

Here’s the problem with Stefanowski’s analysis: While I actually share some of his concerns about the mismanagement of Connecticut’s big cities and giving the state excessive control over local zoning, Stefanowski does not suggest any solutions to the cities’ problems beyond typical conservative bromides about fiscal responsibility, attracting new businesses, reducing regulations, and opening more charter schools. How would he address the structural problems that plague a city like Hartford? Because of the government property and nonprofits located within its limits, along with the constraints of its geography, Hartford’s tax base is extremely limited. According to research by the Hartford Business Journal, Hartford’s taxable grand list – including real estate, personal property and motor vehicles – is only $4 billion; a slightly higher amount of property is tax exempt. Yes, the state funds roughly half of Hartford’s operating budget, but it’s a well-known fact that Connecticut’s Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program does not even begin to fully reimburse municipalities for tax liabilities the state and tax-exempt organizations would have if their properties were on the tax rolls. According to the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, the percentage of reimbursement fluctuates between 25 and 45%. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why Hartford’s mill rate is so high, Bob. And the state’s reimbursement policy gets even worse in times of fiscal crisis such as we have experienced over the last decade. According to the Office of Legislative Research, “both PILOTs are proportionately reduced if the state’s annual appropriation is not enough to fully fund them.” In layman’s terms, PILOT is one of the first budget items to be cut when the going gets rough. As for Hartford’s spending, I’m sure it could be cut. But in defense of the cities, which are favorite whipping boys of conservative Republicans, they are magnets for the poor and for recent immigrants of limited means who are looking for opportunity. These folks typically need more in the way of services than those in the wealthy shoreline towns east of New Haven, where Stefanowski lives. And they often do not own cars, so they need access to public transportation, which the cities have and suburban and rural communities lack. Wealthier towns are also able to structure their zoning codes to make it more difficult to build affordable housing, leaving that market to Connecticut’s larger cities and faded mill towns such as Winsted and Willimantic. So affluent communities, which Stefanowski calls “well-managed towns,” are mostly left with residents of means who demand little in the way of services. So what would Stefanowski do to address the structural problems that plague cities like Hartford, Bridgeport, and Waterbury? Would he demand that nonprofits pay more and the state fully fund PILOTs? Would he use the strength of his office to relax zoning codes in towns like Madison and Weston to be more conducive to low-income housing so that places like Hartford don’t bear a disproportionate burden? Would he strengthen the state’s 8-30g affordable housing statute, which allows developers in towns with insufficient affordable housing stock to appeal unfavorable municipal rulings to the state? Would he push for more mass transit outside the cities? Don’t bet on it, seeing as he has sought to phase out the income tax. The above measures would involve either spending money or offending Stefanowski’s supporters. Like Stefanowski, I’m a capitalist. I believe in markets. There are, however, situations in which the markets do not serve us well, and that’s where government comes in. Health care, with its lengthy list of perverse incentives, is one example. Furthermore, a corporation can increase its market share by getting bigger, but we have antitrust laws to rein in monopolies that harm consumers. In the end, Stefanowski’s abiding faith in market-based solutions and his tendency to blame labor unions for all our woes is the fatal flaw of his piece. Love them or hate them, but at least advocates for cities are proposing solutions to problems. Meanwhile, Bob complains. Contributing op-ed columnist Terry Cowgill lives in Lakeville, blogs at CTDevilsAdvocate and is managing editor of The Berkshire Edge in Great Barrington, Mass. Follow him on Twitter @terrycowgill or email him at tcowgill90@wesleyan.edu. The views, opinions, positions, or strategies expressed by the author are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or positions of CTNewsJunkie.com.This ignorant editorial is yet another reason I’m glad Ned Lamont beat @bobforgovernor. As Joe Biden says, come on, man! Bob demonstrates little understanding of or interest in the actual problems that plague the city. https://t.co/NPEIb4FTKq
— Susan Bigelow (@whateversusan) January 2, 2021