New Haven Independent

posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS on March 30, 2010  7:53am

Bad idea.

Instead, how about the aldermen put their collective effort into making New Haven a really, really attractive place in which to live.

If the city ran more effectively, - and turned its schools into world class institutions of learning, then we wouldn’t have to worry about capital outflow.  Great schools are a magnet and lead to the creation of great neighborhoods.  And great schools for all leads to the creation of a great city.  Incomes rise, property values rise, taxes stabilize, service burden per capita falls.

posted by: NHPS Teacher on March 30, 2010  8:14am

I am proud to teach in and live in New Haven.  However, I could not afford my (modest 2-bedroom) condominium in New Haven without a second job.  NHPS salaries are very competitive for beginning teachers with no experience, and great for those who finally make it to the top of the scale.  But they don’t keep up with the cost of living for those in the middle (the majority).  When my wife and I have a child, and need to expand into a house, we’ll have to leave the city - that’s why so many NHPS teachers live in Meriden - cheap, safe, and quiet.  I am not trying to whine about my salary, and I love my condo, but just pointing out reality - as a teacher with a masters and a decade of experience, in New Haven, I cannot afford a single-family home in a safe neighborhood in the city in which I work.

posted by: Motherof2 on March 30, 2010  8:23am

Goldson, I applaud you for starting the conversation.  I agree with you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with starting the conversation.  Something worthy might come out of all of this.  I encourage our Alderman to look at this thoroughly.  Just because there will be some push back should stifle to conversation.  Great to see the BOA working on something that can generate money for the city!!  Nice coverage!

posted by: unReal on March 30, 2010  8:30am

Only in New Haven…

Use an illegal proposal to try and “pressure unions to agree to the components of the HomeWork program—or face layoffs.”

Perhaps people don’t want to live in the city because it is run by buffoons…

posted by: streever on March 30, 2010  8:35am

I don’t think I’ve been THIS excited about Elicker’s role on the BoA as right now. This is why we rallied behind him.

I’m glad Goldson opened this conversation: and he’s right, his proposal is a starting point. I think it’s great that he and Elicker both saw the same problem and came up with different approaches and got along at the same time. That’s really important in democracy: finding common ground while maintaining your own view point without attacking each other.

I love the idea of incentives: home owner program, perhaps exemption from car tax if that’s remotely legal, and the magnet schools perk, etc etc.

A separate issue, but related: I think at the same time we should look into perks for people who take mass transit to get to work or who bike/carpool.

One last (coincidence) note: The “anti-spam” word was “leaders”—I think that’s exactly what we saw in this article! Goldfield providing the experience & not bashing the freshmen, and Goldson & Elicker finding common ground while advancing a real issue. Nice work you three.

posted by: Threefifths on March 30, 2010  8:37am

My brother you are on the right track.May be you can do a program like they do across the country like this.

Officer Next Door | Teacher Next Door Programs
————————————————————————————————————————

Officer Next Door and Teacher Next Door programs discount HUD-owned, single-family properties by 50% to qualified teachers and public safety officers. These programs are designed to help in reducing crime, raising test scores, and promoting better relations between inner-city residents, cops and teachers. These homes are located in designated revitalization areas, subject to a three-year owner occupancy requirement. Last year both programs were suspended for four months after the scandal broke.

Since then, HUD drafted a proposed rule to expand the eligibility of Officer Next Door and Teacher Next Door programs to tribal police officers, firefighters, and emergency rescue workers. The proposed rule failed because HUD officials determined that “The program’s basic design appears to remain vulnerable to abuse and may never achieve the stated purpose of reducing neighborhood crime rates and urban abuse.”

Officer Next Door

The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) wants to make American communities stronger and to build a safer nation. Public safety improves when police officers live in a neighborhood. The Officer Next Door (OND) program helps make this goal a reality by making homeownership faster and more affordable for Law Enforcement Officers.*

Who Can Participate?

You must be a full-time, sworn law enforcement officer who is “employed full-time by a Federal, state, county or municipal government; or a public or private college or university.” You must be “sworn to uphold, and make arrests for violations of, Federal, state, county, or municipal law.” Your employer must certify that you are a full-time police officer with the general power of arrest. You don’t have to be a first-time homebuyer to participate. However, you cannot own any other home at the time you close on your OND home. You must agree to live in the HUD home as your only residence for three years after you move into it.

How do I participate?

OND property is listed and sold exclusively over the internet. Properties are single family homes located in Revitalization Areas. Properties available through the program are marked with a special Office Next Door button. Bids are awarded once each week. Your bid must be the amount of the list price. You may submit your bid directly or utilize the services of a real estate broker. Winning bids are randomly selected by computer. The winning bid is posted each week on the web site where you made your bid.

You may also buy a home from a government agency or a nonprofit organization that bought the home from HUD. When an agency or nonprofit buys the house, HUD expects the full discount to be passed on to you.

In all cases, HUD requires that you sign a second mortgage and note for the discount amount. No interest or payments are required on this “silent second” provided that you fulfill the three-year occupancy requirement.

What Are the Benefits for the Officer?

The selected bidder may purchase the property at a 50 percent discount from the list price. For example, if a HUD home is listed for $100,000, an officer can buy it for $50,000. To make a HUD home even more affordable, you may apply for an FHA-insured mortgage with a downpayment of only $100 and you may finance all closing costs.

If the home you want to purchase needs repairs, you may use FHA’s 203(k) mortgage program. This program allows you to finance both the purchase of the home and the cost of needed repairs. You have the benefit of one loan for both costs and one monthly payment.

Discuss these financing options with your lender.

Because homes sold through the OND program are located in Revitalization Areasthere may be additional assistance from state or local government sources. Local or state governments want to encourage families and businesses to move into Revitalization Area neighborhoods. Contact your state government housing office or local municipal government and request information on assistance for homebuyers.

I already purchased a home under the OND Program. Where can I get information about my second mortgage?

Information is available on the OND/TND Loan Servicingpage.

Where can I get additional information?

Please contact your local HUD Homeownership Center or call (800) 569-4287. Regulations for the Officer Next Door Sales Program (but not contact information) may be found starting at 24 C.F.R. 291.500 and Housing Notice 04-23.

Teacher Next Door

The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) wants to make American communities stronger. The Teacher Next Door (TND) program is designed to further this goal by encouraging teachers* to buy homes in low and moderate-income neighborhoods.

Who can participate?

The TND program is open to any person “employed full-time by a public school, private school, or federal, state, county, or municipal educational agency as a state-certified classroom teacher or administrator in grades K-12 .” Participants must certify that they are employed by an educational agency that serves the school district/jurisdiction in which the home they are purchasing is located.

Teachers wishing to purchase a home under the TND program must be in good standing with their employer. Your employer must certify that you are a full-time teacher or school administrator. You don’t have to be a first-time homebuyer to participate. However, you cannot own any other home at the time you close on your TND home. You must agree to live in the HUD home as your only residence for 3-years after you move into it.

How do I participate?

TND property is listedand sold exclusively over the internet. Properties are single-family homes located in Revitalization Areas. Properties available through the program are marked with a special Teacher Next Door button. Bids are awarded once each week. Your bid must be the amount of the list price. You may submit your bid directly or utilize the services of a real estate broker. A computer randomly selects the winning bid. The winning bid is posted each week on the web site where you made your bid.

You may also buy a home from a government agency or a nonprofit organization that bought the home from HUD. When an agency or nonprofit buys the house, HUD expects the full discount to be passed on to you.

In all cases, HUD requires that you sign a second mortgage and note for the discount amount. No interest or payments are required on this “silent second” provided you fulfill the three-year occupancy requirement.

What are the benefits for the teacher?

The selected bidder may purchase the property at a 50 percent discount from the list price. For example, if a HUD home is listed for $100,000, a teacher can buy it for $50,000. To make a HUD home even more affordable, you can apply for an FHA-insured mortgage with a downpayment of only $100 and you may finance all closing costs.

If the home you want to purchase needs repairs, you may use FHA’s 203(k) mortgage program. This program allows you to finance both the purchase of the home and the cost of needed repairs. You have the benefit of one loan for both costs and one monthly payment.

Discuss these financing options with your lender.

Because homes sold through the TND program are located in Revitalization Areas there may be additional assistance from state or local government sources. Local or state governments want to encourage families and businesses to move into Revitalization Area neighborhoods. Contact your state government housing office or local municipal government and request information on assistance for homebuyers.

posted by: Bruce on March 30, 2010  8:42am

Let me see if I get this right.  People don’t want to live in New Haven, so the idea is trying to force them to live there.  I love Goldson’s energy, but this really isn’t any long-term solution.  I moved out of New Haven for the exact reasons that Elicker cited—schools, safety, and outrageously high taxes.  I’d still be living there if those issues were addressed.  When you have a baby and see excellent schools in a safe neighborhood for HALF of the taxes, it’s hard to stay.  I miss walking to restaurants, but I don’t miss my neighbors getting held up at gunpoint and my friends getting beaten and robbed. 

Lower taxes and people will stay.  Cut whatever you have to—maybe 30-50% of the jobs in city hall.  Cut some firemen.  No airport, no festivals, no fun, no nothing.  Get control of the board of ed and reign in those costs as well.  New Haven is in a crisis and the sooner city leaders realize it the sooner they can act. Once people move back then you will have some revenue for extras.

posted by: Brian L. Jenkins on March 30, 2010  8:46am

It amazes me how ideas that don’t square with the administration echoed by Carl Goldfield end up being construed as bad policy. In view of the fact that this ordinance has to be ratified by the state, let’s see which member from the state delegation will fight for this legislation/taxpayers. I too, was met with the same amount of resistance when I presented the idea in 2002, while on the Board of Alderman.
Darnell is pushing the envelope, with the intent to create ways to save New Haven taxpayers money. With millions of dollars leaving the city weekly, I’m reminded of the story of Robin Hood. Unfortunately, this is a form of reverse Robin Hood!
We have become comfortable with Alderman that just say yes. The 30th Ward has done itself good by electing Mr.Goldson as its Alderman. An Alderman that is willing to introduce ideas, however, controversial they may be, but with impetus to bring cohesion around issues germane to taxpayers.

posted by: Michele on March 30, 2010  8:59am

Makes no sense. I was raised in New Haven but moved to Hamden to raise my children.  New Haven schools maybe be pretty & new however their test scores are horrible! My children are excelling in Hamden schools & has received great Mastery test score at advanced levels.
Why would I go backwards? New Haven must fix education 1st! Have parents get involved, hold them accountable for children not studying, cursing the teachers out etc. What does it say about the Superintendent of New Haven which sends his grandchildren to Wintergreen and Hamden schools????????????
I wouldn’t mind living in New Haven but the broken system must be fixed first & Taxes are too high!

posted by: Sean on March 30, 2010  9:03am

As a city worker i’ll agree to this as soon as all the Yale, At&t, and various bank employees who work in the city join us as well.  Lets stick it to the people who make this city run everyday great plan.  Lets put it this way thank God for the out of town workers because the people their hiring from within the city I come across are [less qualified] workers.

posted by: East Rocker on March 30, 2010  9:15am

“Goldfield said he agrees that it would be nice if more city residents lived in New Haven.” I believe all city residents do live in New Haven.

City employees currently living in New Haven should receive the same benefits as thoughs that are enticed (we don’t want them moving away do we?)to take up residence in the community that they serve.

posted by: Brian on March 30, 2010  9:17am

Wait a minute!

Why should a city employee’s kid get moved to the front of the line at a magnet school? I pay taxes too - why should my child have a lesser chance of being able to attend the school just because I don’t work for the city?

