Republican State Senate candidate Elaine Hammers announced on Thursday if elected she will introduce legislation requiring municipalities to adhere to a property tax cap. She also announced her support for a financial oversight board for Bridgeport that has been raised by a number of residents of Black Rock who were hit hard by the July 1 tax increase following the revaluation of city property.
“Connecticut’s over reliance on property tax revenue is detrimental to our cities and we are taxing our residents out of prime real estate,” said Hammers who is challenging Democratic incumbent Marilyn Moore. “Trumbull, where I serve as Chairman of the Board of Finance, has experienced an average of less than 2% tax increase over the past six years and this sound fiscal policy has led to grand list growth and job creation. We can and must do the same for Bridgeport. A property tax cap will lead to increased efficiencies in City government and an overall improvement in the economic climate and grand list growth. This will decrease our dependency on balancing budgets on the backs of our taxpayers, especially in the Black Rock section of Bridgeport.”
A number of states have adopted property tax caps in recent years to control the growth of tax increases. Most of those states cap local property taxes at two percent. If additional revenue is required above the cap, some states allow municipalities to increase taxes by a two-thirds vote of the local budget-making body, a process Hammers supports “should municipalities find it necessary to add additional tax burdens on their residents.”
Hammers also announced she would support the creation of a financial oversight board for Bridgeport “to provide sound fiscal policy and process to the City.”
Despite pleas from city resident David Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general, and others, there’s no appetite for a local control board from Mayor Joe Ganim or the City Council. Ganim inherited a financial review board during his first tenure as mayor that began November 1991. It was created by the state legislature in 1988 after then Mayor Tom Bucci required state help to close a $55 million accumulated deficit.
Connecticut’s 22nd State Senate District covers all of Trumbull, one-third of Bridgeport and a portion of Monroe. It’s considered a swing district where Republicans hope to make inroads to pick up state legislative seats. The Bridgeport portion of the district includes some of the city’s highest taxed assessed areas such as Black Rock, Brooklawn and the North End, neighborhoods the Hammers campaign hopes her tax cap message will resonate with to cut into the city’s mighty Democratic registration advantage.
If this isn’t a politician “trolling” and “pandering” for votes, I don’t know what is.
Ms. Hammers, when you support an “Oversight Board” in Trumbull and Monroe, then you will have some credibility. Until then, remain in the ‘burbs.
Maria. 100% bullseye hit.
BTW, Ms. Hammers needs to go see an optician. Her eyeglasses are crooked. The devil is in the details.
That’s bullshit coming from Mr. Perfect.
No, Frank.
I think the glasses are fine but her head isn’t on straight!
Maria, on this one I’m in agreement with you. Ms. Hammer must have David Walker’s playbook.
Last time I checked, Trumbull and Monroe weren’t bankrupt and taxing their citizens out of town.
Bob,
If it is a state problem, which is what she alludes to, then let’s have a statewide solution.
If all we need is “sound fiscal policy and process(es)” then why isn’t that a requirement statewide?
If additional revenue is required above the cap, some states allow municipalities to increase taxes by a two-thirds vote of the local budget-making body, a process Hammers supports “should municipalities find it necessary to add additional tax burdens on their residents.”
I do not recall a Bridgeport budget passing with less than a 2/3 majority since Bucci’s budget difficulties. So this is not a solution to help Bridgeport but merely pandering to a segment of the population hoping to convince them she cares where in reality she is offering nothing of any value.
But it seems like she sucked you in.
I’d rather have a competent state board, if such a thing is possible under the Malloy Administration, than Mario’s thieving nitwits, considering their performance or lack thereof.
For showing the kind of subtle brilliance not often seen here, I nominate Bob Fredericks as OIB’s Blogger of the day.
And Bob, in the report CCM issued they listed as the top distressed municipalities in the state:
1) Waterbury
2) Ansonia
3) New Britain
4) New London
5) Hartford
all ahead of Bridgeport.
So do you and Ms. Hammers suggest the state plucks Bridgeport out of this list and force-feeds a financial oversight board on us while ignoring the cities in worse shape than us?
And once again, Ms. Hammers does not explain what her impression of a financial oversight board is and what its powers might be.
Let’s not dilute what Ms. Hammers might think a potent issue this might be with a segment of the voters by having to explain specifics.
Bridgeport-bashing is a popular sport in parts of Trumbull and Monroe.
Many in Trumbull are selling and leaving because of the high taxes and poor services.
Don’t be fooled by the mil rate. We also pay a tax to the independent fire districts based on property value. Our WPCA charges are about the highest in the state. Brown lawns are now the ‘norm’ in Trumbull as we are taxed on water that doesn’t enter the sewers. We do not have municipal garbage pickup (I pay another $500 per year for a hauler). Ninety percent of Trumbull has no sidewalks. Hammers and the Republicans will talk about how they reduced taxes this past year. My monthly tax bill went down 30 cents. My garbage bill and WPCA went up about $50.
