socialistic programs that are slowly destroying the city, the state and the nation.

posted by: ROBN on September 1, 2010  9:41am

I think the increase is more than reasonable and any comparison with the slave wages of other states is just a ridiculous race to the bottom.

The alderman are only talking about an increase from $25K to $30K per year. For comparison, the federal poverty level is $18K, a family of four loses food stamp eligibility at $36K, and living expenses for a family of four in CT has been estimated at $43K.

However, regarding the total cost, the aldermens $106K number doesn’t make any sense because that would mean there are only 20 outsourced employees who would be affected. Surely there are more than that?

posted by: Sally Tamarkin on September 1, 2010  9:46am

Well said, Mike Jones. Without weighing in on either side of issue at the moment, I appreciate attempts at thoughtful exchange of ideas, rather than ad hominem attacks that litter the comments section. That kind of arguing rarely leads to good policy and strong communities and almost always to bickering and distraction from getting real work done.

posted by: Carl Goldfield on September 1, 2010  9:56am

I never asked the question or made the statement attributed to me. Aldermanic hearings are recorded so you can go back and listen to the tape. I don’t remember the question being asked at all and if it was, certainly not by me.

I have concerns about the legal consequences of some aspects of this legislation (as do other of my colleagues) but getting sued over providing health care coverage is not one of them.

posted by: Ben Flores on September 1, 2010  10:35am

Without having been at the hearing, or having seen evidence on both sides of the argument as it is specific to New Haven, it seems misguided to think that we cannot afford expansion.  It is economically short-sighted to think that we cannot afford to help financially empower those who are already working hard, but not earning enough.  While trickle-down economics may be folly, the converse may not be: giving a substantial portion of the workforce a living wage is exactly the sort of action that enables businesses to grow and succeed.  If people don’t have enough money to make ends-meet, then of course businesses, and the city, will struggle.  As I said, I suppose good evidence could persuade me otherwise, but I think we’re buying the wrong theory if we think that in a poor economy we can’t afford to help this section of the workforce—I think we can’t afford not to do so.

posted by: BAB on September 1, 2010  10:36am

Sean Matteson should be embarrassed to not be pushing his mayor for a an improved living wage ordinance.  He comes from the ranks of the labor movement and has benefitted from good wages and benefits - even now as a city employee he is doing better than most.  The ordinance being fought for doesn’t even compete with what Sean has had the privilege to enjoy in his career.  Missed opportunity Sean.  And CBIA will NEVER support anything that helps workers so that testimony by Kia is as usual bunk.

posted by: FacChec on September 1, 2010  11:56am

After five hours of proposal offerings and counter proposals the public was left with disillusionment due to the three revisions on the table of the original proposal first offered by alders Jones, Lemar and Goldson, in four months of consultation with city departments.

The most notable testimony was from individuals who do not live in New Haven, nor, do they pay property taxes in New Haven.
While they did provided valuable background information.. information which was lacking in the proposal.

However, these folks missed the intended mark which was best expressed by (4) young women from New Haven who testified to their every day struggles with a current wage which leaves them on the brink of living, while debating whether to “buy food or pay bills”.

For them and many others this issue was about New Haven for New Havener’s and not about some nebulous similar event in Hartford, New York, New Mexico or on EdgeHill Rd. Hamden, Ct.

This proposal and it’s presentation was flawed, deficient of content and seriously failed to adequately out-line a time frame,cost analysis, user difinition, beneficiaries, out-come and/ or projection.

Rather than put the public through five hours of torturous debate, this hearing could and should have ended on the testimony of (6) city department heads who all trashed the proposal on the grounds which contradicted language   in the approved ordinance of 1997, amended in 2005 and reviewed in 2006.

The department heads showed courteous contempt for a fourth revision.

But the most disingenuous behavior is awarded to the three alders. Jones and Lemar who most recently voted down the line for budget and pay increases for 5,030 total city employees, 98% of whom currently make more than the living wage of $12.50. 

Their votes…. which increased spending by $7.6M, and left the city in a $11M hole… provides questions to their motivation here, which potentially raises spending by another $30M, and coming after the budget was already approved in June 2010.

Then there is Goldson who proposed 26 amendments to cut employees and spending in the recent budget debate,and now offers to deficit spend $30M that he does not have to offer.

