Hartford residents are headed toward what potentially could be the most important vote they will be casting for the future of our City. Several candidates have announced their intention to run, but I think it is time for voters to start educating themselves so that they can make educated decisions on where the candidates stand and what their vision is for Hartford . The current administration continues to show us daily their level of incompetence, much of it being played out in media coverage.
Today I received an e-mail outlining Judge Robert Killian's plan and vision for Hartford, and quite honestly, it made sense to me with several points that I also have talked about and feel are important and critical to the future to Hartford. I am posting it here, please feel free to comment and let me know if you think it makes sense. This is not meant to be an endorsement of a specific candidate, although I will be meeting with Judge Killian next week to learn more. There are a couple other candidates worth looking at at this point, but it is nice to hear about a sensible vision for Hartford, and by vision, I don't mean creation of a "Yard Goat" or building a "Hartford Campaign Team" after the second implosion.
MY VIEW OF HARTFORD, AN ASSESSMENT OF ITS NEEDS AND IDEAS FOR TOMORROW
Robert
K. Killian, Jr., February, 2015
Every
candidate is for better schools, more jobs and neighborhood empowerment. So am
I. There are, however, extraordinary fiscal problems facing our City and unless
we address them now, we may be closing in on a Detroit magnitude debacle. That
would sacrifice all the progress we have made in recent years. Cities in
Connecticut have only two income streams: the property tax and income infusions
from the State or federal governments. Our property tax is woefully inadequate
to support the needs of the second poorest City in the United States. State
grants currently pay over half of our operating costs and unless they continue
to do so, we will almost certainly fail.
In
life, one person’s “vision” may be viewed as another’s “delusion.” I suppose the
difference is a vision must be rooted in reality. I write this in an effort to
explain what I see as Hartford’s reality.
•
Since 1950, there has been an exodus of middle class and upper class Hartford
residents to our suburbs. That mirrors a trend across the nation and is a result
of the region’s growth and prosperity, coupled with the fact that Hartford was
fully built by 1955. In 1950, Hartford had about 175 thousand residents and the
region around 400 thousand. We were 45% of the region. By 2010, the region was
upwards of a million people and Hartford 125 thousand, about 12% of the total.
The City now serves as home to a wonderful mix of cultures, recent arrivals to
Connecticut, U.S.A., elderly middle class people, the working poor , single
parent households, and grandparents on fixed incomes struggling with their role
as parents the second time around. In addition we succor people who the Late
Hubert Humphrey called “the people who live in life’s shadows”: the homeless,
the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled, and those who live on society’s
darker edges.
•
Poverty is an overwhelming problem. Our region is the 2nd wealthiest in the
nation, but our City is the poorest in the nation save for Brownsville, Texas.
Only 8% of our households have an income over $100,000. On the other end, 44% of
our households earn less than $25,000 (only 17% do so State wide). Imagine the
frustration of living in the shadow of such wealth but having to worry about
properly feeding your family.
•
Every urban area has a section which primarily serves its most challenged
residents. Greater Hartford, the nation’s second richest region could not exist
without such an area. Hartford serves a large percentage of the region’s most
challenged residents. If our City was the physical size of Waterbury or
Stamford, then West Hartford and parts of other abutting towns would be within
our border. We would have the economic mix necessary for a healthy economy and
we would have an economy of scale that would significantly reduce the overall
cost of government. That’s the lesson we could-but didn’t- learn from Atlanta
and Indianapolis, communities which consolidated governmental units and
services. Remember, Hartford is about twelve percent of the region’s population
and when our economically challenged residents are averaged in with the rest of
the region’s wealth, we still come out as one of the wealthiest regions in the
country!
Here’s
some good news:
•
Hartford is the business and financial center of a region of just under 1
million people. We are New England’s second most important financial center, and
while our insurance and banking industry has contracted, we still maintain a
prominent role in these businesses.
