It’s the age-old debate, Connecticut’s largest city is the dumping ground to preserve the suburban lifestyle. To paraphrase Bridgeport’s former pit bull City Attorney Larry Merly, large-acre discriminatory zoning in the suburbs forces the heavy concentration of public housing, tax-exempt properties and social institutions into the city … the way to preserve the suburban lifestyle is to wall up all the social problems in the city. In exchange, Bridgeport gets a few bucks more. Republican State Senator Toni Boucher (full disclosure: she’s my state senator) who represents wealthy Fairfield County communities decided to pit city versus suburb about where public money must be allocated. Basically, she argues, when we receive results from city schools we’ll give you more.
From the CT Post editorial board:
State Sen. Toni Boucher, a Wilton Republican who represents all or parts of seven of Connecticut’s wealthiest communities, has in unseemly fashion jumped into the “redistribution” of wealth semantics, a popular GOP rallying cry these days, with a recent email to her supporters.
Her research on taxes paid to the state and grants received by the individual municipalities are these stop-the-presses discoveries:
– Greenwich paid almost $740 million in taxes and received less than $5 million in grants.
– Bridgeport and Hartford each received over $90 million more in grants than they paid in taxes.
Ergo, this preposterous accusation against Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, whom Boucher thought of challenging last year: “What you’ve done is polarized our society.”
We’d question as to who is exactly doing the polarizing here. And while throwing a segment of her constituency under the bus, Boucher chose the Bridgeport public school system as the red herring pinata for her broader message: “I’ve heard parent after parent saying, ‘I don’t mind my tax dollars going to Bridgeport schools, if only they would get better outcomes.'”
Yes, wealthy communities of southwestern Connecticut–often called the state’s ATM–pay lots of money into the state treasury. And in a state where municipalities rely on property taxes for the bulk of their income, those communities also do very well. Backcountry estates yield dollars by the wheelbarrow for a town’s treasury. In Bridgeport’s 16 square miles, the colleges, jails, hospitals, mental health facilities, homeless shelters, churches, and dozens of other state social service agencies, pay no taxes. We are only as strong as the weakest among us.
Does Bridgeport get help from the state? You bet it does. As it should. It will take statesmen and compromise to make improvements in fairness but more importantly which support the very things which help us improve our quality of life and prosper.
Full editorial here.
In a concise, precisely worded letter to the Connecticut Post, Baroness Toni Boucher of Wilton effectively articulated the entitled attitude of Fairfield County’s elite in regard to their unspoken right to the captive retention of Bridgeport affordable labor to maintain their lucrative tax bases and lifestyles, while legislatively engineering the economic red-lining of Bridgeport to maintain high joblessness in Bridgeport for this purpose (while also maintaining Bridgeport as a dumping ground for environmentally economically destructive infrastructure that would undermine the suburban lifestyle).
Yes, the ‘burbs–especially down-county–feel they should be able have their cake and eat it too!
This urban-suburban relationship in the county was codified in planning policy by the state some 10 years ago in “one Coast, One Future” in which it was decided Bridgeport would be the region’s “Housing Hub” (read–cheap labor repository/penal institution/social services/sanitation infrastructure/power plant host).
Now Dan Malloy is practical; he knows that to avoid political rebellion in Bridgeport, he has to make the pretense of throwing us a bone (Bass Pro)–which he can do to great fanfare as a Democrat, in return for votes and agreement that the good development/jobs goes down-county.
But Boucher, having no common sense or decency, has the idiotic audacity to hold inequities in the return of state tax money to municipalities as an indictment of unfairness in the tax code in the cities’ favor, singling out Bridgeport as an example.
Well, from whence do the lifestyle of Wilton and its neighbors originate? Who works the low-wage and domestic jobs down-county that enable your privileged lifestyles and maintain your lucrative tax bases that afford your kids their incomparable level of advantages over Bridgeport kids? The answer is underpaid Bridgeport labor is the source of your advantages and the reason why you pay the taxes you do and don’t get the same rate of return from the state as Bridgeport.
Indeed, you are paying a small price to retain your inexpensive Bridgeport laborers/servants compared to the tax base and lifestyle advantages they maintain for you.
While Boucher’s letter makes her look despicably bad, it shouldn’t make double-dealing Dan Malloy look good. He is a lackey for the rich folks down-county.
Did Boucher fire the first shot in a Connecticut (maybe national) class war? I hope so! It’s high time the oppressed people of Bridgeport and our other urban centers have a clear understanding of where we stand and what we have to do to pursue economic justice.
The first thing we have to do is vote out the lackeys in Bridgeport who do the bidding of the down-county legislators who are owned by the moneyed interests down-county. The second thing we have to do is organize a viable political movement that will put real power in the hands of the working poor and unemployed in Connecticut.
As Baroness Boucher has indicated; we are in a class war. It is time to take off the gloves and quit pretending the present power structure at the state and national level has any intention of bringing the masses toward full employment at living-wage jobs with health benefits.
It’s time to take off the gloves and fight! Are you with us, Bridgeport delegation?
Good post, Mr. Kohut!
