Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

WELCOME TO THE TWELFTH EDITION OF
TAX TALK
Your weekly update on what others are thinking, doing, and planning
Send your comments or questions to me, and
I will include in next week's publication.

Please note that TAX TALK is now on our Website!!!!

Marvin Edelman, frogpond01@earthlink.net
Windham Taxpayers Association
Subject: Binding Arbitration, Eminent Domain, Blight Ordinances
Question:   Who Can Vote in Your Community?

October 9, 2003
Dear Susan:   I met with a Windham Board of Selectmen committee three weeks ago about getting our local state representatives to review binding arbitration stattutes. The group has scheduled another meeting this week. Should they ever make a decision to take action, I will let you know.
Below are remarks I made to the full board the other day regarding the connection between eminent domain and the growing passage of blight/nuisance ordinances by local governing bodies. I continue to seek information from FCTO members regarding their charter positions regarding the circumstances in which non-resident taxpayers can participate and vote at town meetings, government and school budgets, and referendums that affect financial expenditures and/or taxes. Marvin

Remarks to Board of Selectmen by Marvin Edelman 10/7/03
For those who missed the CBS broadcast September 28, 60 Minutes had a segment on how local government officials-the elected representatives of the people-have abused the power of eminent domain and are seizing the private property of hard-working, law-abiding citizens in Lakewood, Ohio, Mesa, Arizona, and Times Square in New York City. The seizure was not for building a school, highway, bridge or some vital public emergency.   The governing councils condemn private homes and businesses so that preferred private developers can change them into a higher commercial, tax producing properties. Governing councils cover themselves with legal authority by passing "blight ordinances" In the Lakewood case the city council targeted a particular section of the city for economic development. It is an attractive residential neighborhood in which all the homes are neat and well-maintained.   The council decided to pass an ordinance citing a house in that area as "blighted" if it did not contain two bathrooms, a two-car garage, and central air conditioning.   The mayor admitted that she and other council members own homes that do not meet the requirements imposed on the designated "blighted" streets. She failed to appreciate her hypocrisy.In Mesa a very successful auto repair business is being forced out to make way for a business the city council believes will raise the tax base . The New York City council has seized a valuable commercial block so that The New York Times can expand its facilities and increase the city's tax income.Before those Windham selectmen who have served in the Pawlekiewicz, Lescoe and Paulhus administrations and supported the eminent domain seizure of the American Thread Company property from the ATC Partnership ten years ago and the subsequent passage in 2003 of the anti-blight ordinance protest that "it can't happen here," it already has in New London, Wethersfield, Bristol, Stamford, and Bridgeport. The people of Windham will soon find that we are not far behind.   We can look forward to litigation in court mfor which we taxpayers will pay a heavy price for the terrible decisions made by our elected officials.
***********************************************************
Bob, Greene, green_robert@hotmail.com
Chairman, Salem Republican Town Committee
Subject: Binding Arbitration
October 9, 2003
Good morning, Sue. I couldn't agree more with Tom Durso's comment relating to Board's of Education; however, instead of observing "little resistance", I would take it a step further and say "no resistance". As sitting member (up for re-election) on Salem's Board of Education, and after being on three contract negotiation committees, I'm beginning to see a pattern develop statewide on the part of the unions. What appears to be happening is that unions are NOT negotiating during the collective bargaining (?) meetings but instead are waiting until the mediation portion of the process to try and get what should have been resolved during the contract negotiation process. This tactic appears to have been successful, because salary increases are averaging between 5 and 6 percent per year plus benefits for a three year contract. Health insurance benefits increases from the industry are averaging about 20 to 24 percent per year, and they are not negotiable
unless you reduce the benefits plan in some manner. In many cases now
health insurance policies are worth more the salaries being paid. Add
administration salaries, which usually are directly tied to contract
settlements, and one can easily see why BOE members have a "bulls-eye" on
their chest when budget time comes around in the Spring.Section 10 (I don't readily recall which subsection) of the Connecticut General Statutes allows the legislative body of the town to reject any BOE negotiated contract settlement, but it must be done within 30 days of the Board's acceptance. If you read the statute(s), read them carefully and in their entirety, because the binding arbitration process is described.   For some time, now, I have voiced my position on salaries and benefits issue, saying that they are getting out of control again and must be reigned in. My first question has always been, "Where are you going to get the money? You can't raises taxes to get money that the Town doesn't have, and you can't literally tax people out of their homes, in the hopes that someone who makes more money will move in." Last night the Board voted to hire the new principal at a salary almost 12% higher than the current line item. I abstained (I was the only one) over the salary issue, but later explained my position to the new principal after the meeting. I have put our Board on notice that if salaries and benefits aren't brought under control before the next budget cycle this Spring, I will actively campaign to defeat the budget at referendum. I did it in 1996, and I believe I can do it again. I have already used the "L" (layoffs) word to balance the budget for next year. Trust me; it wasn't well received.Perhaps this was why I was asked by townspeople to stay on the Board of Education rather than seek a seat on the Board of Selectmen.Have nice day.
Bob Green, Chairman, Salem RTC Member, Salem Board of Education
*************************************************************************************************
Flo Stahl, flostahl@snet.net
Chairman, Avon Taxpayers Association
Subject: Binding Arbitration
October 9, 2003
Hello Colleagues: Susan, thanks for the Tax Talk. Avon Town Council responded to your letter and formally supported legislation opening up Binding Arbitration
during the next session as expressed in the CCM excerpt. Our state reps
have been informed. I wish to concur that ALL TAXPAYERS who own property or pay taxes to a municipality are allowed to vote on budget matters...even if they do not live in town. I believe in Avon the only stipulation is that their property assessment be $1,000.00 or more. Non-residents, of course, are not allowed to vote in municipal elections. Many, many business ownersare being disenfranchised because they are ignorant of this. We will try to inform them during the next budget go-around.Thanks so much to Tom Durso for his straight-talk. Makes much sense...if you don't mind, Tom, I will quote passages from it as needed.   Flo Stahl
*************************************************************