This is the same Republican Bullshit as George ‘No New Taxes’ Bush. Instead we have user fees. Trumbull just hiked all the fees for programs in the Recreation Dept. Timmy Boy hired a third (down-county Republican) Parks and Recreation Director, and he’s doing a shitty job. Couldn’t keep the pools opened as scheduled this summer. Indian Ledge Playground shut down. The library grounds fountain broken, supposedly the necessary repair people were busy opening pools. The pool season is over and it’s not fixed. Trumbull will soon see huge tax increases to take care of all these deferred items, especially the broken-down pool at Hillcrest Middle school that has not had the needed funding.
Lousy job running the BOF, Ms. Hammers. Deferred maintenance is not the way to go. Live easy and screw our children? I don’t think so.
Indeed, Connecticut has over-relied on the property tax AND Sales Tax. That means there needs to be an increase in the “third leg” of the tax stool (a seat without a back or arms, typically resting on three or four legs or on a single pedestal. DO NOT GO ANYWHERE ELSE WITH THAT WORD)–an increase in the income tax to make up for the loss in property and sales taxes, and Ms. Hammers will not vote for that because that hits her Trumbull constituents in the pocket.
Elaine Hammers’ plans will serve the entire district. Her supporters include the owner of BlackRockCTUSA.com.
When Bridgeport doubles their political voices, they double their choices, too. The Bridgeport delegation has never reached its potential.
LOCAL EYES is another clueless wimp who hides behind a handle. GET LOST.
Frank, Paul Griffith (Local Eyes) does not hide behind a handle.
So I am starting a personal log. People who use “handles” but “everyone” who is behind the handle. Everyone knows who Milkman is and everyone knows who Local Eyes is. I will keep my list next to me every time I look at OIB.
If OIB had a Civility Index you’d have flunked it long ago. Your list is looking small-minded and insufficient. I encourage you to upgrade your bragging rights.
(wink)
I’m not hiding, I’m inventing/defining/describing/explaining myself in Bridgeport.
twitter.com/door24
Here’s my bragging rights. Where’s yours?
www .BridgeportCTUSA.com
Okay, then get rid of the Local Eyes and have the guts to use your real name.
Trumbull, where Hammers serves as the Chair of the Board of Finance, serves as the retirement home for displaced down-county Republicans collecting pensions and then being overpaid by the Herbst Administration. She is chair of the Rubberstamp super-majority BOF that does the bidding of Tim Herbst. We will be paying for all the underfunded decisions for years. She has no problem pushing through $175,000 for a committee to spend on a senior/community center plan without a poll of the residents to see if it is needed.
She went to Hartford as a member of the House of Representatives and left during her term.
The last thing D22 needs is a member of the minority party representing us in the State Senate, less ability to bring home the bacon.
Hammers can’t serve two masters. She is obligated to the people of Trumbull who elected her, now she wants to collect a paycheck for a part-time gig in Hartford. Let her openly declare if elected she’ll resign from the Board of Finance. There is no way she could properly do her job in Trumbull during budget season while serving in Hartford, not enough hours in the day.
ANYONE BUT HAMMERS.
So GA hopeful, Elaine Hammers of Trumbull is going to seek legislation requiring a property tax cap for BRIDGEPORT?! By way of indications for this measure, she says; “Connecticut’s over reliance on property tax revenue is detrimental to our cities and we are taxing our residents out of prime real estate.” True enough. And a property tax cap would be a great idea if she included (in her platform) proposed state legislation for full compensation of all PILOT properties (at the full, tax cap rate) for Bridgeport, et al. But she doesn’t. She makes no mention of creating a means to bridge the revenue gap her measure would precipitate. Also (in an inextricably related vein) she says nothing in regard to the Moukawsher Decision and the need to reformulate state education reimbursement so that there is spending/services/resource parity between Bridgeport and the highest performing school districts of the state (as well as full funding for indicated social support/remediation services for Bridgeport students). (Indeed, Moukawsher didn’t say that, but if he were really as sincere and sharp as post-decision raves would have us think, he would have–and certainly should have.)
But to this Bridgeporter, the following galling statement, made for the obvious purpose of creating resonance for her policy ideas, shows she is absolutely out of touch with reality in regard to Bridgeport and her Bridgeport constituents. She says, “Trumbull, where I serve as Chairman of the Board of Finance, has experienced an average of less than 2% tax increase over the past six years and this sound fiscal policy has led to grand list growth and job creation. We can and must do the same for Bridgeport. A property tax cap will lead to increased efficiencies in City government and an overall improvement in the economic climate and grand list growth. This will decrease our dependency on balancing budgets on the backs of our taxpayers, especially in the Black Rock section of Bridgeport.”