What strange bed-fellows they make.

The city and this crew of alders really need to get their $*-T together.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on September 1, 2010  12:06pm

The long term goal should be to dramatically lower the cost of living through lowering the costs of health care costs, transportation, day care, and housing. Health care costs can be lowered by encouraging our populace to eat healthy and exercise, which can be accomplished by creating more walkable environments that have access to locally produced foods. Transportation costs can be lowered by creating more walkable and transit-connected environments that would reduce the need for families to own a car for each driver in the family, which would save an average of $10,000 per car per year. Day care costs can be lowered or gotten rid of entirely by returning to single earner households, which can be accomplished when the other 3 major costs are lowered. Housing costs can be lowered by creating more walkable, mixed use environments where amenities and services can be shared by the public instead of needed to be provided in the home with basement bars, entertainment rooms, attic play rooms, kitchen cafes, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

posted by: streever on September 1, 2010  12:47pm

This is a great proposal by three aldermen: and one I’m really glad to see.

Mr Jones is entirely correct when he points out that reducing overhead in administrative capacities could more than cover the “losses” we’d sustain in paying people enough to put food on the table.

If you’re really worried about your taxes, just think about it this way. If the vast majority of employed residents in New Haven were earning a living wage, they’d be able to help share the burden of living here with all of us.

If you are earning a living wage, and really think it’s fair for others to earn 11.50/hour and not be able to afford health care/food/rent, I think you have the wrong priorities.

posted by: streever on September 1, 2010  12:49pm

I want to applaud Allan Appel, by the way, for referring to Alderman Lemar as an “independent” alderman: I do not like the way that other reporters refer to him as being “on the mayor’s team”. Alderman Lemar has always been independent and fought hard for ideas that he thought had merit, no matter who proposed them or what neighborhood they benefited most.

posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS on September 1, 2010  12:54pm

How about instead of pretending that the New Haven labor market is somehow disconnected from the regional , state, and the global labor market, we accept the fact that supply and demand are the overriding forces that govern our economic system, including labor?  And if we do that, we must conclude that when government artificially sets prices on goods and services, including labor, we experience unfortunate side effects that ultimately undermine the noble social goals of the well-meaning but misguided legislators.

So instead of paying people more money than they can earn on their own, how about we begin to SERIOUSLY equip our citizenry with the skills that will ultimately allow THEM to negotiate with their employers? Wouldn’t it be nice to say to your employer when presented with an offer to work for less money than you want, “Take this job and shove it because I have other employment options!” 

The reason we are considering this wrong-headed policy in the first place is because for decades our politicians have let our education system languish - and as a result there are far too many folks who don’t have many options for gainful employment.  And a talent pool like that does not attract companies, budding entrepreneurs, and even well-to-do empty nesters in sufficient numbers. 

By pushing for living wage legislation we are erecting high invisible walls that will keep out the people and institutions we wish to attract to the community. The way to prosperity is through exporting goods and services OUTSIDE the city and to far flung corners of the globe.  And in order to do that, we need to have 21st century skills and knowledge.

If we turn our city into a beacon of education at all levels - K-12, community college, state college, internationally competitive colleges, the problem of poverty will be reduced substantially. And make no mistake, we CAN do this. 

And wouldn’t it feel so much better to be in control of our own economic future than to have to rely on the politicians?

posted by: Townie on September 1, 2010  1:49pm

Work on ways to lower the cost of living, do not raise the living wage rate. Cut taxes, or abolish them, cut social programs, cut education spending, etc. Make New Haven and Connecticut an affordable place to live and people wouldn’t need higher wages.

posted by: Out side looking in on September 1, 2010  2:02pm

Am I mistaken to believe that we live in a free market economy…  The best get hired because they are the best.  City residents already get extra residency preference in the civil service exams, now they want more.  Why don’t we look at the root cause….the New Haven Public School system.

posted by: lizvitale on September 1, 2010  2:17pm

I am okay with this living wage increase, however I am concerned about the proposed hiring preference for students and grads of NHPS or Gateway.  As a New Haven resident and taxpayer who chooses to send my child to a parochial school outside of New Haven, my kids would be penalized if they ever tried to gain employment with these entities. Is it even legal?? I think a call to the EEOC would be in order.
BTW-since a few of the Alders are commenting here…...How is that Innovation Based Budgeting going?  We are almost through with the first fiscal quarter. Have we filled any portion of that 8m hole in the budget????

