New Haven Independent

Posted by: City Hall Watch | February 26, 2009 7:48 AM

This is a political gimmick. If the state says no, DeStefano once again can blame the state for his years of mismanagement, gross overspending and a city payroll that is bloated with employees and programs we can neither afford nor that meet the cit's core mission. As for asking State Rep. Brendan Sharkey for help in reducing even temporarily, a tax, is like asking the devil for salvation. This is a state rep who has never met a tax he didn't love, who supports even worse spending decisions on the state level.

Just a note: The last time the city said the "average" property tax increase was 9%, it was really 15%. It depended on heroic assumptions too which didn't pan out.

Posted by: Beansie's Mom | February 26, 2009 9:04 AM

Thank you, Mr. Fasasno for taking the time to listen to Mr. DeStefano. Yes, as mayor he also has to represent that little minority group of Republicans.

New Haven property owners have taken a serious hit in terms of tax burden because we have gotten the non-profits and YET do not receive the agreed upon share of PILOT funds.

We don't have a new Mall here in New Haven, but Universal Drive off of Exit 9 certainly has everything you got want. You just have to be able to drive. You can reach some of the shops by CT Transit bus.

Yale has an endowment larger than how many nations on this planet. When Yale University has to lay off, stop projects and give out pay cuts to keep operating, what does the state think that little city of New Haven is supposed to do? Well, its residents just keep plugging along, like the little engine that could.

Posted by: come on | February 26, 2009 9:42 AM

I second CITY HALL WATCH here. Asking the state for permission to delay the phase in is a cop out. If Johnny D really wanted to help out the tax payers this year, he would just lower the mil rate by the same percentage that the re-vals are raising tazes.

This would create an average net zero change while still moving towards adjusting the assesments to a logical level.

This is a move completely within the city's control as opposed to asking the state for a delay. Seems rather simple if the mayor is really interested in helping.

Posted by: Pedro | February 26, 2009 10:04 AM

Ultimately, all of this reinforces the fact that we need to fix the whole property tax system. I can't believe we need to have someone from North Haven tell New Haven that we can't FREEZE OUR TAXES.

Considering my taxes for example will go up another $600, this year alone, this isn't just nickel and diming.

"Come on" seems to have a good point about the mill rate (which could always be undone anyways in future years).

And! If the mayor is actually trying to get the city by on less and running a more efficient government, (so long as financial shenanigans like one time revenue sources aren't used) shouldn't this be encouraged??

Posted by: JP | February 26, 2009 10:42 AM

come on , Lowering the mill rate would not stop the shift of the burden from commercial space to residential.

Posted by: robn | February 26, 2009 11:22 AM

CHW and COMEOn,

I grant that you guys are sort of right that spending is an issue, but the basis of the reval inherantly unfair on several levels..

1) The uniform mill rate requirement doesn't recognize the difference between residential and commercial property. It considers residential property to be the same as commmercial property when in fact, one is a long term base of social stability (homes) and the other is a revenue generating engine. The law encourages people to flip properties for profit and discourages or penalizes long term habitation of houses (which makes neighborhoods stable and gives a sense of community). Nor is the different rate of turnover considered. A city like New Haven has glacial turnover rates for commercial property and therefore, the reval method of using comparable prices can't be as accurate; there aren't enough examples of comparables. Also, commercial propoerty exchange can be quite opaque, with many complex methods of obscuring and sometimes suppressing actual purchase prices from assessors.

2) The law does not recognize the perfect storm of the reval being done at the peak of residential property values in an overheated market. Theoretically this peaks smooth out over time, but this is an unusually strained environment caused by the long term suppression of interest rates and weakened regulation and oversight of lending.

Posted by: iwasthere | February 26, 2009 11:25 AM

We have to make sure that CAA city id program in not included in this budget. Read my lips no tax payers money will be used for this project. With this card They are able to vote and to keep the joker in office.

