Sad State of Municipal Politics

Yesterday the state was hit with its first major snow storm of the season. As usual, the Hartford Courant, WTNH Channel 8 News and others (oddly enough though, not the New Haven Register...) were on the beat to report on the conditions of the storm. The first sentence of the Courant article says it all: "A heavy snowfall blanketed most of the state Thursday, shutting down stretches of the state's major thoroughfares, grounding airplanes and causing hundreds of traffic accidents." I sincerely hope you did not have to drive around yesterday. And if you did, I hope that you were able to get home safely, with relatively little cursing or stress-related hair loss.


I had the good fortune to drive through New Haven during the aftermath of the storm. The Elm City did not even begin to plow it's roadways until after the storm ended. By 3pm, many streets were still icy, slushy, slippery and dangerous. The winter mess left on Dixwell Avenue, Whalley Avenue, and other major thoroughfares tied up traffic and made travel almost impossible. No doubt it led to several accidents as well. Where were the plows? Where was the salt? Where was the city when it was needed to perform it's municipal functions?

What yesterday's storm showed, with ice crystal clarity, was how woefully unprepared for winter Connecticut's municipalities are. One of the major functions we have entrusted to our municipalities is the maintenance of our roadways. Now, it appears they are not able to carry out even that correctly. Why? Where was the equipment, the preparedness and the money to keep our right-of-ways safe and clear?

It brought to mind another rumor I heard about New Haven. Apparently, the tallest ladder in the city is only 11 stories. Meanwhile, there are at least 5 high-rise buildings taller than that in the city. As the recent blaze this week showed, a fire can happen anywhere in the city, at any time. What if it had been the Connecticut Financial Center (27 floors) or the Knights of Columbus Building (23 stories)? Would the city have been prepared to deal with that type of fire emergency? And knowing that its equipment was inadequate, wouldn't it make the purchase of fire fighting equipment its number one priority? I mean, fire protection is one of the primary and most basic functions of municipal government.

Fire protection, police services, roadway maintenance... these are vital municipal functions that directly affect people lives. Neglect of these duties results in property damage, bodily injury, and in some cases death. So why does it seem that New Have is ignoring these vital functions? It's not for lack of funds. New Haven's proposed FY2007-2008 total budget is $717.6 million. Not to mention the fact that my property taxes are over 4.2%. In fact I just paid the tax bill on my car, and it was not cheap. Plus, city taxes are figured into my monthly rent. Where are all of our tax dollars going?

The city is spending $39.8 million (5.5%) on Police Services. Another $32.7 million (4.6%) on Fire Protection. Public Works gets a mere $18.1 million (2.5%). Where does the rest go? A variety of other social services, Debt Service $57.7 million (8.0%), and of course Education, at a whopping $348.6 million (48.6%). Then, I find this story by Elizabeth Benton from Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007 in the New Haven Register.

"Officials laud citywide housing initiative: Over the last five years, $59.5 million has gone into building 321 housing units at 26 sites citywide, the last of which are currently under construction."

And remember the Elm City Resident Card? The one which allows illegal aliens to access city services... The list could go on and on. And I'm sure that your local town's budget is not much different.

The point is that our municipalities seems to be neglecting their most basic functions: Police, Fire, Roadway Maintenance... in favor of programs and initiatives designed more to get votes than to get results. These programs are creating a crushing tax burden on the Connecticut taxpayer, crowding out funding for vital municipal services and driving cities and towns into deeper and deeper debt. This isn't just irresponsible, it's dangerous. That extra $5 million the New Haven wants for education (a drop in the bucket) could be used to buy fire equipment, hire new police officers, pay for roadway maintenance, etc... Instead, the city of New Haven and other municipalities are trading the safety of residents' property and lives for political popularity. Our message to our leaders should be: Cut the pork and focus on priorities. It's amazing what a simple snow storm can reveal...

Proposed New Haven Skyscraper

I originally saw the story on the evening news. New Haven is getting a new skyscraper. The new building is planned for the former Shartenberg’s site. The property is located between State, Chapel and Orange streets, and directly across the street from the Shore Line East train station. In 1915, Shartenberg’s opened as the largest department store in New Haven. After it closed in 1962, the city obtained the property and Mayor Richard C. Lee demolished the building as part of plans for redevelopment. However these plans never took shape and the site became a 170 space parking lot.