posted by: Christine on September 1, 2010  2:48pm

After reading the ordinance, (not relying on testimony) the following concerns arose with the Living Wage Ordinance. 
1. Covered Employees often not city residents so we may directing this toward people who live elsewhere instead of directly helping the people of New Haven.
2. Student Interns - who decides whether their work is “directly related to their course of study… If I’m business major, which intern jobs are related?  If I intern with Parks & Rec do they need to provide a living wage & benefits? (sect 1-K6)
3.  It appears that seasonal workers are included.  Are we saying that the part time lawn mowers or snow plowers must have health insurance?  This will add a lot of costs
4.  Adding a “Referral Agency” into the process will add cost which will in turn increase New Haven’s costs.  The referral agency costs aren’t directly helping the employees the ordinance is trying to help(sect 3)
5. Why is a Covered Employee covered for 10 years after a contract?!?!?  (Sect 1 - L3)
6.  Sick Leave - what happens when employees change roles, what happens when they leave, do employers have to pay out sick leave?  How can we be mandating policies at a private company?  (Sect 2-C)
7. How can we say that Covered Employers can’t make cuts in other areas?  How do we know if it’s related to what we’re forcing them to
do or not?  This will tie the hand of the business to control their costs (sect 2-E)
8.  What is the cost to the Covered Employers/Referral Agencies of
reporting this data to the city?  This cost will be passed on to the city. (sect 3-8, sect 4-8)
9.“Priority Hiring Categories” sounds dangerous in getting the most qualified individuals for a job (sect 3, 5)

The ordinance has too many unintended consequences in the ordinance that will add substantial cost to the process, which won’t even go to benefit the employees you’re trying to help.

posted by: DavidK on September 1, 2010  4:26pm

“Sarah Saiano ....praised the proposed changes. Her two adult daughters and a son currently live in her home, which is highly mortgaged. She’s on the brink of bankruptcy because in part her kids have not had opportunities for living wage jobs, she said.”

If I were a contractor bidding on city contracts I couldn’t afford to hire young apprentices at a ‘Living Wage’. The living wage hurts the first time job seeker with little experience. Sounds like Ms Saiano’s children.

posted by: Brian M. on September 1, 2010  5:38pm

This seems like a good-hearted attempt to boost the standard of living, but there’s a big problem:

1. It is going to reduce the number of jobs that the city and its contractors can offer.

2. It is going to create incentives for people to hang on to the jobs that do exist (especially if this also comes with pensions) and create a pretty fixed class of entry-level employees who make better-than-entry-level salaries.

3. There doesn’t seem to be any component to make sure that job performance is monitored.

There are alot of good reasons to do this, I’m sure, but without trying to make sure that people are doing their jobs better you’re creating an incentive for people to hang onto what is supposed to be a temporary job forever.

It would be smarter to create economic conditions that will support higher wages and more job growth. Other comments on other stories are saying that there’s no money for bike lanes or the boat house or things that boost the quality of life for all the residents of the city.

Instead, this seems like a way to tax everybody to give raises to a few, while excluding many. And to do it while you’re telling everybody that they need to do more with less. This proposes to do the same with more.

Darnell Goldson didn’t support Zipcars and Science Park, or even tax abatements for new businesses. All because the ‘right’ people weren’t being helped. And an alderman from Yale, who represents people who don’t pay local taxes or own local property, is writing checks on behalf of those who do.

It’s insane to ask taxpayers who are seeing tax hikes and service cuts, who haven’t gotten raises, and who probably feel lucky to have a jobs, to give raises and additional benefits to a few employees and contractors in exchange for… higher taxes?

This doesn’t propose to do anything new. Not pave roads, or fix traffic signals, or clean up parks. It’s a raise. For a few. Paid for by people who make less and will never have an opportunity to get these jobs unless they went to a particular school.