The city has No control of this budget. Layoffs and payraises for the top. I believe it when I see him take a pay cut. Everyone in the top needs a cut. In all Department heads. Stop seeking a bailout from the state. State is not responsible for the cities budget woes.

Posted by: Streever | February 26, 2009 11:37 AM

I think it's a reasonable request, and I hope that City Hall has already considered your suggestion, Come On, of finding a local way to keep the prices lower, if the state does decide against this.

I don't think anyone will paint it as a "blame" opportunity, City Hall Watch, and I don't think the Mayor has to hide a very good record of managing finances. I think if you actually look at the data on how much money our city has managed to put into it's rainy day fund you'll see it's an increase from 300k pre-DeStefano to 17 million currently.

While as a City we do make some mistakes--and have some problems--let's be clear, I think our Mayor has done very well financially, & I think the data available illustrates that. You can point to individual costs that are too high but it almost proves the point that he's done a very good job with the finances. What other Mayor in New Haven's history has spent so much money on new school construction while simultaneously growing our coffers to such a large surplus? The answer is none...

If you want to take the City's stance on PILOT and apply it to everything we ask from the State, I think you're making an apples to oranges comparison sound like an apples to apples comparison. The state's failure to sufficiently fund PILOT is something they deserve the blame on, and I don't fault our City for pushing the envelope here. Far from it. Push harder! We provide countless dollars worth of services to the entire state, & to our region, & we can't make that happen without some funding.

The reality is that the economic situation world-wide is so bad at this point, it rings hollow to monday morning quarterback from the sidelines. I think it's time we pull together & work on these issues together. If we can't have civil discussions & conversations than what are we doing? Anonymously calling people out from the sidelines & claiming conspiracies & corruption isn't going to fix the problems we currently face.

A change of administration is also not going to fix the problems we currently face. I believe the only thing we can do right now is come together & work together. We can disagree, and we can advance differening ideas, but let's really try to keep our civility & be reasonable. At the end of the day we're all going to have to work together.

Property tax is a broken system in and of itself, but instead of saying, "I pay too much, let's fire the guy!" let's look at some alternatives. The reality is the City needs money to grow, and as the Mayor points out, the property tax system is broken. We need something better. I think it's time that citizens be part of that dialogue instead of simply attacking.

Posted by: let's just consider | February 26, 2009 2:29 PM

Things to digest. The city was supposed to reval in 2004, but the mayor didn't want to hurt his campaign for gov. Had it been done on time the values woud have been close to today's and the city would be doing a reval for 2009, which would reflect the effects of the drop in values. Nice job John. You know you were informewd that values were destined to drop, and were artificially inflated due to eays lending, flipping and historically low interest rates.

The city was scheduled to do a reval in 2005, but no might hurt the campaign, so they decided to spend an additional $80,000 to delay after all the work was done. Nice job John.
The city had to reval by 2006 and the reval comapany based the valuation model on 2005 and 2006 sales. The height of the market.

The city, to it's credit, did try to get legislation to tax commercial and residential at different rates, and that should have been passsed, but where were our local reps on that one?

The delay in phase-in would cretyae a financial disaster next fiscal year. It is just a ploy, and remember that it delays the increase on commercial and collega and hospital which in turn lowewr our claim to the percenatge of PILOT regardless of the funding amount decided on at the state level.

Suggestion..do the phase-in, lower the mil-rate to freeze the tax bill, while lowering the amount on cars and personal property. The state allows any municipality to conduct a reval in any year, so start a reval now, and instead of paying a million to an outside company let the assessor's office do the job they are paid to do. I believe the assessor is also an appraiser, so he should earn his $105,000 salary.

Posted by: Big taxpayer | February 26, 2009 2:43 PM

Some taxpayers will get shafted.The ones whos taxes would go down like commercial and some residential homeowners. All properties appreciate at different rates in different neighborhoods so the more often the revaluation the more fair the distribution to each property owner.