This proposal is illegal. It’s also wrong. It will create a special class of citizens in this city, who have tax breaks, higher salaries, better schools, and extra protections - all provided by the taxpayers.

posted by: Tim on March 30, 2010  9:17am

Bad plan…government cant and shouldnt dictate where people live.

How about making NH more liveable to begin with and then we may see people WANT to live here instead of FORCED to live here (if this proposal goes forward.

posted by: The Professor on March 30, 2010  9:21am

Cavaliere is completely off base.  The fact of the matter is that undocumented immigrants already DO pay taxes, although they are indirect. 

Allow me to explain.  When undocumented immigrants come to this city, they have to live somewhere.  In order to live somewhere, they pay rent.  When they pay rent, part of their rent check inevitably finds its way into the city’s coffers via a property tax.  On top of this, undocumented immigrants bring ancillary benefits.  For example, they have to eat somewhere, correct?  And they have to buy clothes somewhere, and get their haircut somewhere, and generally speaking procure goods and services for themselves.  Because they are undocumented, they’re simply not eligible for a lot of government programs, like food stamps or temporary aid to needy families.  So unless they get handouts from charities, these undocumented immigrants are creating a demand for goods and services, which in turn steers more money to city coffers in the form of commercial rents.

So, undocumented immigrants already contribute to the city’s revenue in a number of ways.  You know who doesn’t contribute?  People who take their paycheck and spend it on their suburban mortgage and at suburban grocery stores and malls.  People like the majority of Cavaliere’s union.

Now, I’m all for finding ways to rectify any fiscal mismatch (which is the gap between what undocumented immigrants pay into the city’s coffers and what they receive in services, like education).  One such way would be a sales tax.  But I also believe that if you’re going to constantly negotiate for higher benefits from the city, you should show a little bit more investment in it and live here.

Cavaliere’s comment reeks of race-baiting.  It’s low, and it’s unacceptable coming from the leader of a union whose membership is charged with protecting ALL New Haven residents.  He should be ashamed of his attempt to deflect attention from his membership’s failings by shifting it onto an already marginalized group. 

By the way, Cavaliere is wrong on another count—nobody is telling him where he can and can’t live.  That’d be bad policy.  But what people are saying here is that something should be done to incentivize residency in New Haven.  Even people who oppose this specific measure think that’s an eminently reasonable position.

I’m sure that there are miles upon miles of union red tape to cut through before any effort to make a plan like this work can come to fruition, but it’s good that we’re at least discussing this.

Oh, one last point about Cavaliere’s half-witted, race-baiting rant: how far does he think he’s going to get trashing the Obama health care bill in a city that overwhelmingly voted for the guy?  This guy is completely out of touch with the city he claims to care so much about serving.

posted by: Moira on March 30, 2010  9:23am

“If the problem is schools, the city could give children of city employees preference at certain magnet schools”, he said.

I’m pretty certain this preferential treatment already exists and is accepted at an unofficial level, not unlike the nepotism found in the police and fire departments.

posted by: Paul S. on March 30, 2010  9:23am

Now we have two examples of Darnell giving certain groups a preferred slot at getting city services.

1. He wants ex cons to get preferential treatment in public housing. (hey - I’m sure Hamden will rush to take down that fence now!)

2. He wants city employees’ kids to jump the line at magnet schools.

The irony is that Darnell doesn’t even work here. Can we get whoever employs him to slap a residency requirement on him so we can get this freeloader out of our wallets?

posted by: cedarhhillresident on March 30, 2010  9:25am

I to am proud of my new Alderman!!!! Go Justin! And Goldson great job putting it out there!! I think this is something worth working on! Good Job to all who support this.

posted by: William Kurtz on March 30, 2010  9:27am

This is a little unrelated, but the problem I have always had with OND and TND is the imbalance between these two programs: police officers can work anywhere they like and take advantage of the benefits, but teachers have to both live and work in what HUD euphemistically refers to as a ‘revitalization area.’  Why the discrepancy?

posted by: JP on March 30, 2010  9:43am

This is not a new idea and its not only in New Haven in fact in both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia all school teachers are required to live within the city limits.

posted by: robn on March 30, 2010  9:45am

I agree with the carrot approach. The city needs to have a two pronged program.

1) Bring workers to town. Incentivize employees moving to the city either through mortgage assistance, tax credits or incremental wage increases not available to out of town workers.

2) Create neighborhoods that are nice and safe. Incentivize fast critical mass redevelopment investment in reasonably redevelopabble neighborhoods. The city needs to map out distinct, geographically isolated neighborhoods (like East Rock…bound by I-95, East Rock, Prospect Hill, and downtown) so that the redevelopment energy is put to good use.

posted by: Carl Goldfield on March 30, 2010  9:45am

Can we just get back to old fashioned “just the facts” reporting? 

It is a misrepresentation to characterize my response to Darnell’s proposal as “dismissed”. It’s simply inflammatory language designed to create bad feeling. Why not “expressed the opinion” or “stated”?  Which is what I did. 

As I told Tom, I support the idea of residency for our workforce. Unfortunately, we don’t have the legal authority to put in place the “stick” side of Darnell’s proposal.  That would require changes in state law. 

My point was not dismiss the resolution but to emphasize that it takes a lot of hard work to get the state legislature to adopt change. I have some experience: it took 3 years of concerted effort to get the legislature to give New Haven the power to publicly finance the Mayoral election.  That meant 3 years of driving up to Hartford with my former colleagues, Joseph Jolly and Elizabeth Adonnizio,  lobbying members and maneuvering around substantive objections and personality disputes. 

Darnell is going to have to organize and tenaciously conduct a campaign to get the law changed with limited prospect for success; you just have to read what Louis Cavaliere has to say to know that the police will up in Hartford in force if the campaign starts to get traction.

We do have the carrot but its a small one in these budget times. It appears that Justin has been working on some no cost ideas.

I applaud and support any effort to keep dollars in New Haven.

posted by: Loyal Citizen on March 30, 2010  9:49am

I completely agree with the idea of living in the city you work for. If city employees are contributing to the tax rolls they would be a little more agreeable to city issues when negotiating contracts. Furthermore, it should inspire the police and fire departments to “care” more about the state of our city. People are invested in the community they live in. If the weight of city employee’s salaries is put on their shoulders it would affect them differently.  We need to start at the state level to deal with this and then the city. The best the city can come up with is “it’s illegal”. There are a lot of things that are legal that were once illegal like women not being able to vote. That was changed, why not this??? If the city is good enough to work for than it should be good enough to live in.

posted by: RichTherrn on March 30, 2010  10:02am

There’s a state mortgage assistance program aimed at this same purpose for police and teachers who live and work in cities, however it is for first time home buyers only.., not quite the same as the Yale program:
Mortgage Programs for Selected Professions

posted by: Brian V on March 30, 2010  10:12am

GREAT IDEAS !!!
Goldson and Elicker are to be commended for beginning this conversation.
Doom and Gloom Carl stop saying no no no and find away around it. Can’t take 5%, OK. Is there something else we can do to make it attractive.
THESE GUYS ARE RIGHT ON- TRY AND SUPPORT THEM

posted by: Tom on March 30, 2010  10:13am

I have to say I haven’t been a fan of Goldson so far, but this is a great idea that’s long overdue. Thank you for bringing this up Goldson.

If people don’t want to live in New Haven, that’s fine, they don’t have to. They can go and live elsewhere, and they can find a job elsewhere. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking municipal employees to invest themselves in the town from which they take their paycheck. No one is entitled to a city job and the city has every right to put appropriate conditions on any offer of employment.

posted by: Anon on March 30, 2010  10:21am

Easy work around:
1 cut salaries by 20%
2 use portion of savings to give massive homeowner program like Yale. Most of their employees live in NH. Add free tuition to colleges while you’re at it.

posted by: anon on March 30, 2010  10:43am

Bruce wrote “people don’t want to live in New Haven.”
Bruce, if that were true, then housing prices in many New Haven neighborhoods wouldn’t be higher than prices in most of the surrounding, lackluster “towns” (AKA unlivable strip malls).

posted by: City Employee on March 30, 2010  10:59am

Shaking my head at the bone headed comments city leaders make is a daily event. Logistically, this plan of making city employees to reside within the city is unrealistic. How many thousand city employees are there? Is there a house or apartment for all of them? Have you seen (decent) house prices lately? Blue collar workers that are happy living in the safer suburbs would be forced live in crack houses practically. Why do they think free car tax for a year is a benefit? I practically get my car tax money back in my state income tax refund.
As a lower level city employee, I can tell you that managers are the ones making out. They make oodles of money, don’t perform, get perks, and aren’t held responsible when something negative happens in their department.

posted by: The Professor on March 30, 2010  11:16am

I’m with Streever and Threefifths on this, so I won’t expound any further on their points.

However, I think someone needs to provide pupaybackn Cavaliere’s “arguments.”

I get that Cavaliere represents a union that is largely composed of people who live out of town.  While it would be refreshing to see someone stick up for something other than material self-interest, we don’t live in a perfect world, so we should expect that he’s going to go to bat for his guys.

However, I think that it’s completely unacceptable for him to try to shift the debate to one about undocumented immigrants.  It’s both factually inaccurate and ethically suspect to attempt to deflect attention from the shortcomings of a group of organized professionals by implicating a group of people who live their lives in the shadows of our society.

The fact is that by renting units in New Haven and bolstering demand for commercial enterprise (restaurants, stores, etc.), undocumented immigrants directly and indirectly contribute to the city’s coffers.  I’m inclined to agree that, if there is a case of fiscal mismatch (i.e. undocumented immigrants receive markedly more in services than they pay through indirect taxes and economic stimulation), we should consider taking action to mitigate this.  For example, we could push harder for a sales tax, or find a way to levy a tax without requiring that the payer disclose immigration status. 

However, regardless of any case of fiscal mismatch, the point of the matter is that undocumented immigrants as a matter of fact contribute more to the city’s coffers than, say, a police officer whose paycheck goes to a mortgage in Orange and malls, restaurants, and grocery stores in Milford and Derby.

The ethical point is also worth noting.  Doesn’t it strike anyone else as absurd that members of a well-compensated and well-represented professional class are trying to score political points on the backs of a group of people that risk their lives and subject themselves to horrible conditions simply for the sake of securing a better life for themselves and their families?  It’s even more disappointing given the ethnic backgrounds of many of this city’s police officers—100 years ago, people were saying similar things about Irish and Italian immigrants.  It’s really sad when people’s desire to save face undermines their ability to remember the roads their families have traveled and show some compassion for the families traveling those roads today.

One other thing about Cavaliere’s statement: he disparages an eminently reasonable viewpoint by (erroneously) saying that it will “force” officers to move to New Haven just as the Obama tax plan “forces” people to get health insurance.  Just how far does he think Obama-trashing is going to get him in this overwhelmingly Democratic town?  Just one more sign that he is out of touch with the city he claims to care so much about.

posted by: The Professor on March 30, 2010  11:20am

Oh, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t add this to my prior comment (which I hope won’t be censored like my first one was).

Credit where credit is due.  Goldson has put a very reasonable idea on the table, and I’m very happy to see that he’s working constructively to accomplish something that I think will help the city.  Hopefully there’s more of this to come.

posted by: anon on March 30, 2010  11:43am

‘Doesn’t it strike anyone else as absurd that members of a well-compensated and well-represented professional class are trying to score political points on the backs of a group of people that risk their lives and subject themselves to horrible conditions simply for the sake of securing a better life for themselves and their families?’

It strikes me as absurd, too.  Cavaliere is charged with protecting the lives and welfare of the most disadvantaged segment of our population, not attacking them. 