Narrowing employment opportunities for people during a time of high unemployment, and forcing unemployed and under-employed people to pay for it is shameful.

posted by: Cuts Not Adds on September 2, 2010  6:36am

To suggest that any sponsor of this wealth shift are “independent” is very wrong.  These alders are quite dependent on the Yale Union political support and Union funded think tanks who came up with this.

Simply stated this proposal does two things.  First, it increases the Living Wage.  That is a focused debate that can be had and reviewed and decided.  One the one hand it seems that most people in the Administration support a modest increase while this proposal creates a dramatic one percentage wise.  Somewhere in there is a compromise.

The second, and more troubling aspect of the proposal is the creation of comprehensive health care, sick days, hiring preferences, oversight requirements and related staffing, etc.

This second aspect of the proposal is an attempt by the Yale Unions to obtain, through Legislative puppets and young politicians playing monopoly with taxpayer money, what they have failed to attain at the bargaining table or NLRB.

Non-profits, Hospitals, Yale, the Board of Education, the Arts Community, City Departments, Development, Construction, etc. etc. would all be impacted by these rates of pay and benefit mandates.  This will lead to a cost increase for services or the elimination of such services due to cost.

By the admission of the authors from the NYC Think Tanks and Yale Law School the provisions go farther than ANY other provision in the Nation.  Is the City that ranks close to the bottom of the state that ranks at the bottom of most economic categories in the nation the place to really push this? 

Are New Haven taxpayers ready to foot that bill?  Is this where the debate should be?

Alder Jones seems to take exception to criticism of budget cutting and privatization which would save the taxpayers millions of dollars.  Instead he proposes a wealth shifting plan to send millions of dollars to low paid workers thereby artificially increasing and inflating the market for these jobs and services.  This is a futile attempt to bridge the chasm between the cost of full benefit Union workers and the private sector.  The problem is it still, even with these huge shift in wealth, does not cover the gap.

The combination of lost savings and efficiency with the cost of the wealth shift equates to well more that the the Mayor’s projected cost to the program.  In fact, it more than doubles it when you note the lost savings to privatization efforts and other cost savings possible by using part-time workers and private partners which would be diminished.

There is a reason the room was orchestrated to be packed with dues paying Union members and paid Union staff.  It is because they know that they are not competitive in the open market.  In the real world there is competition to drive price for services and to hold efficiencies accountable.  This proposal and the support of their legislative puppets insures their survival and the possible extension of more Union dues for their coffers.

In the bizarro world of Alder Jones we can ignore what works for the private sector and somehow find a way to increase the already bloated cost of government.

Not now.  Cut the budget, cut the taxes!!

posted by: Morris Cove Mom on September 2, 2010  8:29am

The Mayor said the city can’t afford it?  Hmm, really?  Maybe if he and about 100 other men cut back on their $100,000+ salaries, then it could.

He is ... completely out of touch with the realities of being middle and lower class.

I feed 2 kids and 2 adults on less than $39,000 a year.  i dare him to do the same.  It can be done, and without using public assistance, or going without health insurance.

posted by: V on September 2, 2010  8:37am

Mike Jones, Yale student, elected by other Yale students, wants to increase costs to the city government. 

The city budget isn’t free money; it comes from taxes on city residents, like myself.  Go tax somebody else.

Streever:  If the vast majority of workers earn more, where’s that money coming from?  The rest of us, who don’t work for the government (directly or indirectly).  ...The money has to come from somewhere.

posted by: streever on September 2, 2010  8:38am

BRAVO JONES!

“Jones said he has been seeking for months to get the numbers he would need to make an independent assessment of the financial impact of the legislation. The administration has been completely uncooperative, he said.”

They treat everyone this way who is asking for ANYTHING which they don’t want to be made public.

While yes, the current bill may need some modifications to it’s language, the mayor simply blasting the notion is out of line.

If this is how he reacts when he sees an idea with great merit which may need minor refinement I am worried about the future of the city under his lack of leadership.

This is the same thing as when he tried to cram his ill-conceived budget down alder’s throats. No willingness to work with anyone, no willingness to compromise, just shove & push and bully things through.

posted by: Ben on September 2, 2010  8:56am

While the sponsor’s motives are in the right place to try and support New Haven graduates, the fact of the matter is that creating hiring preferences for a certain subset of the labor market is not a good idea to attract business.  Companies need to operate in a more free labor market, not one where they will be hamstrung by requirements. 