Some loose by the delay by delaying the inevetable decline in value or an increase that has been at a lower percentage than some other neighborhoods.

The delay is unfair to some property owners and a score to others. Many of the losers are residential as well as commercial property owners.

Posted by: spend less | February 26, 2009 6:29 PM

How can we get the message to City Hall that the nil rate should be dropped? This would not only balance out some of the pain from teh re-vel but it could earn some folks some politcal points.

And, in the long term, it will help to attract more businesses here. I rana business a couple years back and had to make the choice where in CT to bring the 55 jobs. New Haven didn't even make the first cut - mostly because of the mil rate. Get the rate in the 30s and people will notice.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | February 26, 2009 7:18 PM

CityHall Watch, do you know what time it is??

Under the current tax structure, this move is the only one the mayor can make to provide a modicum of tax-relief to the ordinary homeowner. I don't begrudge the effort.

Does anybody know the size of the grand list shift, from commercial to residential properties(on a no phase-in basis)? My guess is the sum is rather significant, and would be an eyeopener for joe taxpayer.

From comparisons I have done, Big Taxpayer, the homeowners are all shouldering this burden to some extent. This is not a case of neighborhood vs. neighborhood (ie. St. Ronan's Street properties receiving a tax benefit on the backs of the owner's of lesser appreciating properties, like in Fairhaven or the Hill). It is the case of a tremendous giveaway to commercial property owners at the behest of the everyday struggling homeowner.

So, if you are a commercial property owner, you are welcome for our largesse.

Posted by: cheapskate | February 26, 2009 7:30 PM

Why is any entity tax-exempt. They all use city services to one extent or another. Tax everyone.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | February 26, 2009 7:50 PM

You can read the mayor's budget presentation here.

Posted by: robn | February 27, 2009 8:39 AM

BS,

If the Ronan St tax benefit you mentioned is the federal deduction of mortgage interest and property tax, the savings is only equal to the marginal tax rate of about 15%.

Posted by: I know and have an excel chart | February 27, 2009 7:23 PM

bill saunders,

I have graphs of the shift in excel wheer various asssumptions can be changed, and a copy of the Power Point showed to the mayor, smuts, megna, walker, altieri, walton and others in the mayor's office. Now that I lost my job I am willing to show the facts, I just don't know how to pot it here, and frankly don't trust NHI. Smuts has the same charts. Assessor has same charts. But if NHi won't ask, just explaing how to assure all get to see them. I also have many other ppieces of data. And no matter what don't look at New haven partitions and that compaines contributions, especially if you ever look at the friends of the owner, who lived well outside of new haven. Mayor, look out!!!!! I have the facts and the computer files

Posted by: BIll Saunders | February 27, 2009 7:27 PM

Robn,

What i was trying to get at is "who benefits from the phase in". The way it is structured a house that appreciated 3times on St. Ronan Street would recieve a relative tax break at the expense of homes in say, fairhaven, that only appreciated 1.5 times.

Unfortunately the commercial property decrease undercut that relative trade off, in some degree, for almost every homeowner.

Posted by: robn | February 28, 2009 9:25 AM

BS,

I really aren't sure what you're talking about...if any house appreciates faster than another, its paying higher taxes, not getting a tax break.

In any event, this reval will hurt different people in different ways. People on Winchester avenue may only be paying 1/4 of the property taxes that people on Ronan are paying, but as a percentage of their income it's tremendous. On the other hand a house on Ronan thats assessed at $700K will be paying about $30K in taxes which is just flat out a pretty insanely large amount of money. It may or may nt be profound for those wage earners, but East Rock has some similarly large assessemnts and there just isn't the kind of money that far down the hill.

Class warfare aside, my opinion is that our system is totally biased towards real estate speculation and not social stability...escalating housing prices are only good for people who sell houses. The system only works when you have an even consistancy of property values (waht you see in the burbs)