His callous disregard for minorities should be cause for immediate termination from his duty as a public representative.

posted by: Darnell on March 30, 2010  11:44am

posted by: Paul S. on March 30, 2010 10:23am

Now we have two examples of Darnell giving certain groups a preferred slot at getting city services.

1. He wants ex cons to get preferential treatment in public housing. (hey - I’m sure Hamden will rush to take down that fence now!)

2. He wants city employees’ kids to jump the line at magnet schools.

The irony is that Darnell doesn’t even work here. Can we get whoever employs him to slap a residency requirement on him so we can get this freeloader out of our wallets?

1. I never proposed nor have I publicly commented on the proposal for housing for ex cons. Why you would attribute that to me is beyond my understanding.

2. The proposal to give these employees the ability to “jump the line” for magnet schools is not my proposal, but instead is Alderman Elicker’s. I’m not quite sure that I support this proposal, I think that many city employees already get this benefit through their contacts (it may be a good exercise to see how many city employees have children in magnet schools).

3. Freeloader? My wife and I own a home, two cars that we pay taxes on. My goal is to reduce the tax load on ALL New Haveners. I think you should rethink your definition of freeloader.  Also, I would love to work here in New Haven, do you have a job offer for me?

posted by: sb on March 30, 2010  11:54am

Instead of trying to force folks to live in New Haven, the Powers that Be should focus on how to keep those of us who already live here still living here. Poor performing schools and a huge property tax burden. If the Mayor’s budget proposal goes through and we get hit with a 10% + tax increase on our house, we’re gone.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on March 30, 2010  12:27pm

robn and several other commenters have it correct.

This idea behind this proposal is correct, but its still flawed, and I appreciate that it begins the conversation.

New Haven’s municipal boundary is a little arbitrary. West Haven, for example, was a former burrow of New Haven and it is much better connected to the then a place like West Rock. In the long term, more sensible boundaries need to be adopted that explain the urban boundary, the purely transitional suburban zone and the rural zone. In order to get to a level where those zones are clear, massive development and retrofitting of our habitat needs to take place where places like Orange are salvaged and turned back into farmland and places like West Rock and Pine Rock are turned into walkable, self-sustaining communities with logical connections to urban centers.
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs194.snc3/20155_1226207890427_1085910074_30557055_5188899_n.jpg
There is a shameful history in New Haven of people making decisions for the city that don’t live in the city or care about cities. From 1850 to 1910 the accepted mode of development was urbanism and this is when cities thrived. From 1910 to 1945, the accepted mode of development was modest suburban housing in relation to cities, which marked the decline of urbanism and cities. From 1945 to the present we have been pursuing a purely suburban building model that has no relation to anything, which has turned our cities into the laughing stock of the world and horribly dysfunctional entities with a few overpriced, overinflated, nice neighborhoods. I wonder how we reverse this? Hmmmmm.

Schools are fundamentally a product of neighborhoods. It is only very recent in our history that people choose where to live based on school performance. Jobs create housing, housing creates commerce, the combination of the 3 create community and communities demand education, recreation and organization-in other words, schools/libraries, parks/squares, and public assembly buildings/religious gathering places. This model has been abandoned for many decades and the consequences of this abandonment are ample.

Michele and others,
The reason your children are doing well in school is because you are their parent.
Schools, teachers, textbooks, lectures and quality of materials will determine how well or how poorly a student does. Parents, neighborhoods, communities, families, surroundings, upbringings, and life experience determine whether a student will do well or do poorly. This is in most cases, and there are certainly many exceptions, but what a person experiences outside of school has a profound effect on what happens inside of school.
If all the good parents with smart children move out of the city to attend suburban schools, how could it ever be possible that the city schools perform “poorly” and the suburban school perform “well”? I just can’t figure that one out.
If all the tax paying residents move out who have the entrepreneurial spirit and interest in civic involvement, then how is the world does it explain the immense hole in city revenue, job availability, and inactive streets?

Connect the freakin dots! C’mon!
If the problems began with deindustrialization and suburban exodus, how does continuing this trend help?!
I know, we’ll wave the magic wand and lower taxes, decrease crime, and rejuvenate the city. That way we don’t have to spend decades slowly rebuilding the mess we’ve created by adopting a urbanism-based development policy.

posted by: Rita Metermaid on March 30, 2010  12:39pm

Good thinking Goldson! At the very least the jobs should be going to people living in the city.

Seems like we can work something out and get some of our hard earned tax dollars back in the city coffers.
Hope the Board of Aldermen push this forward. Poll the people. Doubt anyone actually LIVING in New Haven will think some kind of fee for outsider to work here is a bad idea!

On another note. Hopefully we can get the out of state license carries cleaned up now too. Why can’t a volunteer group help out and get the people with Maine and VT etc plates to register in CT?

There should be a simple website for people to be able to send in possible offenders! I’ve got 5 on my block alone! Other state plates for over a year!

posted by: Scot on March 30, 2010  12:40pm

I agree it would be nice if people that worked in the city chose to live here. I think its fine to provide some incentives like Mr Elicker suggested to encourage that (or like the Yale home-buyers program).  However I completely disagree with penalizing/taxing someone to force them to live here. There are numerous reasons why people choose to live where they do, and in America you shouldn’t be penalized for living outside the town you work in.  While there may be people who draw salaries from the city but choose to live elsewhere, there are also plenty of people like myself that work elsewhere and choose to live in New Haven.

posted by: R on March 30, 2010  1:28pm

Jonathan,

You always look at things at a macro level with such wishful thinking.  Wouldn’t it be great if everyone just moved back into the city and then all the problems would be solved?  But you ignore individual decisions by people with real dilemmas.  I am a young parent in Hamden, with a child several years away from elementary school, but soon enough that I need to begin thinking about it.  My choice is to move to the Hooker district, pay twice the amount in property taxes, face higher prices and more crime or remain in the suburbs with lower taxes and better schools.  I’m very sympathetic to many of the urbanist viewpoints on this site and love New Haven, but unfortunately it’s not as easy as that.  Raising property taxes by 9% will only exacerbate this phenomenon.

posted by: Greg on March 30, 2010  1:43pm

I wish that more city employees did live in New Haven, and am glad that this is being discussed.

posted by: S on March 30, 2010  1:48pm

Yet again another example of government trying to become more powerful and more intrusive of the lives of its citizens. Where do WE draw the line?

posted by: Greg Smith on March 30, 2010  1:48pm

Donell again you have prove to not be just another status quo on the board of Aldermen. I applaud you for your efforts to resuscitate those Aldermen on life support and call themselves public servants, yeah right. Carl Goldfield said and I quote “My point was not dismiss the resolution but to emphasize that it takes a lot of hard work to get the state legislature to adopt change. Well Carl there is nothing wrong with hard work. You said yourself it took 3 years to accomplish what you wanted to accomplish for the Mayor, so roll up your sleeves. Donell I would suggest moving forward that this be one of the requirements for working in the city and as someone wrote if you dont like the city then dont work in the city. Great Idea. Maybe even consider this in the City Charter.

posted by: unReal on March 30, 2010  1:52pm

To Loyal Citizen:
  To insinuate that Police Officers and Firefighters as a whole need to be residents to “care more about the state of our city” is a slap in the face to all those who serve. Members of both departments, resident or not, respond to calls everyday without hesitation and never question who they are going to help. Many of these same people volunteer untold hours of their free time to city causes: Athletic leagues, coat drives, soup kitchens, tutoring and many other worthy causes…

And to ThreeFirths: The program aimed at employee home ownership (not the OND or TND) dictate which small portions of neighborhoods one can look. Believe me, I did. Not much incentive when you are restricted to a few streets littered with derelict vacant buildings and drug dealers. I understand the attempt to “rebuild” these areas, but to attract home buyers, you need more than the “hope” the program might succeed. Not the promise that the house next door will be a drug den. My wife grew up in the city, and she was the driving force to NOT raise a family here. If the schools were on par with the surrounding areas, and the program were to assist buying a home anywhere in the city, we probably would still live there. This was 10-15 years ago, hopefully the program has improved.

posted by: cedarhhillresident on March 30, 2010  2:17pm

Scot and many others

ok so then lets do a commuter tax which still does not work…but we may be able to get capital hill to sign on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_tax

posted by: What on March 30, 2010  2:22pm

S - “Yet again another example of government trying to become more powerful and more intrusive of the lives of its citizens. Where do WE draw the line?”

I have answer for you S. Don’t take government money, and you shouldn’t have to worry about the government being intrusive in your life.

Like Goldson said, if they want to work for the city, they should pay their fair share.

posted by: Threefifths on March 30, 2010  2:57pm

posted by: unReal on March 30, 2010 2:52pm

And to ThreeFirths: The program aimed at employee home ownership (not the OND or TND) dictate which small portions of neighborhoods one can look. Believe me, I did. Not much incentive when you are restricted to a few streets littered with derelict vacant buildings and drug dealers. I understand the attempt to “rebuild” these areas, but to attract home buyers, you need more than the “hope” the program might succeed. Not the promise that the house next door will be a drug den. My wife grew up in the city, and she was the driving force to NOT raise a family here. If the schools were on par with the surrounding areas, and the program were to assist buying a home anywhere in the city, we probably would still live there. This was 10-15 years ago, hopefully the program has improved.

The program has improved.If fact when you have a commuinty with law enforcement in it crime has gone down. As far as the schools you will get more parent involement.Case and point I came here to this state because my wife job move here. I grow up in harlem and I saw the big time drug dealers like nick barnes
Frank lucas and at that time you had to step over junkies.People started to move back to harlem and now you have crime,but it is not as bad as it was doing the time you had heavy drug dealing .Second a lot of those hud house are not in all bad areas.look it up on hud website.This is a start.

posted by: DKR on March 30, 2010  3:04pm

Last i knew this was the land of the FREE and the AMERICAN DREAM…it will be a cold day in hell before government, let alone a city alder-person tell me where i can and cannot live. And to try and tax those that don’t live in the city,..wow,..talk about a lawsuit waiting to happen. Goldson,...are you kidding me,...as one quote stated, “tax the ILLEGAL immigrate’s'first. make them put what we who are LEGAL, put into the tax base..instead of getting FREE EVERYTHING…!!!!!

posted by: The Count on March 30, 2010  3:05pm

Regarding Yale’s homeowner program mentioned by “Anon.”: The Yale employees who took advantage of the program used the money to buy houses in the Morris Cove and Westville, not “downtown” as Yale had hoped. Any more bright ideas?

posted by: teach on March 30, 2010  3:45pm

I teach at a magnet school. I live in one of the sending-districts. Do I get a tax break?

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on March 30, 2010  4:37pm

R,
Valid points, I was going to address that in my previous post, but I thought it was getting too long. You can send your kids to pretty much any school in the city and if you are involved and have neighborhoods that look out for you, you’re kids will thrive. My personal suggestion is to try to talk some of your friends into moving onto the same block, sending your kids to same school and slowly starting to rejuvenate a neighborhoods at an individual level.
The 9% tax increase is ridiculous and I hope something happens about it.