Match this with the national debate on renewed efforts for job creation.  Currently, all of the economic stimulus talk is around making it cheaper for employers to employ new workers, particularly small business.  This is done by slashing payroll taxes, providing tax breaks etc.  However, this ordinance would have the opposite effect: increase wages at a time when small business who would do business with the city cannot afford to do so.

That New Haven has a living wage, and a high one at that, already is something to be proud of.  It would be better if these alderman found a way to work with small business in New Haven to promote hiring and ways the city can grow their businesses.  Their hearts are in the right place but unfortunately, now is a time to use a bit more of their heads.

posted by: ignoranceisbliss on September 2, 2010  8:59am

Why the complete silence of NHCAN on this issue?  Mr. Kerekes, Mr. Doyens, Mr. Holihan…..?

posted by: Doyens on September 2, 2010  9:30am

This is well intentioned but misguided. It’s just not needed.

Predictably, I come down hardest on the mayor and his staff who collectively all of a sudden, have a Road to Damascus epiphany about what taxpayers and non-profits can afford. This is the same mayor who proposed and in a road trip across the city for months, defended and attacked taxpayers for opposing his double digit property tax hikes. This mayor turned loose the tax assessor against non-profits while increasing spending, borrowing and taxing. And he still has plans to mortgage our parking meter revenues to mask the city’s financial ill-health.

His assessment that it will cost the city $15 million is completely unreliable. Remember he can’t even account for the cost of a “$20,000 Christmas Tree.” As for not supplying the data needed to analyze the real impact of this legislation, that’s his standard M.O. Hide the data, dilute and confuse the data and provide no accountability for any of it. Reports, budgets, projections, personnel reviews and more - obfuscate and hide. It’s tough to have an honest discussion if you use phoney numbers. I wonder if this was DeStefano’s idea, if the cost would be $15 million?

posted by: East Rocker on September 2, 2010  10:34am

@Streever:  I couldn’t agree more.

@V:  Well no kidding that it comes from taxes.  Everybody wants roads, sidewalks, record keeping, sewage, a nice city green, gorgeous parks, libraries, but nobody wants to pay for any of it.  As the economy has gotten worse, the tax base has eroded.  Giving city employees less money will only create less money for people to spend.  With less money to spend, less money in the economy, more lay offs, and fewer taxes coming in.

Personally, I’d rather spend more money on taxes now rather than face even larger problems later.

posted by: Luis Cotto on September 2, 2010  12:15pm

First and foremost, I’d like to thank the City of New Haven’s Board of Alderman for allowing me time to join in the conversation and to try to give some context based on Hartford’s experience with its own expanded living wage ordinance.

Although I’m not a fan of the alderman makeup model, I do have to say that it was refreshing to sit with up to 10 people who all obviously want the best for a city and put questions forward in a kind and respectful manner.

I just wanted to offer my own two cents on the non-profit clause as I see it in the revised ordinance provided to me.  I have to say that I’m confused as to the hoopla.  The only non-profits that would be effected by the ordinance are those who receive more than $100,000 in combined City Assistance AND have an operating budget of over one million dollars.  I would think that the $1mil operating budget would make that list a very small one.

The living wage would come out to a little less than $30,000/yr.  Can a non-profit with over a million dollar a year operating budget afford to pay a low level position $29k - $30k a year?  That’s up for further discussion at the committee level.  In Hartford one of the non-profits that would be effected if such a clause was in our ordinance would be our own Greater Hartford Arts Council.  A quick glance at their open postings shows a marketing position open for in between $30k - $40k.

Again, just my two cents.

Kudos to Alderman Jones and the other Council people who have started this important conversation.

peace

posted by: Brian M. on September 2, 2010  2:15pm

@East Rocker -

I keep seeing an argument coming up that you summarize nicely:

“Giving city employees less money will only create less money for people to spend.  With less money to spend, less money in the economy, more layoffs, and fewer taxes coming in.”

I’m not sure where you think this money is coming from. If we decided that everyone working for the city should make a million dollars, some restaurants and city businesses would see some of that money spent at their tables and for their stuff. But you’re taking that money from people who are already strapped for cash, and you’re diverting that money from projects that those taxpayers need.