The original design for the new skyscraper (see drawing to right), submitted by Becker and Becker of Fairfield, included a 32-story tower with 489,000 square feet of apartments and condos, 25,000 square feet of ground floor retail space, and a potential YMCA child-care center and playground. The proposed tower would be the tallest in New Haven. By comparison, the tallest building in New Haven is currently the Connecticut Financial Center on Church Street, at 26 stories and 383 feet tall (The shorter building to the right in the drawing). City Place in Hartford, CT is 38 stories and 535 feet tall.

Now I love skyscrapers. I think they represent the ultimate physical manifestation of mankind’s creativity and knowledge. Art and Engineering, Form and Function merging together to reach the sky. So, I was excited to say the least.

Of course the excitement did not last long. I read a story in the New Haven Register which made me both angry and disappointed. It seems that Mayor John DiStefano Jr. and other city officials disapprove of the design.

"[Mayor DiStefano’s Spokesperson, Derek] Slap said there will be community brainstorming to bring public input into the design of the Becker proposal and ultimately make it a better fit with the four- and five-story buildings along Chapel and Orange streets."

"'I hope what was conceptually presented by Becker and Becker becomes a design that is improved upon with multi-levels of retail and housing and more than a tower within a one’ or two-story retail block,' said Scott Healy of the Town Green Special Services District."

"While Becker and Becker originally suggested a 32-story tower, after discussions with the city, the height is expected to be lower, somewhere in the neighborhood of the NewAlliance Bank Building at Elm and Church streets, which is 270 feet, or 18 stories, according to City Planner Karyn Gilvarg."

In my book this would reduce it from Skyscraper to High-Rise status. But that is just me.

Now I understand that the city owns the property and can decide what it wants to do with the property. Moreover, I understand that the architectural firm wants to make money and will revise the plans to meet its clients needs. And, since the enterprise will cost an estimated $150 million and be funded primarily by our taxes, the design and construction process should involve the public. It’s just that the whole situation speaks to several larger issues.

First of all, I am disappointed at how quickly city officals and others resisted innovation and change. I spoke with a friend of mine and he complained that the original design was not “context sensitive.” In other words, its design did not consider the buildings and land uses surrounding it. It's almost like socialism for skyscrapers (and other buildings). But, my argument with this philosophy is this: Should we then build more 4-5 story brick buildings that look as if they haven't been occupied since the 1950s? How did the other buildings in New Haven get built? The Connecticut Financial Center sure isn’t “context sensitive” with the New Haven Green across the street, or the brick buildings beside it (See photo below). At what point to we get rid of the old and embrace something new? I say, if the new building is not context sensitive, change the context and build more skyscrapers!

There is a larger issue though. Obviously, Becker and Becker was not chosen for their design. So why were they chosen?

“Becker and Becker was said to have the strongest financial package of nine proposals for the parcel submitted to the city last summer.”

Essentially, they will make the city the most tax revenue. Now, that is okay in the sense that the city is making a profit off an investment. But why is the city government in the real estate business in the first place? Sell the property and let the free market sort it out.

The whole project is a great example of why we see so few new skyscrapers. Cities everywhere have used zoning, permitting, and other regulations to make it nearly impossible to build any. Take the World Trade Center Redevelopment as an example. As a result, Asia has taken the lead in skyscraper construction. They are all growing economically and do not have the same regulatory hurtles as the United States. It seems that the only way that these projects are completed here in the US is through a “public-private” partnership (PPP of P3). Basically, city officials subsidize development projects with tax dollars. The developers are promised profits by city officials (who have the power to ensure these promises through rezoning, taxation, or municipals services). Meanwhile city officials are promised increased tax revenue from by the development. Innovate designs are often crushed in favor of more conformist plans. Practical designs are discarded in favor of flashy or politically popular designs. Moreover, corrupt politicians can hijack the entire process, ignore the what the taxpayers want, and reward campaign contributors with lucrative development contracts.

My whole point is that cities should sell of non-essential city properties, reduce zoning restrictions and let the free market go to work. Cutting property taxes wouldn’t hurt anyone either. The resulting growth and development would enrich not only the city treasury, but aging skylines across America in desperate need of something new and exciting.