Living in New Haven really isn’t that expensive. However, if you try to have a suburban lifestyle in the city it can be extremely expensive and this is the mistake most people make. The point of a neighborhood is to have goods, services, recreation, jobs, and public spaces within walking distance of your house, with the availability of transit to connect you to other parts of the city and downtown. This allows people to not own a car at all, which on average can save you $5,000-10,000 per year per car to spend on a mortgage, groceries, clothing, etc. People will also make the mistake of trying to turn their lawns into private parks. People will bankrupt themselves trying to build a swimming pool, a swing set, an entire landscaped patio garden or they’ll move to the suburbs because taxes are too high. City taxes goes to public parks and are meant to be used by the people who pay for them. I have two wonderful parks designed by Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. within walking distance of my house. People will try to do things they simply can’t afford, and these things are ultimately unnecessary and wasteful. Its also not like you can’t own a car or can’t have a swing set in your yard, its just that you don’t need it as a status symbol because its not the suburbs where worth is determined by how much plastic crap from China one can fit on their property.

posted by: Sunday on March 30, 2010  4:47pm

Cavaliere you have been there to long. It is time for you to go. Just remember how you got your insurance for life, on the backs of New Haven Tax-payers. So show a little gratitude for the tax-payer funding your life-style.Without us you would’nt have it.

posted by: what on March 30, 2010  4:51pm

DKR says - “Last i knew this was the land of the FREE and the AMERICAN DREAM…it will be a cold day in hell before government, let alone a city alder-person tell me where i can and cannot live. And to try and tax those that don’t live in the city,”

If you want to take my take dollars, you better grab your coat becuase hell is freezing over. I’ll tell you where you live if it’s with MY money.

posted by: The Professor on March 30, 2010  5:45pm

Not to beat a dead horse here, but there have been a lot of comments on this board that go something to the effect of: “Yet again another example of government trying to become more powerful and more intrusive of the lives of its citizens.”

This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.  Maybe if you think that the government is too big and powerful, you should STOP WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

This proposal isn’t about the city arbitrarily demanding outrageous things.  It’s about making sure that the people who GET PAID WITH TAX DOLLARS TO SERVE THE CITY actually have some investment in the city beyond the hours of 9 and 5, and about keeping tax money in New Haven.

Again, if anyone thinks this is some massive expansion of government power, there’s an easy solution: work somewhere else.

posted by: j on March 30, 2010  6:00pm

Jonathan, what is thou smoking??

posted by: pat on March 30, 2010  7:10pm

It is discouraging to see how many ideas and responses in this article end up pitting people against each other. These are not solutions, just people fighting over the same pie.

High property taxes discourage investment, but no one wants to deal with the reality of the disproportionate amount of untaxed property held by non-profits, one of them being the 4th wealthiest university on the planet.

I doubt that sound fiscal decisions can be made by politicians who depend on private contributions and popular approval for their elections.

To quote Pogo from the 1960s: we have met the enemy and it is us.

posted by: NewHavenerToo on March 30, 2010  7:25pm

Darnell, Darnell, where do you get your hair-brained ideas?

Where one lives will now dictate whether they should want to work for this City?  How do you know that a family can afford this “extra” tax? 

I’ll give you a good example.  My brother in law has been a New Haven firefighter for over twenty years.  He and my sister purchased their home in North Haven over 15 years ago.  They have 2 daughters that are both ill with Type 2 diabetes and their insurance doesn’t cover all of the necessary medications, not counting the additional times their daughters go into hospitals.  Now your telling me that they should give up their home to live in New Haven to avoid paying this “Community Contribution”?..You have lost your mind.  EVERY time a firefighter or police officer is on duty THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE COMMUNITY.

posted by: Anon on March 30, 2010  7:27pm

I’ve got news for the East Rock rep: New Haven’s schools are some of the worst in the state. Suburban schools aren’t dazzling but they are better and safer. The incentive is no incentive. Parents know better than to lap up some spin about the schools, even the shiny new ones. New Haven’s public schools are NOT a selling point for New Haven. It’s saying, hey, if you move to new haven, you can put your kid in any of these schools where there are more fights and lower scores than where you live now.

On top of that, giving city employees preference on schools is fundamentally unfair to students, and these students are kids. They are our future for pete’s sake.

5% on gross is highway robbery. NYC doesn’t even charge that. Medicare doesn’t even charge that. That’s higher than the state income tax, which of course is not on gross. No income tax is on gross. It is a huge amount of money, just rediculous.

I agree with the goals, to get more money to stay in new haven, but none of these ways of doing it.

How about business incubators? Those tend to circulate a dollar locally for longer.

posted by: City Workin Stiff (Not much longer) on March 30, 2010  7:39pm

Wow, Alderman Goldson, this is stunning. I do hope you run for Mayor in 2011. You’ll really get the city runnin right.

Wow. I can get an apartment at 360 State Street which Mr Becker assures us all is a ‘steal’ at $4,000 a month.

Great. I dont need a car. I can walk to all the shops. Oh! Theres no longer a supermarket in New Haven since Shaws went and the muckity mucks decided it was too down market to locate one in the Whalley Staples. Never mind. I can keep my car and go to the suburbs and spend my city pay check there.

I’m not being put off by this little set back. I’ll go to Macys to furnish my new super apartment. Oh I’m sorry. Macy’s is now in Milford after taking all that city cash. Never mind. As I still have my car I can still drive to the suburbs and spend my city pay check there. Did you say IKEA??? Sorry oh but I prefer low quality to Made in China quality.

Okay. So there are problems but education is the thing for my kids. I can take them out of Lyman Hall where they are learning a trade and get a preference for them at a city magnet school. But the magnet school they go to could get closed down. Better stay with an out of town school with career prospects.

Well, I’m beginning to think this is not such a good idea. Now I find the car that I must keep in New Haven to drive to the suburbs to buy the necessities of life is getting tickets at the meters. $4 for 10 minutes is too much for me to afford, but then Gates did give a previous mayor a few million to balance the books. Is this Gates any relation to the Gates that starred in the Pirates of Silicon Valley?

But I’m not daunted. I really want to live in New Haven. I work for the city. I know my union job that’s paying $18 an hour with medical benefits and a pension is going to be privatized to balance the budget. But I’ve done the math for my new $9.51 an hour pay, no medical, no pension, employment at will contract. I’ll get a credit card and max it out. I only need $2,600 more a month to make my rent.

Wow. it will be really good being forced to live in New Haven. I’ll vote for you for ever.

posted by: Anon on March 30, 2010  7:57pm

To whoever posted about Yale homebuyers going to Westville and East Shore: sorry but you are dead wrong. The map showing exactly where Ylae employees buy homes in New Haven is posted online. There are way more in Newhallville than East shore and in fact, yale’s program is responsible for a large proprtion of total home sales in the city core.

The city would accomplish it’s residency goals if it just cut back on salaries and used the savings to start a homebuyer program like Yale’s. It’s ridiculous that so few NH city employees live in NH while most Yale employees do.

It is reverse Robin Hood As someone above pointed out, and, the city should take drastic measures to correct it.

posted by: ANON on March 30, 2010  8:22pm

OK folks lets look at this a little better. This will open doors to more taxes for all. I know there are people who live in New Haven who work in other towns??? So this will set a trend.
Could this be a way Goldson is targeting police since his arrest? I would not want to be a police officer living in New Haven and letting others I arrested know where I live. I rather have a cop do his job and go home safely. I have another question if a police officer or firefighter moves into New Haven (neighborhood) and he or she gets called upon (off duty) and he or she gets seriously hurt or killed will the city cover them as if they were on duty? Because if he or she doesn’t act he will be charged with failure to act right? Better yet if they do act and they are off duty will they get paid overtime(costing the city more money)? This will and should be bargained into their contract.
  This will also hurt our students…. not many teachers will come from other towns to teach our students knowing they have to move here. I don’t know people there has to be a better way than holding a grudge against City employees living out of town… Tell the Mayor to cut salaries in his office first and go ahead layoff firefighters and police officers it only hurts our community!!!! Lets think before we do something stupid!!!!

posted by: fwiw on March 30, 2010  8:37pm

Is it me, or is Cavaliere’s attitude toward us New Haven taxpayers a little too cavalier?

posted by: newhaven on March 31, 2010  7:03am

Where did he come from to come in all new and make these demands who should live in the city.  People are moving out of the city with the crime and such high tax and if this ever is passed more people would move out of the city and Lou from the police union is right these men and women pay enough with their lives on the line everyday and you can not disrupt school children to come to a new haven school give me a break.

posted by: city resident on March 31, 2010  7:04am

Goldson is on the right track.  I do believe 5% is a little steep.  The idea is not to hurt everyone in their pockets , but to help lessen the burden on the New Haven taxpayers.  Everyone who works in New Haven uses their streets,street lights also free parking on side streets. Therefore maybe the proposal should be more like 1% of salary and it should be instilled on all People who work in New Haven.  Just a thought.

posted by: The Professor on March 31, 2010  7:43am

NewHavenerToo’s comment gives voice to a sentiment that I expected would pop up, and that I think is exceedingly simplistic.

The comment says that “EVERY time a firefighter or police officer is on duty THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE COMMUNITY.”  Now, I don’t disagree that there is some contribution to the community made.  But they’re duly compensated for it.  All that a residency bonus/nonresidency tax would do is effectively say, “Your living in New Haven represents an additional contribution to our city, and we will now begin to take this into account when determining your compensation.”

The fact of the matter is that firefighters, police officers, and other city employees who live in the city contribute MORE to the city than those who do not, and there is no reason that the city shouldn’t be allowed to take that into account when setting wages.

Think I’m totally off-base on this?  Last June, Emily Bazelon and Nicole Allan wrote a five-piece series about the New Haven Fire Department.  In their second installment (http://www.slate.com/id/2221250/entry/2221296/), they interviewed Ericka Bogan, a New Haven firefighter who actually lives in New Haven. She painted a rather disconcerting picture of the attitude that suburban firefighters bring to their job: “Bogan says that when black kids peek into the Howard Avenue firehouse, oohing at the trucks, she and her fellow black firefighters like Mike Neal scoop them up and take them inside. But the suburban white guys, she says, ignore the kids. She said she has also heard them joke on the phone about ‘working in the ghetto.’”

Now, this certainly doesn’t suggest that employees who live outside of New Haven universally trash New Haven the second they leave city limits.  But it does speak to an attitude that seems to be present, at least in certain circles.

ANON,
Your comment is sheer insanity.  Anyone who’s seen my comments on previous articles knows that I’ve been very critical of Goldson.  He and his supporters have routinely called me a “City Hall Hack” (I’m not), and if I thought this were some underhanded attempt to gain retribution, I’d be the first to say it on here.  But for a variety of reasons, I’m convinced it’s not.  I’ll just name one big one, and if you’re not convinced, I can explain some more. 

As far as attempts at revenge go, this would be a pretty lame one.  Seriously, when you want to get revenge on some group, do you generally go about it in a manner that requires the approval of sixteen other people, one of whom has veto power?  Do you generally try to target a group of people that is significantly broader than the person who you REALLY want to get even with, even if by including a broader base, you find yourself met with even more professionalized and organized opposition? If this really is an effort at retribution, it may just be the worst-planned effort in the history of mankind. 

Oh, and even if it is motivated by some spirit of revenge, it’s still a good policy idea.  We should discuss it on the merits, not on what Goldson’s frame of mind may or may not have been when he came up with it. 

And just when I thought you’d gone completely off the deep end with your insinuations that this is motivated by revenge, you unload this gem: “I would not want to be a police officer living in New Haven and letting others I arrested know where I live. I rather have a cop do his job and go home safely.”

I’m not quite sure how I can explain this to you best, but I’ll give it a shot: there is no reason that somebody who wants to hurt a cop can’t just follow them home whether they live in New Haven or New Britain.  It’s not as though there’s some magical forcefield around New Haven that keeps people who would be dumb and evil enough to plan a premeditated attack on a police officer from leaving the city. 