Roads, sidewalks, a library, schools, and a nice city green are not lavish luxuries. They are the bread-and-butter of the quality of life of a city. If you decide you want to let them slide to give a pay raise to a few people, you should make that argument. But don’t tell us that this is really an investment in the city and won’t cost anything because of some kind of magic trick.

This idea is noble, perhaps, but there’s nothing noble in stealing from the poor to make a few people less poor.

People are willing to pay for roads and infrastructure. They’re demanding it, in fact! What they don’t want is to see their tax dollars going to fund social experiments and failed ideas.

posted by: DavidK on September 2, 2010  2:29pm

I propose this discussion group precedes there arguments with the following preamble “I pay taxes in New haven and” OR “I don’t pay taxes in New Haven but”.

Then we will know who has skin in the game and who doesn’t.

posted by: Doug Hausladen on September 2, 2010  2:39pm

And renters count as paying property taxes in New Haven - not just if they have a car, but because rental rates are set including property taxes.

posted by: Brian M. on September 2, 2010  2:41pm

Incidentally, it’s curious to see some budget watchdog types support this.

While it would be great if - in the middle of a recession - we could spend more and tax less, only the feds can do that. A city cannot.

Some alders seem to have the view that we should be willing to accept all kinds of cuts on all fronts. Less pothole repair. Slower code enforcement. Delayed maintenance on city assets and parks. No boathouse. No bike lanes. No Christmas tree or fireworks, etc.

But these things are part of the reason people live in a city. There are jobs and stuff going on that you can get to fairly quickly where you can be with other people who like that stuff, too.

That stuff is why the city exists, and we pay people to help make it happen.

We do not - however - cut those things so that we can pay more people.

The city is not an employment agency that happens to do stuff when it’s convenient, but many of the people supporting this seem to think it is just that.

posted by: V on September 2, 2010  3:38pm

“Giving city employees less money will only create less money for people to spend.”

Giving?  ... You’re taking/taxing my money to “give” to other people.

If I thought the quality of service would go up, I might be for it.  My experience with city services has been very poor, so I don’t see the point in paying people even more to do the same crappy job of providing the taxpayers with services.

posted by: real economy on September 2, 2010  3:43pm

It’s nice that the aldermen from CCNE brought people from Hartford, New York, and a Yale law school professor from Hamden to advise New Haveners how to experiment making economic policy with taxpayer money.  Ideas from the outside should always be welcome. 

City Councilman Cotto helpfully suggests that there are probably not many nonprofits with budgets over a million bucks, so we can experiment without worry.  As he probably knows, since the proponents spent a lot of time on research, there are more than 100 nonprofits with million $ plus budgets in NH. 

Some might think it’s discrimination to target which nonprofits are covered, but surely the CCNE aldermen’s lawyer who lives in Hamden can assure us that it’s ok to require some to live by one set of rules and not others.

posted by: robn on September 2, 2010  4:39pm

The “free market” is a myth. We’ve seen very clearly this year that the titans of industry (banking, real estate, automakers…etc) have no intention of letting their own poor performance be judged as a failure, and that they would rather cuddle up to mama government than lose their precious multimillion dollar bonuses…

So then I ask the question…whats wrong with a municipality taking a stand against slave wages and trying to stimulate their local economy by paying working class people enough money to spend on basic necessities (things tending to be bought locally)?

posted by: robn on September 2, 2010  4:46pm

I think that the Destefano administration tipped its hand a bit here….

If the living wage increase amounts to $5,000/yr and if the average cost of healthhcare in the US is $7,700/yr and if the city claims the proposal will cost $15M, then that means the city has, in addition to the oft quoted 5,000 regular employees, 1,180 full time equivalent employees working as private contractors.

And if the city has a total of 6,180 employees and a population of 123,000, thats one employees for every 20 citizens. Isn’t that kindof a lot?

posted by: Brian M. on September 2, 2010  4:54pm

@robn

$12 an hour is not “slave wages.”

posted by: Luis Cotto on September 2, 2010  8:08pm

Hello “real economy,”  I stand corrected.  Over 100 non profits with budgets over $1mil is substantial.  The next threshold would be how many of those receive over $100,000 from the City of New Haven?  It seems like it would be an easy list to compile considering the base number of 100 would fit on a standard Excel document.  Yet, my impression was that despite multiple requests for this information, Alderman Jones still hasn’t received it.