Jeff, you’re right on point, this is what “The Browning Of America” is all about. As we move more towards less whites and more browns and blacks, the name of the game is let’s make money on a dumping ground for environmentally economically destructive infrastructure that would undermine the suburban lifestyle) with cheap labor repository/penal institution/social services/sanitation infrastructure/power plant and yes Jeff this is not only a Bridgeport issue it’s a national issue. Thanks, Jeff.
So what’s Boucher offering if the “outcomes” aren’t met? BTW, which outcomes does she mean? (Yes, there are many with room for improvement, but which ones)? What carrots and sticks does Boucher suggest?
In 2010, CT State Supreme Court Justice Northcott offered this regarding the still-ongoing CT Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. et al. (CCJEF) vs Governor Rell (aka CCJEF v Rell) case:
“… the fundamental right to an education is not an empty linguistic shell, but has at least some minimal substantive content.”
From a Courant article from 2010 on this plurality (4-3) pretrial ruling by the State Supreme Court:
… Norcott noted in the ruling that there are limits to the state’s responsibilities in education. The state is not required to take measures to maximize the potential of specific students, he wrote, or to counteract every negative factor for which it is not responsible.
But the state must provide students with “an objectively measured ‘meaningful opportunity’ to receive the benefits of this constitutional right,” Northcott wrote.
Joined by Katz and Justice Barry R. Schaller, Norcott wrote that the justices endorsed a view, offered by the New York Court of Appeals, that constitutionally adequate education requires: minimally adequate facilities and classrooms; minimally adequate instruments of learning, such as desks, chairs, pencils and “reasonably current textbooks;” minimally adequate teaching of reasonably up-to-date curriculum in subjects such as reading, writing, math, science and social studies; and enough teachers, adequately trained to teach those subjects.
There are limits to what that might achieve, Norcott wrote, noting that students might struggle because of factors beyond the control of the state, and that the education clause of the constitution will not cure them all.
“A constitutionally adequate education is not necessarily a perfect one,” he wrote.
source: articles.courant.com/2010-03-23/news/hc-school-funding-lawsuit-0323.artmar23_1_higher-education-adequate-education-public-education/2
It’s glaringly obvious Senator Boucher is an elitist.
Peter Spain, thanks, that’s sad but we must do better than that and part of that help must come from the President, to say every child will be provided with a “good” opportunity to get an education that will assist them on being a productive citizen.
Ron, as always, I like your big-picture, experienced view. I also appreciate the “we” in your statement. So true!
You really expect this miserable excuse for a leader to do anything?
Boucher’s comments and the what-we-pay-to-the-state map make me wonder what will come of the “car tax” debate in the CGA this year (e.g., Feb 10 CT Mirror article: “Looney: Glaring car tax disparities must be closed”)
If the median municipal mil rate for CT of about 28.5 were applied (my best estimate, using the most recent info on the CT OPM site www .ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?Q=385976), what would would that mean to the taxpayer?
Some examples if a standard 28.5 mil rate were to become the car tax, across CT:
municipality/current mil rate on OPM site/current estimated annual car tax paid per $10,000 taxable value/$ savings or increase if std 28.5 mil applied/%decrease or increase
Bridgeport: 42.2, $422, $285, $137 less per $10,000 taxable car value, 32.5% decrease
Fairfield: 24.4, $244, $285, $41 additional, 16.8% increase
Greenwich: 11.0, $110, $285, $175 additional, 159.1% increase
Norwalk: About 25, $250, $285, $35 additional, 14% increase
Redding: 28.8, $288, $285, $3 less, 1.0% decrease
Shelton: 22.31, $223, $285, $62 additional, 27.8% increase
Stamford: 27.25 for motor vehicles, $273, $285, $12 additional, 4.4% increase
Stratford: 35.6, $356, $285, $71 savings, 19.9% decrease
Trumbull: About 32.4, $324, $285, $39 savings, 12% decrease
Westport: 17.9, $179, $285, $106 additional, 59.2% increase
Will there be the votes for something like this?
Beyond the immediate cost increase or savings for taxpayers, would applying one car-tax rate across the state generate more or less revenue for the state and the municipalities? Administrative costs … increase/decrease? Cars only? All motor vehicles?
Could this be done in alignment with long-term maintenance and investment plans in state transportation infrastructure? Return of the highway tolls?
The tax disparities and the variances from city to city make no sense to me. All vehicles should be taxed at one standardized rate state-wide. It’s no wonder people who live in cities like Bridgeport register their cars using an address of a friend or family member in other municipalities that have lower rates. State-wide sales tax is the same for each city and it seems reasonable vehicle taxes should be taxed in the same manner. This is a no-brainer in my opinion.
Here is my suggestion to Boucher and those in Hartford who think like her. Let’s do the following.
1. Have all suburban towns put aside 100 acres for low-income housing that will take section 8 tenants. No more classifying homes selling for $300K as affordable.
2. On this 100 acres they will put one halfway house, one detox center and two homeless shelters.
3. They will pass a law in Hartford doing away with pilot programs and allowing these properties to be taxed at the going rate.
By letting us tax the things protected by the PILOT program, Connecticut suburbs can start doing their share instead of sending their problems to the city.
If Senator Boucher is not embarrassed by this incredibly offensive comment, she should be.
People like her have no shame.