Furthermore, it’s not as though every police officer lives in some suburb right now.  A minority of officers do live here in New Haven, and to my knowledge, not a single one of them has been the victim of a premeditated assault by someone who has targeted them for being a police officer.  The fact of the matter is that the average New Haven police officer is probably more likely to get hurt in a traffic accident when driving back to his or her suburban home than to get hurt in an attack like the one you describe.  Sorry, your attempt at fearmongering won’t work here.

Now, back to the beginning of your comment.  This won’t open the door for higher taxes on everyone.  What it COULD open the door on is for cities to start tying overall compensation to overall contribution—if employees contribute to the wellbeing of the city beyond the hours of 9 and 5 (or whenever their shift may be), then they should be rewarded for it.  I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s not as though we’re saying, “we’re going to tax everyone who works at ATT or United Way or UI or Wiggin Dana who doesn’t live in New Haven.”  We’re just saying that we’re taking more into account when determining compensation for municipal employees.

City Workin’ Stiff:

Nobody is forcing you to work for the City of New Haven.  If you hate your job so much, you’re perfectly free to go find one elsewhere. 

Your comment belies just how little you’ve bothered to learn about the city while living here.  New Haven does have supermarkets.  There is a Stop and Shop up Whalley and a C Town on Grand Ave.  Since this is a relatively small city, it’s fairly easy to take the bus to either one.  It’s pretty troubling that you collect a paycheck from this city and don’t even know something as basic as where the major supermarkets in town are.  And it’s not as though one needs supermarkets—mankind actually did survive a long time before the first supermarket was built, believe it or not.  There are plenty of good local markets that carry most things one would need.  I don’t own a car, and I’ve managed to live here for several years without starving.

You also trash New Haven’s furniture offerings, which leads me to wonder what you’re using as furniture in your current abode.  Is everything you currently have nailed down?  Is there no way for you to move it?  I’m sure that the city would provide some relocation aid, but I guess that won’t work for you, as it seems that the world is set to implode if you attempt to take your furniture out of your current apartment.

But fine, let’s accept, for the sake of argument, that you literally cannot move anything out of your current place.  True, as far as major furniture retailers go, New Haven only has an Ikea and a Walmart.  But Milford only has Macy’s and a Target, and most cities don’t have much else.  The point is that each city has a relatively limited offering of furniture retailers, and that doesn’t really seem to affect most of us.

But, New Haven actually has MORE places than other cities do.  How many cities have a place like Fair Haven furniture?  Or, if you want to go cheaper than Wal-Mart, we have Universal Hotel Liquidators on State Street. 

Of course, if you’d actually bothered to do your research about New Haven, you would have known that.  But hey, who are we to let a few facts get in the way of our visceral reactions and latent disdain for the people who give us our paychecks every month?

And by the way, New Haven’s magnet schools are no more likely to close than any other schools. 

The bottom line is that this proposal is, in principle, very reasonable.  I am sympathetic to people for whom financial concerns are an issue, and that is something that can be worked into the final proposal.  But I have no patience for people who come to this city, take our tax money, then turn around and trash us.  That is unacceptable, and frankly, if all of those people quit their jobs as a result of this proposal coming to fruition, the city would probably be better off.

posted by: Threefifths on March 31, 2010  8:14am

posted by: City Workin Stiff (Not much longer) on March 30, 2010 8:39pm

We should fight to get these types of programs here and you will not have to think about high rents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control

http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html

http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/mitchell/mitchell.html

posted by: get back to work@ on March 31, 2010  8:41am

63 comments, wow.  All you City workers commenting on this article: stop wasting my tax dollars by browsing the internet during business hours and get back to work.  If you’re going to leach your middle-class salaries and overblown pensions out of a struggling municipality, at least do the work you’re being paid to do.

posted by: Darnell on March 31, 2010  8:48am

To The Professor:

I don’t think I’ve ever called you a city hall hack, even though I may have thought it (lol). Do you read minds now?

I must say that I did call a friend yesterday and commented that the sky must be falling since you have on two separate issues given me credit for an OK idea.

Your comments and replies are right on, the accusation that I am trying to “get revenge” on the police is silly. I love and respect the police, and have several relatives and good friends who are on the force. I only hope that the police that I do not personally know will not subscribe to the same silly thought. I would like to drive around New Haven un-harassed. LOL

I appreciate all of the comments made by folks on this site (as opposed to the other one, where folks post just about anything), and will take many under consideration. I hope my colleagues on the BOA will also.

posted by: Michele on March 31, 2010  8:55am

Education, safety, taxes & nice neighborhoods
are important to me. Nothing like coming home to peace, quiet & safety.  The education is not cutting it for me aside from Hooker school which is excellent. I attended a basketball game at Career High School & had to go through metal detector. Ok so we have bad scores & metal detectors at New Haven High Schools, don’t think my kids will attend!
Lived in New Haven for more than 20 years before moving. New Haven MUST improve on education. Raising taxes are not going to lure people to live in New Haven.

posted by: unReal on March 31, 2010  11:04am

The Professor:
Not shocking that you would quote from a liberal rag like the Slate… Even more so, to quote an inflammatory, racist statement that uses the generalization of “suburban white boys” ignoring the neighborhood kids. Well gee, I must be confused, because I keep extra plastic helmets and stickers in my locker so that when the neighborhood kids come by “oohing and ahhing” over the firetrucks, I can give them something.. Most of those kids aren’t white.
Another thing, “...she and her fellow black firefighters like…scoop them up and take them inside…” Because no white firefighter has EVER shown a little black kid around the firehouse.. You are using a quote from one individual that makes an unfounded categorization of ALL white firefighters, resident of not, to stir the pot on this issue.
Please leave the safe confines of your armchair and come visit some of the people you are disparaging.

posted by: Brian on March 31, 2010  11:13am

I don’t think opposition to this idea comes from city hall “hacks” at all.

I think it comes from readers who commute to jobs out-of-town and realize that if their employer, whether it be a city or a company, decided to require them to live in the same town as their job, alot of us would be moving. Or losing our jobs. And so would our spouses.

There are alot of parents hoping to send their kids to magnet schools. Why should they have less of a chance because they don’t work for the city?

And at this rate, why stop at requiring city employees to live in town? You could tell them where they’ll live. Tell them that they have to buy a car from a dealer in the city. Or eat only at restaurants in the city. Make them spend money in the city.

I wish people would spend as much energy on productive things, instead of searching for scapegoats and dreaming up illegal plans to distract from the hard work that needs to be done.

If the legislature wouldn’t let the city install red light cameras, what are the odds that they’ll open the door to the kind of big government regulation that could impact every employee in the state?

posted by: Seth P. on March 31, 2010  11:21am

“I can’t afford to live in New Haven.”

Bull!!!  I have been saying this for years!  Bloomberg initiated such a tax and managed to pull the NYC economy out of near ruin.  If New Haven is good enough to come to take from, it should be worthy enough to receive as well. 

I would expand upon the city workers and tax ALL people who live elsewhere and work in New Haven.  They contribute to the dilapidation of city streets, the lack of parking, and the overall production of garbage.  They should be willing to contribute to New Haven for all it has done for them.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on March 31, 2010  11:27am

The two largest demographics in this country-the baby boomers and millennials-are demanding walkable, transit connected neighborhoods. Baby boomers are aging and once they can no longer drive (usually do to eye sight problems), their only option is a retirement prison because affordable communities with daily needs within walking distance as so rare. Millennials are the children that grew up in suburbia but got bored with it and decided to move to urban areas. Unfortunately, we are now losing both demographics to crime, poor test scores and taxes. Even more unfortunate is that these two groups are immensely depressed in suburbia. The solution is likely going to involve redrawing town lines, voluntary residency change coupled with incentives, and adoption of a logical development pattern, which over time would produce lower taxes and more services.

posted by: The Professor on March 31, 2010  12:50pm

UnReal,

Did you bother to read the entirety of my comment, or did you just lash out after seeing that quote?  I explicitly said: “Now, this certainly doesn’t suggest that employees who live outside of New Haven universally trash New Haven the second they leave city limits.  But it does speak to an attitude that seems to be present, at least in certain circles.”

Do you deny that certain employees start trashing New Haven and the people who live here the second they leave town?  Cavaliere didn’t even wait to leave town before he started trying to score points on the backs of undocumented immigrants!

I’m not saying that this is a universal attitude, but I am saying that it exists, and that we could help get rid of either this attitude or employees who have it by doing something to encourage people to move to the city proper.  I’m certainly glad that you are actively welcoming to children in the neighborhood you serve.  I have several relatives who are firefighters in another city that’s a lot like New Haven, and they’re exactly the same way. 

But in ANY workplace, there are bad apples.  I just happen to think it’s fair to do something to change their attitude or decrease their presence when they’re on taxpayer rolls.

By the way, Slate tends to lean to the left, but Mother Jones is a real liberal rag.  Slate is contrarian—they have Hitchens and Saletan on staff, and they’re by no means “liberals” as we understand it.

And Brian,

You repeat the same tired trope that has been thoroughly debunked time after time.  Then you take it to the next level, when you say: “And at this rate, why stop at requiring city employees to live in town? You could tell them where they’ll live. Tell them that they have to buy a car from a dealer in the city. Or eat only at restaurants in the city. Make them spend money in the city.”

So once again, to reiterate: nobody is forcing anybody to live anywhere.  What the city would in effect be doing here is adjusting its compensation structure to reflect contributions that public servants make to the city once their shift is over.  An analogue to this would be providing some sort of percentage rebate to people who eat at New Haven restaurants, or perhaps giving a “car tax” credit to people who can show that they bought their car in New Haven. 

So, where in any of these examples is anybody forcing anybody to do anything?  Under both the Elicker and Goldson proposals, and consistent with the spirit of this idea, New Haven employees are completely free to continue living wherever they want.  Heck, they can commute to Alaska for all the city cares, so long as they make it to work on time.  But, because people who live in the city provide more value as public servants, they’ll get paid more.  Simple as that.

The bottom line is that there are many ways to skin this cat, so to speak, and I’d wager that courts would find many of them completely and totally legal.  If you don’t like the principle, that’s one thing.  But saying that it’s inherently illegal no matter how we go about formulating this policy is just incorrect.

posted by: Anon on March 31, 2010  1:46pm

The Professor is 100% on the mark.

posted by: Seeker on March 31, 2010  5:51pm

Here is an idea for those of you in aggreement with this special Tax:

Go ahead and pass the ordinance taxing nonresidence employees, I will then drive into New Haven on my off time, look for a motor vehicle violator stop the driver and issue him a citation and then submit on overtime slip and be compensated for overtime work which will more then pay to offset the ridiculous 5% tax i have to pay just to work in a town that does not appreciate the workforce who put their lives on the line everytime they clock in for work.

Thank you Goldson for your bright ideas, keep up the good work, you are doing a great job in finding ways to divide police officers from the community they serve and protect.

posted by: nfjanette on April 1, 2010  1:09am

But I have no patience for people who come to this city, take our tax money, then turn around and trash us.

What a curious view of the market.  People perform work or offer services for compensation.  The source for that compensation does not entitle the tax payer to demand a kickback.  When other groups collect such “taxes”, we call that organized crime and send people to prison.

The one and only way to get more middle class people to move to New Haven is to make it an attractive proposition.  Raising taxes - already significantly higher than in other area towns - is not going to encourage such increased investment in the city by new home owners.  They certainly are not moving here for a generally high quality education or a perceived higher quality of life.

posted by: The Professor on April 1, 2010  4:04am

The Seeker,

I’m a a bit taken aback to see that you’re willing to abuse your power as an officer just to make a buck.

How about we implement a rule that prevents employees from collecting overtime in non-emergency situations unless they’ve cleared said overtime with someone relatively high up in the chain of command?  Obviously if you’re driving through New Haven on the weekend and you see a car crash, we want you to respond.  But we’d rather not pay you overtime so that you can harass our citizens to try and even a political score.