•
We are the cultural center of the region and are enhancing our position as a
significant academic center. St. Joseph’s Pharmacy school, the relocation of
UCONN Business school and its West Hartford campus to downtown Hartford, coupled
with the UCONN Law school, Capital Community College, University of Hartford and
Trinity (as well as Goodwin College just across the river) insures a continued
growth in this area and brings great vitality to our Downtown.
•
We are blessed with historic sites and artistic treasures that would serve well
a City five or six times larger.
•
To its credit, City government has taken important first steps in stopping the
frightening downward spiral in commercial real estate prices by encouraging,
with State dollars and additional municipal support, the conversion of overbuilt
office towers to desirable—and seemingly in demand—housing. Together with the
State’s acquisition of properties on Columbus Boulevard, we can hope we will
step back from the looming crisis when reassessment requires us to revalue
commercial space that can now be bought for a square foot price 1/3 (or less) of
the cost of new construction.
•
Horton v. Scheff has resulted in a growing regionalization of our schools by
acknowledging our minorities as a school asset, lending them to other districts
to overcome their almost total whiteness. State support of Hartford education
has allowed for significant improvement in our schools, public, charter and
magnet, some of which are now considered among the best in the State.
•
While there is no de jure regionalization, the State, with the support of our
suburban neighbors, increasingly recognizes the need to financially shoulder
part of our burden. They do this by tacitly recognizing a sort of de facto
regionalization in which they support revenue shifting by giving generous
support to the State’s struggling cities, particularly Hartford. We play a
necessary and vital role in the region—and substantially relieve the rest of the
region of shouldering the biblical command to “feed the hungry, give drink to
the thirsty, cloth the naked, offer hospitality to the homeless, care for the
sick, visit the imprisoned and bury the dead.” Currently, the State pays about
half of our municipal costs.
•
We have dramatically improved our stock of supported housing by tearing down pre
World War II woefully inadequate structures and replacing them with attractive
single and duplex homes which can serve the emerging middle class. Given our
decline in population (30% in 60 Years) our 50 thousand plus housing units are
adequate for our needs. While there are still units in desperate need of
upgrade, large scale public housing (save for special needs groups) is becoming
a thing of the past.
•
Healthcare is an important component of job growth in America. Not only are our
three great hospitals among our largest employers, but our schools and
educational institutions are adapting great new programs to encourage education
for the jobs of the future ranging from skilled technicians to doctors, nurses
and other medical personnel.
Here
are some major concerns:
•
City government engages in “magical thinking” when confronted with large
publicly funded redevelopment concepts for our City. Since the 1950’s there have
been five such projects with the latest—the Baseball stadium- just rammed
through. Think about this:
•
We fought to change the fed’s plan for the intersection of I-91 and I-84.
Originally intended to utilize the Dexter Coffin Bridge and I-291 as major
conduits through the area, corporate interests and government combined to change
the plan and create the I-84 chasm and the I-91 impediment to our
riverfront.
•
Constitution Plaza was touted, among other things, as displacing the eyesore of
Front Street and removing its several thousand residents, largely to Franklin
Avenue. While the Plaza did cement our role as New England’s second most
important financial center, it also robbed us of the vitality of downtown
residents living in an area that is reminiscent of North Boston and Providence’s
Federal Hill. It was also our first chance to bridge the new I-84 chasm.
•
The Civic Center has been great for downtown Hartford, but it would have been
much greater if utilized to achieve the “two-fer” of an important coliseum and
the bridge to the North. It replaced movie theaters, stores, the City Club,
apartments and restaurants. It attempted an urban mall, food court and
restaurant component which was a total failure after corporate subsidies
ended.
•
Riverfront Recapture was our greatest achievement in restoring character to our
City. (Thanks, Joe Marfuggi!) The Convention Center our biggest blunder. We
spent millions on Riverfront and then used State funds to acquire taxpaying
properties and empty land that would be ripe for housing or commercial
development and instead built a windowless structure, a fine hotel too small to
serve the needs of the convention facility and an “entertainment district” that
replicates one we already have. It also drove out one downtown steak house by
subsidizing another in the entertainment district. Remember—the entire Adrien’s
Landing area is tax exempt and, under the law, the State doesn’t even pay PILOT
for it! This was our last chance to bridge I-84; put our hotels in easy access
to the new Convention Center and since this would obviate the need for
constructing a new entertainment district, would have seen empty retail space
from the train station to Pratt Street to Columbus Boulevard fill up.