Ms. Hammers, you’re f-ing dizzy! The only reason Trumbull finances are faring well is because Trumbull gets a free ride off the politically connived hijacking of access to Bridgeport infrastructure and services, which has allowed Trumbull to accumulate an enviable taxable grand list by way of stolen Bridgeport tax base accumulated over 60 years, as well as the diversion of tax base that would have gone to Bridgeport if Trumbull hadn’t hijacked access to our infrastructure (e.g., the Trumbull Mall, Trumbull Industrial Park, Trumbull Theaters/Office Park, Trumbull strip malls, Trumbull-Bridgeport border office parks). Without this free ride off Bridgeport, Trumbull would be nothing more than an Appalachian $#!&-hole,just like Shelton before the 25-8 connector was rammed through Bridgeport to exponentially increase the value of Valley land held by corrupt connected persons/politicians.
No, Ms. Hammers. Don’t cite Trumbull as an example for Bridgeport to emulate. Trumbull is what it is because of the political corruption that allowed Trumbull (and Monroe and Shelton) to cannibalize Bridgeport in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. (Bridgeport should probably seek damages and compensation from the state and municipalities involved for the cumulative revenue losses and lost infrastructure resulting from the infrastructure hijacking and destructive road locations through Bridgeport’s downtown resulting in the dislocation of so much of Bridgeport’s tax base and population.)
Ms. Hammers. Bridgeport doesn’t need you slipping it to us with a smile on your face in Hartford. Run for some town office in Trumbull where you can schmooze people who believe you.
Is Elaine Hammers running for Mayor of the 22nd District or State Senator of Black Rock? I’m confused.
Bob, yes she is and Dave Walker is her campaign manager.
Ron,
To my knowledge, I have never met or spoken with Elaine Hammers.
If Bridgeport had a real board of finance with skilled people like Elaine Hammers rather than city council appointees by the Democrat town committee, there would be a rational, open portrayal of Bridgeport finances.
Some of the comments to this posting demonstrate one need not know what they are talking about to make a comment.
Tom White,
Please provide educational and real-life experiences that make Elaine Hammers a skilled appointee. I have tried finding specifics on her campaign website but they seem to be missing.
Or is the fact she is a Republican from Trumbull qualification enough to tell Bridgeport how to run their finances.
Hammers is NOT an appointee. She is an elected official.
Anyone BUT Hammers.
Everyone has to stop thinking the only people who want financial oversight over Bridgeport is Black Rock. Bridgeport’s financials are not in a good place and the city is suffering; be it high taxes in Black Rock, plummeting home values outside of Black Rock, higher rents across the city, reduced before/after school services for children, underfunded educational system, or a variety of other issues caused by the City’s ill financial health. If Ms. Hammers is serious then I would like her to speak more about what she would do to help Bridgeport be more like Trumbull. She is running against a strong Ed Gomes, and in this political season a campaign about ideas is a good thing.
DC, she is running against Marilyn Moore.
No, she’s running against Mayor Joe Ganim.
Weird, I really thought it was Gomes. My apologies!
DC Faber, I’ve known Ed and Marilyn for years and I still stop and think before I mix up their districts. It’s normal. And I agree with you, a campaign should be about ideas, how else will we begin to change issues that resulted from no ideas?
Bob Walsh.
Sorry, I don’t know the specifics of her degrees and experience, except that she actually has degrees and experience.
Not sure if I would label responding to the needs of responsible, productive residents as pandering.
Most of the lessons learned from years of State oversight have been lost thanks to Democrat party mayors and city councils.
Going back and relearning those lessons is necessary, but it will not happen with the current representation.
Tom,
Read my post on the CCM report. Bridgeport is not among the Top Five Distressed Municipalities in the state of Connecticut. So if Ms. Hammers is ignoring their financial plight to try to appease a segment of the Bridgeport voters then I would and I did call that pandering.
Is Ms. Hammers suggesting the state take control of the finances of the city and ignore the cities that are worse than us?
Is Ms. Hammers suggesting the state swoop in on Bridgeport’s finances long before the state responds to the legal judgement it is facing concerning their calloused approach to fairly and equally funding the school system?
And if you have not forgotten the lessons learned from the last Financial Review board, the state did not arbitrarily decide to impose a review board on Bridgeport but did so when the city sought permission to use bonding to address a disastrous operating budget deficit.
The city has not taken any such actions since.
And I repeat my previous post.
No, Frank. I think the glasses are fine but her head isn’t on straight!
The ghost of Machiavelli frowns upon former Councilmen who berate, disparage, denounce and criticize current candidates for public office.
Bob Walsh.
You are debating with yourself. You are trying to make it appear you dealt with the Financial Review Board and insisted the mayors you served with abide by those lessons learned.
Hammers, it appears, is committing to address the impact of a revaluation that has a harmful impact on residents who are being taxed unfairly. This is not pandering. It is suggesting reasonable action.
I cannot speak for Hammers. Perhaps she will read your comments and determine if they are relevant.
I know nothing of Hammers. The candidate I do know of is Moore. Let’s be reminded, not only did Bridgeport come out to support her in August, so did the suburbs. It seems we all agreed there was no reason whatsoever to replace a proven CLEAN Senator who puts constituent needs first with anyone who is unproven or a puppet for a power usurper. This sentiment is not lost on Republicans and Unaffiliateds. It will continue in the General.
Zena, I agree with you.