This isn’t about us “not appreciating” you enough.  It’s about rewarding city employees who view New Haven as something more than a cash cow, and who demonstrate a willingness to invest in the success of our city once their shift is over.

posted by: The Professor on April 1, 2010  7:36am

NFJanette,

There are two issues in play here.  One, which was implicit when I said that “I have no patience for people who come to this city, take our tax money, then turn around and trash us,” is a moral, values-based issue.  The people to whom I was referring are, importantly, civil servants.  It strikes me as completely incompatible with the idea of public service that certain—not all—people who collect a paycheck to serve this city have such a low opinion of the city and its residents. 

I think most people would agree with me that we should expect our public servants to, at least to some degree, be motivated by a desire to make the community better.  That is, after all, why we use the word “servant” rather than “employee.”

I could really care less whether an employee of AT&T goes home every night and rants about the “ghetto” he works in.  But if an employee of the City of New Haven, who is employed by the taxpayers to serve them, does the same thing, it’s absolutely not okay.

The second issue here is an economic one.  As I have stated repeatedly on this comment thread, this proposal is based on the idea that public servants who actually live in the communities that they are paid to serve bring more value to their job than those who do not. 

Now, you bring up the marketplace.  Say that we have two salespeople working at the J. Crew on Broadway.  One is more outgoing and affable than the other, and consequently sells, say 25% more merchandise than her less outgoing counterpart.  Wouldn’t the marketplace dictate that the salesperson who sells more should get paid more?  If she isn’t paid more, she should, in theory, be able to shop her talents out to other retailers who would pay her commensurate with her ability—essentially, who would compensate her in a manner consistent with the value she adds to their business.

Let’s consider this in light of my contention that New Haven civil servants who live in New Haven bring more value to their positions than their counterparts who do not.  Or, put another way, the city gets more out of, say, a building inspector who lives in New Haven than it gets out of one who lives in Wallingford.  Shouldn’t we expect the City to be willing to pay a little more for the New Haven resident than it is for the Wallingford resident?  And as a matter of fairness, doesn’t it stand to reason that the person who brings more to the job should take home more in his paycheck?

The point of view that I’m espousing is on sound economic and ethical footing, and I resent your insinuation that it is somehow a “kickback.”  Is the federal government collecting a “kickback” when it taxes its own employees?  My mother has been a government employee since before I was born; should she consider filing a criminal complaint alleging extortion by the state? 

Moreover, this doesn’t necessarily need to be implemented through a tax, as several people on here insist it MUST be done.  As some have pointed out, the city could theoretically just offer a residency bonus.  Wham, bam, you’ve incentivized New Haven residency without taxing workers who live out of the city.

I think that your contention that people won’t move here for “a perceived higher quality of life” is particularly interesting.  It’s not as though we’re talking about people who have absolutely no power to improve the quality of life in this city and therefore have to treat it as a given.  The people we’re discussing here actually—get this—collect a paycheck in exchange for performing tasks that are explicitly aimed at improving quality of life in New Haven!  This brings me back to an earlier point: doesn’t it seem fairly clear that public servants who live in New Haven and are therefore directly and consistently exposed to the fruits of their labor might have a greater incentive to work to improve the community?  So doesn’t it stand to reason that these people will, on balance, add more value?  And consequently, shouldn’t these civil servants receive compensation that more accurately reflects the value they add?

I also find it interesting that you bring up the increasing taxes in New Haven.  Reasonable people disagree about whether the tax increases are good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, etc.  There’s another comment thread about that, so I’ll leave those issues alone here.  But it seems to me that we would all generally agree that it would be better for the city if the people we pay with those tax dollars spend them in New Haven rather than in Milford or Orange. 

As residents, we’re in this together, and we’d like for our civil servants to be in it with us. This isn’t about punishing anyone, or demanding kickbacks, or forcing anyone to live anywhere.  It’s about setting up a civil service structure that is more in line with the interests of our community.

posted by: Threefifths on April 1, 2010  8:11am

posted by: Seth P. on March 31, 2010 12:21pm
“I can’t afford to live in New Haven.”

Bull!!!  I have been saying this for years!  Bloom initiated such a tax and managed to pull the NYC economy out of near ruin.  If New Haven is good enough to come to take from, it should be worthy enough to receive as well. 

I would expand upon the city workers and tax ALL people who live elsewhere and work in New Haven.  They contribute to the dilapidation of city streets, the lack of parking, and the overall production of garbage.  They should be willing to contribute to New Haven for all it has done for them.

The problem is not just living in New Haven.The problem is the whole state. Bloomberg. Give me a break. He and King john are the same. If fact check this out on King bloomberg.look what he wants to do when you take pictures in New York, Maybe King John will do this to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdDQnGtQPA0&feature=relate

posted by: James on April 1, 2010  9:52am

“Let’s consider this in light of my contention that New Haven civil servants who live in New Haven bring more value to their positions than their counterparts who do not.”

Prof., you’ve set up another straw man. Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that Local Employee A and Commuter Employee B are equally qualified, and that only the location of their dwelling sets them apart. The market, as you have already recognized, will reward the most qualified individual based on skill, experience, and ability. Not zip code. That being said, there is nothing wrong with rewarding people for choosing to live where they work. But requiring people to live in the city would simply shrink our pool of qualified candidates. Just asI don’t care what the skin color of a man is as he drags me from a burning building, neither do I care where he hails from.

posted by: The Professor on April 1, 2010  10:38am

James,
You keep accusing me of setting up straw men ...  Just so we’re clear on this, the essential and defining element of a straw man fallacy is the creation of “a false image of someone else’s statements, ideas, or beliefs” (http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/straw.html). 

I’m not really sure where create a “false image of someone else’s statements” in this debate. 

Actually, it seems that you set one up yourself, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

Before I point out your straw man, I want to debunk your assertion that my “entire argument hinges on the assumption that Local Employee A and Commuter Employee B are equally qualified, and that only the location of their dwelling sets them apart.”

This is simply not true—the introduction of differential talent into the scenario in no way causes my argument to fall apart.  All that it means is that we should consider value added by individual talent alongside value added by demonstrated commitment to the community when determining compensation! 

So say that we have a position as a parks administrator with a base salary of $50k.  As things stand right now, my understanding is that if there is a particularly qualified candidate—say one with a Master’s degree in a program focusing on park management—we can offer the candidate a bonus (and as well we should; such specialized talent is hard to find!).  My argument adds to this by proposing that we begin to see residency in New Haven as a qualification because it signals a greater level of investment in the fruits of one’s labor.  So, if we implement that, we can offer a residency bonus as well.  Even you yourself say that there is nothing wrong with rewarding people for choosing to live where they work!

Now, let me get to your straw man.  You build it when you say “But requiring people to live in the city would simply shrink our pool of qualified candidates. Just asI don’t care what the skin color of a man is as he drags me from a burning building, neither do I care where he hails from.”  In that statement, you imply that those of us who support incentivizing residency seek to REQUIRE it, and that’s not true!

Not a single person who has spoken out in favor of these proposals has supported REQUIRING city employees to live in New Haven.  Everyone has supported either INCENTIVIZING living in New Haven or DISINCENTIVIZING living outside.  There’s a difference between incentives and requirements—people who get parking tickets, for example, are sometimes given a discount for paying early and not contesting the fine (I haven’t owned a car since I’ve moved to New Haven, so I don’t know if this is the case here).  In these situations, payment before a certain deadline is INCENTIVIZED but not REQUIRED. 

So, by accusing us of seeking to REQUIRE something that we only seek to INCENTIVIZE, you create a false image of our ideas and thereby build a straw man yourself.

posted by: William Kurtz on April 1, 2010  11:51am

Oh, let’s all be friends again . . . I think the fear that some are calling for a ‘requirement’ comes from this sentence in the story:

“His program would require city workers to live in New Haven within six months of their hiring date. The proposal includes carrots and a stick.”

Perhaps it could have been worded more accurately.  One would also be forgiven for seeing a 5% of gross community “contribution” as being pretty close to a requirement.

posted by: James on April 1, 2010  1:53pm

Good thing that terms never have more then one definition, and that the proper definition of a word is ALWAYS found on the internet! And supported by the world renown literary scholars at… San Jose State University? Because if there were multiple definitions, we could simply pick a definition that supports our argument! But just in case I was being sarcastic, here’s an alternate definition of “straw man.”

straw man
n. 
1. A person who is set up as a cover or front for a questionable enterprise.
 
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

Let’s try to stay on topic rather than pointing out the perceived failings of our linguistic skills.

So, to begin, I did imply that you had proposed and supported a residency requirement. Which was incorrect and not my intention at all. Sorry about that. At the very least, I always try to be intellectually honest and direct in my comments, so I’m always dismayed when I make a serious factual error. So, assuming you accept my sincere apology, or, even if you don’t, moving along…

Now, incentivising people to live in the city = good. No problem with that, though I would want to know the cost of doing so before supporting the idea. Since a actually paying for things doesn’t seem like much of a concern to you in general, let’s simplify matters and say that we agree there.

Giving PREFERENCE to somebody who already or agrees to live in the city regardless of skill = bad. Not that you ever suggested that that I’m aware of, but I have implied it for you comments. Here’s why I implied it.

“...New Haven civil servants who live in New Haven bring more value to their positions than their counterparts who do not.”

and your response to my critique;

“...the introduction of differential talent into the scenario in no way causes my argument to fall apart.”

I disrespectfully disagree. Your first statement clearly says that residents bring more value to the job than non residents. It’s very clear, and quoted above. Let’s look at it again.

“...New Haven civil servants who live in New Haven bring more value to their positions than their counterparts who do not.”

Let “New Haven civil servants who live in New Haven” = L
Let “their counterparts who do not” = C
Let “bring more value to their positions” = V

The only way that we could make this statement is if the value of all three variable were constant. If any value changed, it could not be an immutable fact as you have stated it. so we’ll treat it as such. I can’t do subscript here, or at least I don’t know how, so bear with me. But your statement equates to the following, exactly:

LV > CV

“...New Haven civil servants who live in New Haven bring more value to their positions than their counterparts who do not.” This seems like a pretty airtight statement to me, with little room for nuance or interpretation.

LV > CV

If you disagree with me here, this would be the place to start disagreeing. Let’s move on. If this is the case, your next statement cannot be correct:

“...the introduction of differential talent into the scenario in no way causes my argument to fall apart.”

Let “differential talent” = D

By definition, D is differential. Since we have already established L, C, and V as constants, in order for your argument to remain intact, LD would always have to equal CD. Otherwise we could no longer say:

LVD > CVD

Because if it is a variable, we just don’t know the value of either and cannot make a value judgment. But by definition, D must be variable. By introducing a variable, D, your argument does indeed fall apart. Because if DL > DC, we have one outcome. If DL < DC, we have another. If DL=DC, we have a tie in which we would give preference to the local L. And for DL to be the same as DC, D would have to be constant. Which you already say it is not.

In short, “...the introduction of differential talent into the scenario in no way causes my argument to fall apart” is a logically and linguistically false statement. Either all people in the world are equally talented, and your statement (...New Haven civil servants who live in New Haven bring more value to their positions than their counterparts who do not) stands, or talent is variable. In either case, one or both of your statements are incorrect.

Now, I haven’t dealt with classical logic in decades. Many of the mathematical symbols that I would need to make a proper logical argument aren’t on my keyboard even if I could remember what they are. And from a formulaic standpoint, it’s a sloppy argument. But if you’re going to be intellectually honest about this, you must admit that I am right. I may be picking nits. I may be ignoring implied nuance and context. But of the two statements you made regarding the value of locality, only one can be right.