Now,
we endorse a project to build a baseball stadium at a 26 year cost to the City
that will, I fear, never be repaid by new tax revenue from what is hoped will be
additional private investment. It encompasses new housing, retail and commercial
space, all of which will compete with our current effort to stop the free fall
of value in our existing, high vacancy buildings. It is government run amok
without sound planning. It was developed without adequate public input and
rammed through in disregard to public concern.
The
Hartford Courant recently published an informative article by Dan Haar detailing
the proposal. It showed expenditures exceeding $100 million for this project.
The headline said that new financing was saving $22 million. That’s government-
think. There is no way spending $100 million plus dollars saves $22 million. I’m
sure Dan Haar didn’t write the headline.
•
We have allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate. The interest alone on the
millions we will invest in IQuilt, baseball and soccer stadiums could have made
a major dent in our inadequate investment in our road, sidewalks, flood control,
and other capital projects.
•
There is way too much secrecy in our government. Ideas are not given adequate
public airings and even when the public raises serious questions about
proposals, they are denied basic information about their concerns, let alone
receive answers.
•
We have increasingly demonstrated Hartford is a poor steward of public money.
Waste abounds and corruption too frequently emerges. There is an unwillingness
to address structural governmental issues—pensions for new hires, true economies
in government services and the abandonment of gimmicks in our budgeting process.
Remember, we only have our parking meters and one more garage which we can sell
to the State! We have to stop allowing political expediency to overwhelm needed
governmental change.
•
Our inability to involve our community in the governmental and electoral process
has seen us deteriorate as a political force to the point where suburban
neighbors with 2/3 of our population turnout many more voters on election days.
When we negotiate with the State and federal governments, we do so with the
voice of our political strength. Our registrars and too many incumbent political
leaders have failed to try to stem the growing apathy of voters who feel ignored
by City hall. Voter registration is a governmental issue and the meaningful
involvement of minority voices is essential to good government.
•
We seem to have forgotten that a local government must be committed to improving
the lot of the 125,000 people who live here. Instead too many of our initiatives
seem to be directed at trying to bring three to five thousand new, upscale
residents to our City.
Here
are some things the next Mayor must do:
1.
Recognize that having created a strong mayor system; the mayor must be a strong
leader/administrator. In our former system, professional city managers like
Carleton Sharp and Eli Freedman presented budgets to the elected officials that,
in effect, were a challenge to them to do the right thing. Now, the Mayor must
present a budget that is more than a political document but a true blueprint for
running our City. The Charter directs the mayor to select key administrators and
then to supervise them. This is an unglamorous, hand’s on job that has yet to be
effectively accomplished. Merit staffing, not political patronage must be a
priority. A mayor must walk the middle ground between a bully and a wimp. Most
importantly, the Mayor must perform as a leader of the entire City and not just
those who delivered the election. The next mayor will undoubtedly be a Democrat,
selected by a small number of voters in what will probably be a multi candidate
primary. Look carefully how the candidates run and finance their campaign. It
will tell us a lot about how they will govern.
2.
Leadership means setting an example. Too many administrators, in addition to
good pay, get overly generous benefits. There is no reason why numerous
appointed officials, including the mayor (paid the same as a Superior Court
judge) should expect a City car. Judges don’t get that. Hartford leaders haven’t
earned the right to act imperiously. Expense accounts should be carefully
scrutinized. Pensions for highly paid individuals should be reviewed to
determine if a fixed contribution rather than a fixed benefit pension might not
be a better route for our taxpayers.
3.