My presence there was not to say “Hey, you guys should spend your taxpayers money in a certain way.”  It was merely to give first hand testimony from the lens of an equally oppressed city dealing with alot of the same issues (projected deficit, skyrocketing health & benefit costs, etc…).  This decision is not one that should be taken lightly, hence I testified that it took our body over 6 months of deliberations and questions to get to.  This was after a multiple month process with a task force created for the sole purpose of looking to expand the living wage within our city.

I’m encouraged by the civil tone of the discourse on this site.  Kudos to the City of New Haven.

posted by: John Wysolmerski on September 2, 2010  8:28pm

As a New Haven taxpayer, I agree with those who think that this is a bad idea just now.  I am sympathetic to the idea of a living wage, but we already have this in New Haven.  Now is not the time to increase the minimum wage and expand the program.  We have been lucky in New Haven that our med/ed economy has sheltered us somewhat from the effects of the recession.  However, it is likely that we are going to see a prolonged period of very sluggish growth and perhaps more layoffs from major employers in the area.  Thus, it is a bad idea to increase the costs of doing business in New Haven for anyone.  We need job creation and we need to be trying to lower the costs of doing business in town to try to recruit and retain as many employers as possible.  And as many have pointed out, it is crazy to increase payroll costs at a time when the city is facing severe budget constraints that will likely last for more than one year.  So, while it may be a noble idea and one that I would support in good times, be very careful of the unintended consequences during a recession.  Also, although I am not an economist, it seems quixotic to think that doing this in a small city such as New Haven makes any more than a symbolic ripple.  The issue of maldistribution of wages is one that affects the large scale economy and requires state-wide or national solutions.  Symbolism is nice, but not when we can’t afford the gesture.  Finally, the idea of giving preferences to New Haven public school graduates is misguided.  I want the city to hire the best available people and not be hamstrung by set asides.

posted by: NewHavenerToo on September 2, 2010  10:09pm

... I have to admit, that this idea is a bunch of real bull.  Aldermen need to look at these issues in a very serious manner and not just think about how they can LOOK good but instead, make common sense decisions and do something they’re probably not used to doing.  Being fiscally responsible in every sense.

posted by: robn on September 3, 2010  12:09pm

BRIANM,

Please forgive my hyperbole…of course the term isn’t slave wage becuase a slave wage is zero. The term was, however, more concise than “a wage half way between the poverty line and the food stamp line”.

posted by: eastrivertype on September 3, 2010  2:40pm

What am I missing here?  Mayor DeStefano wants to make municipal contractors pay more to their workers? 
Certainly a kind thought.  So that will have no effect on taxpayers, right?  Wrong!  Doesn’t anyone with a brain think that the higher costs that the contractors absorb will be passed on the taxpayers through higher contract costs. 
And if the contractor feels that they can’t pass all of the higher costs through, then fewer contractors will bid for city contracts. 
In the end only a few of the big contractors that already pay inflated union wages will bid on city contracts.  This not only sticks it to small contractors who generally are not unionized, but the municipal taxpayers who pay more for the services.
And don’t think that just because it is only New Haven that it doesn’t affect all of us.  Mayor DeStefano will be leading the charge for more municipal aid from the State (translation - the rest of the state should give us more money so we can put small companies out of business and pay more for our services.)
Why doesn’t someone tell the Mayor to start cutting rather than increasing his costs.

posted by: Willie Williams Jr on September 4, 2010  12:41pm

Living Wage Is The Way To Go.
Connecticut Black News
http://www.connecticutblacknews.com

posted by: the dude abides on September 7, 2010  10:14am

I take issue with a so-called “living wage”

What is a living wage?

Doesn’t the market set wages? All else is social engineering and is too complicated to consider.

posted by: SEO Company CT on September 28, 2010  10:43am

All I know, is that my taxes for my home in Westville continue to rise. WE CAN NOT AFFORD ANY MORE. What is going to happen is that responsible people will begin leaving the city in droves as the tax burden continues to strangle us. The result will be that New Haven will look more like Detroit.
So Yalies, do us a favor and keep out of our busines.