That was so very boring to write, and I will now try to leave the Independent for a few days because it angers me. I never succeed, and that saddens me. So now I am sad and angry. Which makes me ashamed. Sad, angry, and ashamed. Are you happy with yourself, professor?

posted by: The Professor on April 1, 2010  6:16pm

James,

Okay, SJSU isn’t good enough for you?  How about the University of North Carolina, which is one of the top five public universities in the country.  UNC gives us this tidbit: “In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn’t very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents’ argument isn’t very impressive either.”(http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html)

That definition of a straw man fallacy is actually in line with part 2 of the definition that you posted (“An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.”)  And that’s basically what you did—you mischaracterized what I had said, knocked down the mischaracterization, and claimed victory.

As for the first definition that you posted, “A person who is set up as a cover or front for a questionable enterprise,” I don’t see how that could conceivably apply here. 

So actually, even by the very definition that you posted, YOU built up a straw man and knocked it down.  Furthermore, you failed to point out how either definition that you posted could be construed to apply to anything that I’ve said on here.  For the record, I also found explanations of the straw man fallacy at drury.edu, onegoodmove.org, Merriam Webster online, the Washington Post, and logicalfallacies.info—all of them are in line with what I posted, all of them apply to what you did, none of them apply to anything that I said (so far as I can tell).

It took me a while to decipher your logical formulations, but I think I see what you’re doing, and I’m pretty sure that it’s wrong. Your problem is, simply put, that you ascribe variables in a way that obfuscates the broader point I’m trying to make.  Part of this is actually my fault, so let me try this once more.

What I should have said is that holding all else constant, a civil servant who lives in New Haven will bring more value to his position than a counterpart of his who does not.

Let’s say Larry and his twin brother Barry are both NHPD officers.  They are identical in every way, so in terms of Talent, we can say that Talent(Larry) = Talent(Barry).

But now let’s say that Larry lives in New Haven and Barry lives in Milford.  Now, what I’m saying is that in determining the value that someone adds to their job depends on both that person’s talent AND other factors, like whether they life in the city. 

We should note that the value from living in the city could be constant (the same for all employees) or vary depending on what the person’s job is,which I think is more reasonable (given the choice between having a resident police officer and a resident park administrator, I’d take the cop—no offense, park administrators, but you don’t arrest bad guys). 

In any event, we can say that an employee’s value equals their talent PLUS other factors, which in this example, include New Haven residency, which could be variable but is always positive when present.

So, Larry’s value equals his talent plus his residency, while Barry’s value simply equals his talent.  Let’s put this mathematically, for those who are so incline:
Value(Larry) = Talent(Larry) + Residency
Value(Barry) = Talent(Barry)

Because we know that “Residency” adds some value, it’s more than zero; therefore, once we factor in Larry’s residency, Value(Larry) > Value(Barry)—Larry is a more valuable employee than Barry!  Hooray for Larry!

Okay, that was the simple part.  Now, let’s say that Larry and Barry have an older brother named Jerry, and Jerry is also an NHPD officer.  Unfortunately for Larry and Barry, Jerry is measurably more talented than they are.  Jerry also got a great deal on a foreclosed house in Hamden, so he lives there.

So, what do we know now?  We know that Value(Jerry) > Value(Barry), since they bring nothing but their talent to the table—not that there’s anything wrong with that!

But do we know whether Jerry’s overall value is greater than that of Larry’s?  Not without additional information!  In order to determine whether Larry’s value is greater than Jerry’s or not, we need to know just how much Larry’s residency in New Haven adds, and we need to know just how much greater Jerry’s talent is.

So let’s put it this way,
Talent(Jerry) = Talent(Larry) + x, with x representing the difference in talent between Jerry and Larry.

So, Value(Jerry) = Talent(Larry) + x and Value(Larry) = Talent(Larry) + Residency. 

We can see from this that if x is greater than Residency, Jerry is more valuable, but if Residency > x, then Larry is more valuable.

Now, all three of these brothers are employed by NHPD in our example.  So what I’m saying is that when NHPD determines their compensation, it does so as a function of their VALUE to the department, and that NHPD’s determination of value should take into account individual talent AND residency.

So as you see, it is POSSIBLE that someone who is slightly more talented might provide less value to the City because they high-tail it out of town the second their shift ends.  It’s also POSSIBLE that someone who lives in the suburbs could bring so much talent to the job that he should be compensated better than many of his counterparts who live in the city. 

My point was that taking talent AND residency into account in determining the overall value of an employee, which should be directly related to said employee’s compensation, is quite possible. 

I didn’t even need formal logic to make that argument!  Just standard middle school algebra for me, thank you.

Now, what I’ve laid out is a model for determining value and compensation.  Obviously it’s very difficult, even in our statistics and rankings-obsessed culture, to attempt to quantify meaningful differences in talent.  Sure, you can take a test, but is someone who scored half a percentile higher on a paper test REALLY going to perform better on the job? 

And yet, we do use proxies to determine value added—past experience, educational attainment, and recommendations from past employers are generally accepted as fairly good indicators of one’s talent, and therefore of one’s value.  Indeed, just look at the City of New Haven’s job postings: http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/humanresources/CityJobPostings.asp.  See all those jobs that say “minimum” after the salary?  How do you think that figure gets bumped up above the minimum?

Now, what I’ve been saying over and over again, and what I hope that I’ve finally gotten across here, is that just as having been on law review indicates talent, and therefore added value, for someone who’s applying for the open spot in the Corporation Counsel’s office, living in New Haven indicates investment in and commitment to the community, and this investment and commitment indicate added value.

And that’s a big part of why I think providing a financial benefit to employees who live in New Haven is a good idea: it recognizes that when a city employee lives in New Haven, that person brings more value to the job than he would if he lived elsewhere.

My apologies to the Independent reporter or staffer who had to read this entire post to make sure I didn’t say anything too insane or off the wall.  I know my posts can be verbose, but since I seem to have been misunderstood, I wanted to be as clear as possible.

posted by: Anon on April 1, 2010  7:16pm

6 cents of every dollar spent with a big box retailer is retained/re-circulated in a community, 20 cents of every dollar spent with a chain store is retained/re-circulated in a community, but 60 cents of every dollar spent with a sole proprietor/independent retailer is retained/re-circulated in a community.

1. Business incubators.
2. Residency incentives but not crazy ones.
3. Black Wall Street in New Haven. there’s an idea!

posted by: staven on April 1, 2010  8:17pm

Just because someone works at McDonald’s, does mean they have to spend their money eating there.  Case Closed

Thanks for the pay check, but I like Fine dinning

posted by: The Professor on April 1, 2010  10:04pm

I’m not sure if my last comment made it through, so here’s a highly abridged version.

James,

Please look up “straw man fallacy” anywhere.  Here’s the University of North Carolina (#5 public university in the nation) on the straw man: “In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down.”  http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

That’s quite similar to the 2nd definition of “straw man” that you posted, and that’s exactly what you did.  The 1st definition doesn’t really apply.  So by both of my definitions, and by your own definition, you built a straw man and I didn’t!  If only every person who accused me of being wrong sent evidence proving me right along with their accusation…

I’m tempted to pick apart your formal logic, but instead, I’ll just respond with a simple math equation that anyone with a 7th grade education should be able to understand.  The following basically sums up the point that I was attempting to make when you began accusing me of setting up straw men and saying logically inconsistent things:

A Worker’s Value = Talent + Other Factors

Throughout this thread, I and others have argued that “residency in New Haven” should be seen as one of the “other factors” in the equation above. 

And since we look at a worker’s value when we determine a worker’s wage, it’s possible to consider BOTH talent AND New Haven residency when we determine compensation.  Considering both is NOT mutually exclusive.  That was what I meant when I said that my idea doesn’t fall apart once you take talent differentials into account. 

So no, you’re not nitpicking, you’re making unwarranted and incorrect assumptions about my statements, hiding them in formal logic (presumably hoping that nobody will catch on), and then knocking my statements down on the basis of the aforementioned assumptions—wait! This sounds like another straw man!

posted by: The Professor on April 2, 2010  7:50am

Staven,

There are two huge problems with your comment.

First, it’s not quite correct to draw an equivalence between what a McDonald’s employee does and what a New Haven employee does.  Working at McDonald’s is a strict business arrangement.  However, someone who works for the City of New Haven is a public servant; this implies that there is something MORE than “just business” in the arrangement.

So, while McDonald’s might not care whether their employees invest in the company once their shift ends, the taxpayers of New Haven should care, at least if we take the notion of public SERVICE seriously.  That’s why we should reward those who show a little more investment in the city by actually living here.

The second problem with your analogy is that you say that McDonald’s employees don’t “have to” eat at McDonald’s.  That’s completely right.  But the implication that we’re proposing that New Haven employees should “have to” live in New Haven is wrong.

As Mr. Kurtz pointed out above, part of this has to do with the way this story was reported—the headline and the article URL both contain language that suggests that the proposal does seek to FORCE employees to move here.

But the third paragraph of the article puts it more accurately: the proposals being discussed here seek to “lure more municipal employees to move into New Haven.”

And why not?  An employee who lives in New Haven brings more to the job, and as a good employer, we should a) seek to incentivize our employees to bring more value and b) reward employees that do add more value.

So, once again, McDonald’s and the City of New Haven are two very different types of employers, and nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

posted by: James on April 2, 2010  8:42am

Prof., I posted both definitions of “straw man” because I didn’t want to pick and chose the one that suited my argument, as you seem to do. Clearly, the one that I was hoping you would pick up on was the second;

2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

There are lots of definitions of words and phrases, not just the one that suits your needs at the time. I feel that you ignore the validity of the opposing viewpoint and present the opposing viewpoint in such a way as to be easily shown incorrect or dangerously shortsighted (the straw man). Both you and the Mayor do so, which I bring up because you are equally infuriating andig headed. . It is typically presented as, “our two choices are increased taxes or rampant crime,” where you both fail to present all of the possibilities in the middle. You set up your argument such that the opposing viewpoint is untenable and your point of view the only sane conclusion. It’s easily refuted, but derails the conversation quite effectively.

We can both continue to post definitions of “straw man” and we will both continue to be correct. And either way, it’s quite irrelevant. You can call it whatever you want. In fact, from now on I am going to call your style of argument “clam toupee.” Hopefully that will get you off of your obsession with the use of the “correct” phrase.

Your latest clam toupee was:

“...New Haven civil servants who live in New Haven bring more value to their positions than their counterparts who do not.”

That is a direct quote and, I feel, in no way taken out of context. And presented that way, one would be a fool to ever consider hiring a commuter for a civil service position because the alternative would be to acquire a less valuable employee.
....

My presentation of my argument as a logic problem was in no way an attempt to obfuscate. If I was hoping that nobody would notice the flaws in my logic, I would not have taken the time to construct and post it. I know full well. and spent a good deal of time indicating, that my skills in classical logic stink. Hardly an effective way to attempt to dazzle and obfuscate.

Actually, I was hoping to simplify matters. I was hoping that by breaking things down, piece by piece, that you would be forced to actually consider your own argument and respond to some of the points I was trying to make. I was really hoping to prevent you from going into a weaselly diatribe about the subtle nuances of your finely-hone visions for public policy.