Transparency should be considered the starting point of governmental
accountability. Almost no matter should be brought to the council without full
public discussion and debate and the mayor should welcome public input as ideas
and programs are in the developmental stage. Freedom of Information Laws set the
baseline, not the goal, for transparency. It is wrong for the public to learn
the details of a proposal days—or hours—before it is passed by Council. The CIA,
NSC and criminal investigations must work in private, but only rarely city
government.
4.
A Mayor should work closely with our legislators to educate the State and its
wealthier towns to the plight of the poor who are so large a percentage of our
residents. Even Governor Malloy, a friend of cities, may need some reminding
about what some of his program cuts will mean here. For example, recently the
State increased to a total of around $6,500.00 the amount someone with means can
set aside for a funeral and still qualify for Medicaid benefits, but is
decreasing from $1800 to $1000 the amount a person with no means can get for a
pauper’s funeral. That’s not even enough to pay for direct cremation and
discriminates against the poorest in our midst. Another example, the child only
grant from DSS pays a non-parent guardian of a minor under $350 a month while a
foster parent gets $750 per child per month. How about a decision to make the
sales tax more regressive by enacting a meaningless reduction of the sales tax
from 6.35% TO 5.95% while eliminating the exemption for clothes under $50? We’ve
spent years talking appropriately about getting developmentally disabled and the
mentally ill out of prisons and hospitals and into community treatment or group
homes. But what is happening to these community programs? Nothing positive, I
fear. Many of these challenged people live here. Hartford officials can’t create
the group homes, but we can educate the state and regions as to the
need.
5.
The next mayor must engage in difficult negotiations with public employee unions
to make pension adjustments for future hire’s to help avoid the Detroit debacle.
As previously suggested this might include a two tier system in which fixed
benefit plans are available for part of the total computation (perhaps up to
$75,000) with any excess salary covered by a fixed contribution plan.
6.
We have to decrease property taxes on all properties, residential and
commercial. This will require a combination of fiscal restraint and the
development, with state involvement, of new sources of revenue. Without property
tax relief it will be difficult to attract—or even retain—new residents and
jobs. Almost confiscatory taxes are one of the major factors in the free fall of
property values, residential and commercial. Years ago, when commercial property
was flourishing here, we created the tax differential, shifting burden from
residences to commercial property. Now it’s time to develop better methods of
dealing with urban tax revenue; time to lower everyone’s tax burden.
7.
The State has been generous in supporting our City’s income needs. But we need
more and we need to have it institutionalized so we don’t face an annual
negotiation to secure help. There are a number of state ideas for decreasing
municipal dependence on the property tax. Politically, they will be difficult to
implement. But a change in PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) by establishing a
payment scale that gives a bonus to poor, overburdened cities or towns, and caps
the contribution at 50% rather than the current 30%. That could reduce our mill
rate by 10 mills. Pilot should also be extended to include the convention center
complex, land taken off the City tax rolls but legislatively exempted from
PILOT. Finally, we should look to a service charge for tax exempt properties not
covered by pilot that relates to the cost of City services (fire, police and
roads) servicing those entities. They are valued neighbors, but should not
expect our residents to pay their costs.
8.
Finally, as we look at new initiatives we have to constantly question whether a
proposal has a significant benefit for the entire City, for all its residents.
Encouraging the conversion of over built commercial space to housing clearly
does this. In anticipation of re assessment it is imperative that we take steps
to stabilize the value of major properties in our downtown neighborhood. By
bringing new bodies to the neighborhood, we add vitality to our financial
district and that serves the entire City well. But to spend tens of millions of
public dollars to build additional housing, some of which may cost government
millions more to bring to reality, ignores a fundamental purpose of major
governmental initiatives: the public dollars are seed monies which will inspire
additional private investment. But if the cost of the seed exceeds the value of
the harvest, better off leave the land fallow until the marketplace—in this case
the renting of the under construction units—excites further investment. If the
whole expenditure is geared toward the downtown initiatives, and ignores issues
in other neighborhoods, it will offer a brighter glow in one place with a
corresponding dimming of the lights elsewhere. Public investment must be
evaluated to insure that it creates a tide that raises all the boats in the
harbor—not just the yachts of a few.
.JPG)