I also apologized for misconstruing one of your point and for ascribing a statement to you that was not yours. You seem to have either overlooked that chose to ignore it as it was not convenient to your argument. One does not set up an effective straw man by admitting that they had misquoted someone else.
...

posted by: The Professor on April 2, 2010  9:36am

James,

You say that I “ignore the validity of the opposing viewpoint and present the opposing viewpoint in such a way as to be easily shown incorrect or dangerously shortsighted (the straw man),” but then go on to say that I (and the Mayor) “both fail to present all of the possibilities in the middle.”

Failure to present the spectrum of possibilities is NOT a “straw man”—it’s a False Dilemma.  Perhaps the most prominent example of a False Dilemma over the last few years has been “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” 

I don’t mind being accused of using logical fallacies in my arguments—all of us do it from time to time.  But please, if you’re going to accuse me of doing something, at least get the accusation right.

Imagine a prosecutor going to court and filing embezzlement charges against someone who robbed a bank at gunpoint.  Embezzlement, like the “straw man” or the “false dichotomy,” is something that has a pretty set definition, and robbing a bank does NOT fall under the definition of embezzlement. 

The prosecutor would be laughed out of court, even moreso if he then started saying, “Well we can sit here and debate the definition of embezzlement all day long, but at the end of the day, you’re right when you say that it refers to dishonestly appropriating assets that one has been entrusted to care for, and I’m right when I say that it refers to stealing money from a bank under threat of violence.”

There’s a great book on logical fallacies and argumentation techniques called “How to Win Every Argument.”  You can find it here, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826498949/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0471123498&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1EA7VB9CZE0JX628NW63, and I suggest everyone take a look at it—the NH Public Library will hopefully have a copy; I bought mine at Labyrinth on York.

By the way, I don’t think that I or the mayor have ever said, “we can either raise taxes or face rampant crime.”  But what I have said is that we get what we pay for, and if we want to pay less taxes, we’ll get fewer services.

As far as my comments about the value-add of living in New Haven, I should probably clarify once more.  What I have meant all along is this: ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a public servant who lives in New Haven brings more value to her position than one who does not.

If you leave out the “all else being equal” part, then yeah, the statement looks highly suspect.  But the thing is, leaving out that statement is a huge oversight! 

Think about it this way: I could say “all else being equal, a country that has abundant oil resources is better economic position than one that does not.”  Hard to argue with.  But all things are not equal—I don’t see very many people lining up to move from England to Nigeria!  The whole point of the statement is that if a country were magically given the choice between having oil resources and not having oil resources, it’d do well to take the oil resources.

Similarly, the point that I’m making here is that given the choice between a city worker living in New Haven and living outside of New Haven, we should take the resident.  Now, the choice is rarely that simple (see the Barry and Larry example above).  But recognizing that a certain characteristic adds value doesn’t mean that it has to be the ONLY one that adds value—we can take residency into account just as we take talent, experience, recommendations, and other factors!

posted by: James on April 2, 2010  11:06am

Ugh. Very well. I can easily argue that a false dilemma is simply a step in constructing your straw man. By making the alternative choice irresponsible or repugnant, you’re setting up the alternative viewpoint to be easily defeated. Now please, drop this idiotic line of the conversation. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

“If you leave out the “all else being equal” part, then yeah, the statement looks highly suspect.  But the thing is, leaving out that statement is a huge oversight!  “

I agree. And that’s precisely the oversight that YOU MADE. So simply say, “Oops, that’s not what I meant to say,” and move on. Your inability to do so is infuruating.

“what I have said is that we get what we pay for, and if we want to pay less taxes, we’ll get fewer services.”

Precisely. There is your “logical fallacy,” if you must. You seem to assume that there is no waste and no inefficiencies in how services are currently provided. I contend that we don’t get what we pay for. We get far less than we pay for. The level of inefficiency, waste, and funding of projects whose value is suspect means that we may well be able to keep taxes at current levels and offer service of superior quality. We may even be able to reduce taxes and maintain services at current levels, if not improve them. Note that I state this as possibility, not a fact as you have.

“if we want to pay less taxes, we’ll get fewer services.”

Your point seems to hinge on the idea that all funds are currently being used with complete efficiency and are the best value for the dollar spent. That is absurd. 

As I noted in my previous post (which was subsequently edited out), I will not be reading your posts or responding to you anymore. ...

posted by: Brian on April 2, 2010  1:22pm

How can you say that 5% of a person’s salary doesn’t impose a “requirement”? What else would you call it? A kickback? An enormous commuter tax? A pay cut?

5% of a salary is alot of money! I don’t know how such friends of the proletariat could not realize this, but that’s actually a pretty hefty sum for the privilege of living out of town. Especially when some employees probably don’t make too much and live in surrounding towns.

But whatever! Make them move! Imagine if every town in the state did this - every school district, fire department, agency, any company with a public contract?

What a disaster.

And the people proposing it - and supporting it in these comments - refuse to even acknowledge the validity of concerns about it.

posted by: Make them pay their fair share on April 2, 2010  3:39pm

To Brian,

The proposal is not to make city workers pay for “the privilege of living out of town”, it is to pay for the privilege of “working for” and “living off” the taxpayers of New Haven. I wish the other towns would do the same thing, they clearly do not hire New Haven residents, as pointed out by Goldson’s facts. At least these workers can write it off on their taxes as a charitable contribution. New Haven is in a tough place, what would you rather, that the city lay off 5 or 10% of its workforce? Or just cut their salaries by 5%? Or make them take furlough days equaling 5%? Goldson could have easily suggested such, but I think he is trying to address a deeper and more long term issue. All of our major urban areas are facing the same issue, having the tax dollars from an increasingly growing poorer class drain from their towns.

The disaster has already occurred when the state outlawed residency. I hope Goldson is able to get this done.

posted by: Cordalie Benoit on April 2, 2010  7:13pm

Alderman Goldson, I applaud you! 

If anyone works in New Haven and thinks the taxes are too high for you to live here-I have an idea-Give back some of your salary or benefits.

New Haven is unsafe?  Let’s ask our police to live among us and we who live here should walk more.  Also our teachers should live here too.

Anyone working for our town, not willing to live here should see themselves as contributing to the problem.  Shame on them!

New Haven is a GREAT place, expensive, yes, but worth the money.  You don’t think so?  Please let me have your job-

posted by: beefair on April 2, 2010  9:10pm

It’s difficult to believe that over 70% of the city’s workforce comes into New Haven “in fear” at least 5 days a week and 8-10 hours a day? What courage!!! Maybe if city residents were 70% of the workforce there would be less crime. What a concept!!!!

posted by: William Kurtz on April 3, 2010  9:13am

Make them Pay:

You didn’t really answer Brian’s question.  Assuming your average city employee is doing a job competently for a fair salary, he or she is not “living off” of the city’s taxpayers, but exchanging time, knowledge, and service for a market rate. 

Mr. Goldson has started a good conversation about the importance of building the investment of city workers in the towns in which they’re employed, but his more draconian suggestions, if taken to the extreme, seemed destined to create a bunch of competing city-states rather than a smoothy functioning state economy.

posted by: Threefifths on April 3, 2010  11:43pm

A friend send this to me.If this is true,It is time to move.

Guide to Taxes on Retirees, 2009–2010: Connecticut Search Again

The Nutmeg State is a tax nightmare for many retirees. Its real estate taxes are among the highest in the nation, and it allows no exemptions or tax credits for pensions or other retirement income. Plus, the state taxes a portion of your Social Security benefits if you are single and your federal adjusted gross income is more than $50,000, or if you are married and your joint AGI is more than $60,000.

STATE SALES TAX
6% (food and prescription and non-prescription drugs exempt). But there are no local sales taxes.

INCOME-TAX RANGE
3% – 5%

EXEMPTIONS FOR RETIREMENT INCOME
Social Security is exempt for individual taxpayers with federal adjusted gross income of less than $50,000 and for married filing jointly taxpayers, with federal AGI below $60,000. All out-of-state government and federal civil service pensions are fully taxed. Connecticut exempts 50% of federally taxable military retirement pay from the state income tax. The exemption applies to federal retirement pay for members of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Army and Air National Guard. Benefits received by a beneficiary under an option or election made by a retired member are also covered by this law.

PROPERTY TAXES
Taxes and real and personal property are assessed and collected by individual towns or other taxing districts. All assessments are at 70% of fair market value. An annual property tax credit or rent rebate is available to residents, age 65 or older, or to a surviving spouse of a previously approved applicant who is age 50 or older. Regardless of age, totally disabled persons are also eligible. Income parameters apply. Municipalities may provide additional tax relief for seniors.

INHERITANCE AND ESTATE TAXES
Connecticut imposes an estate tax which taxes the transfer of estates valued at $2 million or more at a progressive rate starting with 5 percent of the first $100,000 over the threshold and rising to 16 percent for the amount above $10 million.

State tax data courtesy Retirement Living Information Center. Visit RetirementLiving.com for a complete rundown of taxes in Connecticut.

————————————————————————————————————————

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on April 4, 2010  2:02pm

I completely agree with having government compel more people to do as it says, especially when government wishes people to do what people do not want to do, such as exercise their own liberty to live where they please.  Gee, isn’t there a document called the Consternation, Constellation, something like that, life, liberty, happiness, etc.  Can’t recall offhand.

posted by: What on April 4, 2010  11:37pm

To Alphonse Credenza: When the government is paying your very good salary and great benefits, hell yeah they can tell you what to do and where to live.

posted by: ANON on April 6, 2010  9:50am

Hey Professor sounds like a lot of hate in your comments but you got it wrong what I commented.
What I meant is the cop living in New Haven in general. You automatically think I meant working in New Haven then going home to the suburbs. I rather work in New Haven but not live there and go home to anywhere (Waterbury, Bridgeport, Meriden Or Hartford).
  You ever asked a police officer why they don’t live in New Haven did you? Did you ever ask what they do when they drive home? Did you ever talk to the ones who live in New Haven?
  Well I have and some do say when they live in New Haven they try to be discreet as possible because they do have concerns. The police officers that live out of New Haven say they are cautious driving home and take different routes to make sure they are not being followed. Why they don’t live in New Haven its because they grew up in Bridgeport and feel they can do better in New Haven and go home to the family and leave all stress at their job and not bring it home!!! Its not a suburb thing!!
  You comment about the interview with Ericka Bogan, a New Haven firefighter who actually lives in New Haven. She painted a rather disconcerting picture of the attitude that suburban firefighters bring to their job: “Bogan says that when black kids peek into the Howard Avenue firehouse, oohing at the trucks, she and her fellow black firefighters like Mike Neal scoop them up and take them inside. But the suburban white guys, she says, ignore the kids. She said she has also heard them joke on the phone about ‘working in the ghetto.’”
Well alot of firefighters (black, white and Latino)comment about working in the ghetto and its not right for any of them to comment about it but they do it. Lets stop this vision of only white people living in the suburbs and not living in New Haven. End the hate starting with yourself.

posted by: NewHavenerToo on April 8, 2010  11:47pm

The Professor:

I find that your statement about my “exceedingly simplistic” comment is insulting.  It is what it is.  Just so you know, I was raised, educated and work and live in New Haven.  My daughter has been raised and is being educated in this city.  I have a lot of great things to say about New Haven, but I don’t think that we need to revert to bullying people who work hard and want to give their children better.  Have we all forgotten what part of the American dream is about? 

I am not middle class and I’m not poor.  I am part of that HUGE “working poor”  class that wants to better the situation each and every day, but doesn’t want to be pushed into staying in the city by paying extra. I pay enough already and that’s why I can’t save enough money to get out. 

Oh and regardless of how well compensated our finest and bravest are, NO amount of compensation can take the place of their lives to their families.

I would love for you to say that to my sister and her daughters.  Just so you know, they are 11 and 15 years old.

Better yet, I’ll tell her to look you up herself.